Non-selective beta-blockers are not associated with increased mortality in cirrhotic patients with ascites

Pharmacological Interventions for Cirrhotic Ascites: From Challenges to Emerging Therapeutic Horizons

Ascites is the most common complication in patients with decompensated cirrhosis. This condition results in a severely impaired quality of life, excessive healthcare use, recurrent hospitalizations and significant morbidity and mortality. While loop diuretics and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists are commonly employed for symptom relief, our understanding of their impact on survival remains limited. A comprehensive understanding of the underlying pathophysiological mechanism of ascites is crucial for its optimal management. The renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) is increasingly believed to play a pivotal role in the formation of cirrhotic ascites, as RAAS overactivation leads to a reduction in urine sodium excretion then a decrease in the ability of the kidneys to excrete water. In this review, the authors provide an overview of the pathogenesis of cirrhotic ascites, the challenges associated with current pharmacologic treatments, and the previous attempts to modulate the RAAS, followed by a description of some emerging targeted RAAS agents with the potential to be used to treat ascites.

NON-SELECTIVE BETA-BLOCKERS IN CIRRHOTIC PATIENTS WITH REFRACTORY ASCITES: WHERE ARE WE?

BACKGROUND

The established use of non-selective beta-blockers (NSBB) in the primary and secondary prevention of esophageal varices has recently been questioned in the subgroup of patients with diuretic-refractory ascites.

OBJECTIVE

Critically analyze the body of evidence on the topic in order to assist clinical decisions.

METHODS

A literature review was carried out in the Pubmed® and Scielo® databases. In total, 20 articles between 2010 and 2023 were read by independent researchers.

CONCLUSION

It remains doubtful whether the use of NSBB is deleterious in cirrhotic patients with refractory ascites, however our literature review allows us to conclude that these drugs should not be proscribed in these patients. On the contrary, a doctor-patient decision based on tolerability and hemodynamic parameters certainly seems to be a safe conduct.

Review article: Recent advances in ascites and acute kidney injury management in cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Better understanding of disease pathophysiology has led to advances in managing ascites and its associated complications including hepatorenal syndrome-acute kidney Injury (HRS-AKI), especially medicinal and interventional advances.

AIM

To review the latest changes in the management of ascites and HRS-AKI.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted in Pubmed, using the keywords cirrhosis, ascites, renal dysfunction, acute kidney injury, hepatorenal syndrome, beta-blockers, albumin, TIPS and vasoconstrictors, including only publications in English.

RESULTS

The medicinal advances include earlier treatment of clinically significant portal hypertension to delay the onset of ascites and the use of human albumin solution to attenuate systemic inflammation thus improving the haemodynamic changes associated with cirrhosis. Furthermore, new classes of drugs such as sodium glucose co-transporter 2 are being investigated for use in patients with cirrhosis and ascites. For HRS-AKI management, newer pharmacological agents such as vasopressin partial agonists and relaxin are being studied. Interventional advances include the refinement of TIPS technique and patient selection to improve outcomes in patients with refractory ascites. The development of the alfa pump system and the study of outcomes associated with the use of long-term palliative abdominal drain will also serve to improve the quality of life in patients with refractory ascites.

CONCLUSIONS

New treatment strategies emerged from better understanding of the pathophysiology of ascites and HRS-AKI have shown improved prognosis in these patients. The future will see many of these approaches confirmed in large multi-centre clinical trials with the aim to benefit the patients with ascites and HRS-AKI.

Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver clinical practice guidelines on liver transplantation

Liver transplantation is a highly complex and challenging field of clinical practice. Although it was originally developed in western countries, it has been further advanced in Asian countries through the use of living donor liver transplantation. This method of transplantation is the only available option in many countries in the Asia-Pacific region due to the lack of deceased organ donation. As a result of this clinical situation, there is a growing need for guidelines that are specific to the Asia-Pacific region. These guidelines provide comprehensive recommendations for evidence-based management throughout the entire process of liver transplantation, covering both deceased and living donor liver transplantation. In addition, the development of these guidelines has been a collaborative effort between medical professionals from various countries in the region. This has allowed for the inclusion of diverse perspectives and experiences, leading to a more comprehensive and effective set of guidelines.

Beta-blockers and cirrhosis: Striking the right balance

Decompensated cirrhosis is associated with a significantly increased risk of mortality. Variceal hemorrhage (VH) further increases the risk of mortality, and of future variceal bleed events. Non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) are effective therapy for primary and secondary prophylaxis of VH and have become the cornerstone of pharmacologic therapy in cirrhosis. Beta-blockers are associated with reduced overall mortality and GI-bleeding related mortality in patients with decompensated cirrhosis; they may also confer hemodynamically independent beneficial effects. Long-term treatment with beta-blockers may improve decompensation-free survival in compensated cirrhosis with clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH). Carvedilol more effectively lowers the hepatic vein portal gradient than traditional NSBBs and has been shown to improve survival in compensated cirrhosis. Treatment goals in compensated cirrhosis with CSPH should focus on early utilization of beta-blockers to prevent decompensation and reduce mortality.

Optimal resting heart rate and ascites-related death in patients with cirrhosis and ascites using nonselective beta-blockers (ORCA)

Nonselective beta-blockers (NSBBs) may exacerbate ascites by impairing cardiac function. This study evaluated the impact of achieving a heart rate target of 55-60 beats per minute (bpm) on ascites-related death and complications from worsening ascites in patients with cirrhosis and diuretic-responsive ascites using NSBBs. A retrospective study was conducted at the Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University (2012-2022) and analyzed patients with cirrhosis and diuretic-responsive ascites using NSBBs (propranolol/carvedilol) for variceal bleeding prophylaxis. The outcomes were incidence of ascites-related death and complications from worsening ascites, comparing the achievable target group (heart rate 55-60 bpm) and the unachievable target group (heart rate >60 bpm). A total of 206 patients were included in the study, with a median follow-up time of 20 months. The patients were divided into an achievable target group (n = 75, median heart rate = 58.0 bpm) and an unachievable target group (n = 131, median heart rate = 73.6 bpm). Propranolol was the most used NSBB (95.1%). The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for ascites-related death from spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) or refractory ascites (RA) or hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) or hepatic encephalopathy (HE) showed no difference between the groups (adjusted HR 0.59 [0.23-1.54]; p = 0.28). Additionally, no significant difference was found in the incidence of complications between groups, including SBP, RA, HRS, and HE. Achieving a heart rate target of 55-60 bpm with NSBBs for variceal bleeding prophylaxis is safe in patients with diuretic-responsive ascites and cirrhosis.

B-Blockers in Liver Cirrhosis: A Wonder Drug for Every Stage of Portal Hypertension? A Narrative Review

In cirrhotic patients, non-selective b-blockers (NSBBs) constitute the reference treatment of choice as monotherapy or combined with band ligation for the prevention of first variceal bleeding and rebleeding, respectively. Furthermore, the last Baveno VII guidelines recommended carvedilol, a b-blocker with additional anti-a1 receptor activity, in all compensated cirrhotics with clinically significant portal hypertension, to prevent liver decompensation. Interestingly enough, NSBBs have been reported to have a potentially positive impact on the short-term mortality of patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure. However, concerns remain about the use of b-blockers in the presence of severe complications, such as refractory ascites, hepatorenal syndrome, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, or established cirrhotic cardiomyopathy. In addition, it has not been verified yet whether carvedilol supersedes all the other NSBBs in every stage of liver disease, even when severe complications have developed. Therefore, this review aims to illustrate recent data regarding the potential role of b-blockers across all stages of liver disease, beyond the primary and secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding, and address the authors' proposals on the use of NSBBs concerning the severity of liver disease and the patient's performance status.

Review article: controversies surrounding the use of carvedilol and other beta blockers in the management of portal hypertension and cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Advanced chronic liver disease is an increasing cause of premature morbidity and mortality in the UK. Portal hypertension is the primary driver of decompensation, including the development of ascites, hepatic encephalopathy and variceal haemorrhage. Non-selective beta blockers (NSBB) reduce portal pressure and are well established in the prevention of variceal haemorrhage. Carvedilol, a newer NSBB, is more effective at reducing portal pressure due to additional α-adrenergic blockade and has additional anti-oxidant, anti-inflammatory and anti-fibrotic effects.

AIM

To summarise the available evidence on the use of beta blockers, specifically carvedilol, in cirrhosis, focussing on when and why to start METHODS: We performed a comprehensive literature search of PubMed for relevant publications.

RESULTS

International guidelines advise the use of NSBB in primary prophylaxis against variceal haemorrhage in those with high-risk varices, with substantial evidence of efficacy comparable with endoscopic band ligation (EBL). NSBB are also well established in secondary prophylaxis, in combination with EBL. More controversial is their use in patients without large varices, but with clinically significant portal hypertension. However, there is gathering evidence that NSBB, particularly carvedilol, reduce the risk of decompensation and improve survival. While caution is advised in patients with advanced cirrhosis and refractory ascites, recent evidence suggests that NSBB can continue to be used safely, and that premature discontinuation may be detrimental.

CONCLUSIONS

With increasing evidence of benefit independent of variceal bleeding, namely retardation of decompensation and improvement in survival, it is time to consider whether carvedilol should be offered to all patients with advanced chronic liver disease.

Beta-blockers in patients with liver cirrhosis: Pragmatism or perfection?

With increasing decompensation, hyperdynamic circulatory disturbance occurs in liver cirrhosis despite activation of vasoconstrictors. Here, the concept of a therapy with non-selective beta-blockers was established decades ago. They lower elevated portal pressure, protect against variceal hemorrhage, and may also have pleiotropic immunomodulatory effects. Recently, the beneficial effect of carvedilol, which blocks alpha and beta receptors, has been highlighted. Carvedilol leads to "biased-signaling" via recruitment of beta-arrestin. This effect and its consequences have not been sufficiently investigated in patients with liver cirrhosis. Also, a number of questions remain open regarding the expression of beta-receptors and its intracellular signaling and the respective consequences in the intra- and extrahepatic tissue compartments. Despite the undisputed role of non-selective beta-blockers in the treatment of liver cirrhosis, we still can improve the knowledge as to when and how beta-blockers should be used in which patients.

Mastering Core Recommendations during HEPAtology ROUNDS in Patients with Advanced Chronic Liver Disease

Efficient and thorough care of hospitalized patients with advanced chronic liver disease is of utter importance to improve outcomes and optimize quality of life. This requires understanding current evidence and best practices. To facilitate focus on up-to-date knowledge and a practical approach, we have created the HEPA-ROUNDS mnemonic while outlining a practical review of the literature with critical appraisal for the busy clinician. The HEPA-ROUNDS mnemonic provides a structured approach that incorporates critical concepts in terms of prevention, management, and prognostication of the most common complications frequently encountered in patients with advanced chronic liver disease. In addition, implementing the HEPA-ROUNDS mnemonic can facilitate education for trainees and staff caring for patients with advanced chronic liver disease.

Non-selective beta-blockers in patients with ascites: The complex interplay among the liver, kidney and heart

Non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) are the cornerstone of the primary and secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients. They additionally prevent ascites development and death in compensated patients with clinically significant portal hypertension. After ascites onset, NSBBs remain beneficial for preventing further decompensations. However, as the cirrhosis progresses, the inflammation increases, systemic vasodilatation worsens, ascites turns refractory and cardiodynamic equilibrium becomes extremely fragile. In this scenario, NSBBs can critically impair the cardiac reserve and facilitate a haemodynamic breakdown, imperilling renal perfusion. Consequently, NSBB treatment should be carefully monitored or even avoided in such patients, and other options for portal hypertension management should be considered. In the present review, we explore the effects of NSBBs in patients with ascites and discuss the complex interplay among their hepatic, systemic and renal haemodynamic effects in this scenario.

Propranolol use in patients with cirrhosis and refractory ascites: A nationwide study

BACKGROUND

The impact of propranolol on patients with cirrhosis and refractory ascites is controversial. We conducted a nationwide longitudinal cohort study to compare the survival between patients with cirrhosis and refractory ascites, with and without using propranolol.

METHODS

Data of patients with cirrhosis and refractory ascites using propranolol, and controls matched by age and gender, were extracted from The National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan. The baseline demographic characteristics were compared between groups. Cox regression analysis was used to examine the predictors of mortality.

RESULTS

In this study, 1788 patients were enrolled in each group; 1304 patients (72.9%) in the propranolol group and 1445 patients (80.8%) in the control group died (P < 0.001). The mean survival was 34.3 ± 31.2 months in the propranolol group and 20.8 ± 26.6 months in the control group (P < 0.001). Propranolol (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.55-0.64, P < 0.001), statins (HR: 0.43, 95% CI: 0.34-0.56, P < 0.001), age (HR: 1.02, 95% CI: 1.01-1.02, P < 0.001), and diabetes mellitus (HR: 1.14, 95% CI: 1.05-1.24, P = 0.002) were the independent predictors for mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of propanolol was associated with reduced mortality, compared with controls, in this nationwide cohort of patients with cirrhosis and refractory ascites.

Treatment of Severe Acute on Chronic Liver Failure: Management of Organ Failures, Investigational Therapeutics, and the Role of Liver Transplantation

Acute on chronic liver failure (ACLF) is a unique syndrome that afflicts patients with chronic liver disease and results in high short-term mortality, in the setting of organ system failures. Given this prognosis, there is an urgent need to understand risk factors for this condition, for appropriate medical management of organ failures, and for selection criteria for patients who may benefit from liver transplantation (LT). Although several definitions exist to identify ACLF, all of them are designed to identify patients with uniquely high mortality. Currently, management of severe ACLF relies on best supportive care for specific organ failures. Thromboelastography should guide the evaluation of coagulation pathways and hyperfibrinolysis in ACLF; prophylactic blood product transfusions and thrombopoetin agonists are not recommended. Combination therapy with terlipressin and albumin has been shown to be efficacious in the management of the hepatorenal syndrome but should be administered with caution in patients with ACLF-3. Recent data have characterized the role of beta-blockers and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt placement in the management of ACLF. Investigational therapies such as extracorporeal liver support and hepatocyte stem cell therapies have shown promise; larger scale studies may better define the subpopulations of patients with ACLF mostly likely to benefit from these evolving therapeutics. Regarding LT in ACLF, data suggest that even patients with 3 or more organ system failures may have a 1-year survival >80%. However, further efforts are needed to understand the predictors of post-LT survival to facilitate LT criteria for this condition.

β-blockers in advanced cirrhosis: More friend than enemy

Nonselective beta-adrenergic blocker (NSBB) therapy for the prevention of initial and recurrent gastrointestinal bleeding in cirrhotic patients with gastroesophageal varices has been used for the past four decades. NSBB therapy is considered the cornerstone of treatment for varices, and has become the standard of care. However, a 2010 study from the group that pioneered β-blocker therapy suggested a detrimental effect of NSBBs in decompensated cirrhosis, especially in patients with refractory ascites. Since then, numerous additional studies have incompletely resolved whether NSBBs are deleterious, although more recent evidence weighs against a harmful effect. The possibility of a "therapeutic window" has also been raised. We aimed to review the literature to analyze the pros and cons of using NSBBs in patients with cirrhosis, not only with respect to bleeding or mortality but also to other potential benefits and risks. β-blockers are highly effective in preventing first bleeding and recurrent bleeding. Furthermore, NSBBs improve congestion/ischemia of the gut mucosa, decrease intestinal permeability, and therefore indirectly alleviate systemic inflammation. β-blockers shorten the electrocardiographic prolonged QTc interval and may also decrease the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma. On the other hand, the possibility of deleterious effects in cirrhosis has not been completely eliminated. NSBBs may be associated with an increased risk of portal vein thrombosis, although this could be correlational artifact. Overall, we conclude that β-blockers in cirrhosis are much more of a friend than enemy.

Carvedilol Combined With Ivabradine Improves Left Ventricular Diastolic Dysfunction, Clinical Progression, and Survival in Cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Left ventricular diastolic dysfunction (LVDD) refers to impaired cardiac diastolic relaxation and may be improved by targeted heart rate reduction (THR). The authors evaluated whether a combination of carvedilol and ivabradine, an If channel blocker that reduces heart rate without affecting blood pressure, could improve LVDD and outcomes in cirrhosis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

THR was defined as heart rate reduction to 55 to 65 beats per minute. Of 260 patients with cirrhosis, 189 (72%) with LVDD were randomized to THR [group (Gr.)A; n=94; carvedilol±ivabradine)] or standard care (Gr.B; n=95; no β-blockers) and followed for 12 months.

RESULTS

In Gr.A, THR was achieved at 4 weeks in 88 (93%) patients (responders, R): 48 (61.5%) with carvedilol alone and 40 (86.9%) of 46 patients with additional ivabradine. In Gr.A, LVDD reversed in 16 (20.5%) and improved from grade 2 to 1 in 34 (35.4%)], whereas in Gr.B, it progressed from grade 1 to 2 in 10 (10.5%) patients. At 12 months, 21 (11.1%) patients died, 6 (14%) in Gr.A and 15 (18%) in Gr.B (P=0.240), but no mortality was seen in those who had persistent THR at 1 year (n=78; P=0.000). In multivariate analysis, model for end-stage liver disease [hazard ratio (HR), 1.52; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.22-2.75; P=0.034] and E-wave transmitral/early diastolic mitral annular velocity (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.23-2.42; P=0.048) predicted 1-year mortality. Nonresponders had an increased mortality risk (HR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.2-1.8; P=0.046) independent of age, gender, and baseline model for end-stage liver disease. Levels of norepinephrine, N terminal brain natriuretic peptide, plasma renin activity, and aldosterone were reduced (P<0.01) in responders. More patients in Gr.B developed acute kidney injury (odds ratio, 4.2; 95% CI, 2.8-10.5; P=0.027) and encephalopathy (odds ratio, 6.6; 95% CI, 1.9-9.7; P=0.040).

CONCLUSIONS

Ivabradine combined with carvedilol improves LVDD, achieves THR more often and reduces risk of encephalopathy, acute kidney injury with improved survival in patients with cirrhosis.

Impact of cardiac function, refractory ascites and beta blockers on the outcome of patients with cirrhosis listed for liver transplantation

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Whether non-selective beta blockers (NSBBs) are deleterious in patients with end-stage cirrhosis and refractory ascites has been widely debated. We hypothesized that only the subset of patients on the liver transplant waiting list who had impaired cardiac performance would be at increased risk of mortality if receiving NSBBs.

METHODS

This study included 584 consecutive patients with cirrhosis evaluated for transplantation between 1999 and 2014. All patients had right heart catheterization with hemodynamic measurements at evaluation. Fifty percent received NSBBs. Refractory ascites was present in 33%. Cardiac performance was assessed by left ventricular stroke work index (LVSWI). Waiting list mortality without liver transplantation was explored using competing risk analysis.

RESULTS

LVSWI was significantly lower in patients with refractory ascites. In multivariate analysis using competing risk, refractory ascites, NSBBs and LVSWI were associated with waiting list mortality in the whole population, with a statistically significant interaction between NSBBs and LVSWI. The most discriminant value of LVSWI was 64.1 g-m/m². In the final model, refractory ascites (subdistribution hazard ratio 1.52; 95% CI1.01-2.28; p = 0.0083) and treatment by NSBBs with LVSWI <64.1 g-m/m² (subdistribution hazard ratio 1.96; 95% CI 1.32-2.90; p = 0.0009) were significantly associated with waiting list mortality, taking into account serum sodium and the model for end-stage liver disease score.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that compromised cardiac performance is more common in patients with refractory ascites and that NSBBs are deleterious in cirrhotic patients with compromised cardiac performance. These results highlight the prognostic value of cardiac function in patients with end-stage cirrhosis.

LAY SUMMARY

There are still controversies concerning the impact of non-selective beta blockers on outcomes in patients with decompensated cirrhosis, especially in those with refractory ascites. In this study of 584 cirrhotic patients evaluated for liver transplantation, who underwent right heart catheterization, we have shown that global cardiac performance measured by left ventricular stroke work index is lower in patients with refractory ascites. Administration of non-selective beta blockers in patients with compromised cardiac performance may increase waiting list mortality. These results highlight the prognostic value of global cardiac performance in patients with end-stage cirrhosis.

Beta-blockers in cirrhosis: Evidence-based indications and limitations

Non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) are the mainstay of treatment for portal hypertension in the setting of liver cirrhosis. Randomised controlled trials demonstrated their efficacy in preventing initial variceal bleeding and subsequent rebleeding. Recent evidence indicates that NSBBs could prevent liver decompensation in patients with compensated cirrhosis. Despite solid data favouring NSBB use in cirrhosis, some studies have highlighted relevant safety issues in patients with end-stage liver disease, particularly with refractory ascites and infection. This review summarises the evidence supporting current recommendations and restrictions of NSBB use in patients with cirrhosis.

Non-selective beta blocker use is associated with improved short-term survival in patients with cirrhosis referred for liver transplantation

Background

Recent evidence cautions against the use of non-selective beta-blockers (NSBB) in patients with refractory ascites or spontaneous bacterial peritonitis while other data suggests a survival benefit in patients with advanced liver disease. The aim of this study was to describe the use and impact of NSBB in patients with cirrhosis referred for liver transplantation.

Methods

A single-center cohort of patients with cirrhosis, who were referred and evaluated for liver transplantation between January and June 2012 were studied for baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes. Patients were grouped according to the use of NSBB at initial evaluation, with the endpoint of 90-day mortality.

Results

Sixty-five (38%) of 170 consecutive patients evaluated for liver transplantation were taking NSBB. Patients taking NSBB had higher MELD and Child Pugh score. NSBB use was associated with lower 90-day mortality (6% vs. 15%) with a risk adjusted hazard ratio of 0.27 (95%CI .09–0.88, p = .03). Patients taking NSBB developed acute kidney injury (AKI) within 90 days more frequently than patients not taking NSBB (22% vs 11%), p = 0.048). However, this was related to increased stage 1 AKI episodes, all of which resolved. Twelve (27%) of 45 patients with > 90 day follow up discontinued NSBB, most commonly for hypotension and AKI, had increased subsequent MELD and mortality.

Conclusions

NSBB use in patients with cirrhosis undergoing liver transplant evaluation is associated with better short-term survival. Nevertheless, ongoing tolerance of NSBB in this population is dynamic and may select a subset of patients with better hemodynamic reserve.

The Role of Non-Selective β-Blockers in Compensated Cirrhotic Patients without Major Complications

Background and Objectives: Non-selective β-blockers (NSBB) could prevent decompensation and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in cirrhotic patients with clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH), but remained uncertain for compensated cirrhotic patients without major complications. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between propranolol users and non-users of a CC group without major complications. Material and Methods: We conducted this population-based cohort study by using the Taiwanese Longitudinal Health Insurance Database 2000. Propranolol users (classified as cumulative defined daily dose (cDDD)) and non-PPL users were matched with a 1:1 propensity score in both cohorts. Results: This study comprised 6896 propranolol users and 6896 non-propranolol users. There was no significant impact on the development of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis between the two groups (aHR: 1.24, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.88~1.75; p = 0.2111). Male gender, aged condition, and non-liver related diseases (peripheral vascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, dementia, pulmonary disease, and renal disease) were the independent risk factors of mortality. PPL users had significantly lower incidence of HCC development than non-users (aHR: 0.81, p = 0.0580; aHR: 0.80, p = 0.1588; and aHR: 0.49, p < 0.0001 in the groups of 1–28, 29–90, and >90 cDDD, respectively). Conclusion: The current study suggested that high cumulative doses of propranolol could decrease the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma among compensated cirrhotic patients without major complications. Further large-scale prospective studies are still required to confirm the findings in this study. Results: It remained uncertain whether non-selective β-blockers (NSBB) could prevent decompensation and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in compensatory cirrhotic patients without major complications. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between propranolol users and non-users of the CC group without major complications.

Use of Nonselective β-Blockers in Patients With End-Stage Liver Disease and Select Complications

Objective: To review the literature and recommendations for nonselective β-blockers (NSBBs) in the setting of variceal bleeding prophylaxis and decompensated liver disease. Data Sources: Literature search of MEDLINE was performed (1988 to October 2019) using the following search terms: cirrhosis, advanced cirrhosis, β-blocker, decompensation, prophylaxis. Abstracts, peer-reviewed publications, clinical practice guidelines, and product monographs were reviewed. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Relevant English language studies and those conducted in humans were considered for analysis and inclusion. Data Synthesis: Evidence that suggests that NSBBs are harmful in advanced cirrhosis is overshadowed by confounding variables and small patient populations. The majority of the available evidence suggests neutral or beneficial effects on mortality with continuation of NSBBs despite liver disease progression. Based on the available literature, guidelines, and expert consensuses, NSBBs can be considered within this patient population and may have a positive impact on the majority of these patients. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: This review summarizes current place in therapy for NSBBs in the setting of cirrhosis and variceal bleeding prophylaxis. It also includes a discussion of the literature for use of NSBBs within the setting of different acute decompensations in which the data and recommendations for use are less clear. Conclusions: Recent evidence shows neutral or positive results for NSBB use in particular decompensation subgroups, which suggests that NSBBs can be used cautiously with close monitoring in patients with advanced cirrhosis. Questions still remain regarding optimal agent and dose and whether agents can be safely restarted after an acute decompensation episode.

Systemic arterial blood pressure determines the therapeutic window of non-selective beta blockers in decompensated cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

The safety of non-selective β-blockers in patients with advanced cirrhosis has been questioned in recent years. It was hypothesised that there is a particular therapeutic window. However, the specific limits still need to be determined.

AIM

To evaluate potential limits of the therapeutic window of non-selective β-blocker therapy in patients with cirrhosis and ascites METHODS: The impact of non-selective β-blockers on 28-day transplant-free survival was analysed in a cohort of 624 consecutive patients with decompensated cirrhosis and ascites. Three potential limits were investigated: spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, acute-on-chronic liver failure, mean arterial blood pressure ≤ 82 and < 65 mm Hg.

RESULTS

Treatment with non-selective β-blockers was associated with a higher 28-day transplant-free survival in the overall cohort (hazard ratio: 0.621; P = .035) as well as in patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (hazard ratio: 0.578; P = .031) and those with spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (hazard ratio: 0.594; P = .073). In contrast, survival benefits were markedly attenuated in patients with a mean arterial blood pressure ≤ 82 mm Hg and completely lost in those with mean arterial blood pressure < 65 mm Hg (P = .536). In spontaneous bacterial peritonitis patients with a mean arterial blood pressure < 65 mm Hg non-selective β-blocker treatment was associated with renal impairment. Of note, among those with a mean arterial blood pressure ≥ 65 mm Hg non-selective β-blocker intake was consistently associated with superior transplant-free survival (hazard ratio: 0.582; P = .029) irrespective of the presence of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (hazard ratio: 0.435; P = .028) or acute-on-chronic liver failure (hazard ratio: 0.480 P = .034).

CONCLUSIONS

Ascites, acute-on-chronic liver failure and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis do not limit the safe use of non-selective β-blockers in patients with cirrhosis. Mean arterial blood pressure might represent a better indicator to determine the therapeutic window of non-selective β-blocker treatment.

Assessing the safety of beta-blocker therapy in cirrhosis patients with ascites: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Beta-blocker therapy is effective at reducing risks of variceal bleeding. However, beta-blockers may detrimentally exacerbate the underlying haemodynamic changes in cirrhosis. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to evaluate impact of beta-blockers on all-cause mortality among cirrhosis patients with ascites.

METHODS

A literature search identified studies that evaluated beta-blocker vs no beta-blocker therapy in cirrhosis patients with ascites. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality with subcohort analysis of patients with refractory or severe ascites. Quality of observational studies was assessed with Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and overall certainty of the evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system.

RESULTS

Eight observational studies, representing 3627 cirrhosis patients with ascites (1630 treated with beta-blockers and 1997 not treated), were included. Pooled all-cause mortality was 38.6% in beta-blocker group vs 42.2% in no beta-blocker group (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.77-1.13, χ²  = 54.03, I²  = 87%). Subcohort analysis of cirrhosis patients with refractory or severe ascites demonstrated 33.3% mortality in beta-blocker group vs 32.1% in no beta-blocker group (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.70-1.40, χ²  = 32.99, and I²  = 82%). Three studies were good quality and five studies were fair quality. GRADE rating was 'very low' certainty of evidence, given concern for bias and inconsistency stemming from significant heterogeneity.

CONCLUSION

No significant increase in all-cause mortality was observed in cirrhosis patients with ascites treated with beta-blockers. However, given the low certainty of the evidence, high quality prospective studies are needed.

Low-Dose Propranolol as Secondary Prophylaxis for Varix Bleeding Decreases Mortality and Rebleeding Rate in Patients with Tense Ascites

Background and Aim: The risk and benefit of non-selective propranolol in patients with tense ascites are controversial. This study aimed to investigate the effect of propranolol as secondary prophylaxis on varix rebleeding and overall mortality in patients with tense ascites. Methods: This study used a database of the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRAS), which provides health insurance to 97.2% of the total population in Korea. A total of 80,071 patients first variceal bleeding as the first decompensated complication enrolled from 2007 to 2014. Results: There were 2274 patients with large-volume ascites prescribed propranolol as secondary prophylaxis after first varix bleeding. The average prescription dose of propranolol as secondary prophylaxis was 74 mg/day in patients with large-volume ascites. The mean duration of rebleeding was 22.8 months. Result of analysis showed that low-dose propranolol (40–120 mg/day) compared to inadequate propranolol dose (<40 mg/day) as secondary prophylaxis decreased overall mortality and varix rebleeding in patients with tense ascites. Conclusions: Low-dose propranolol (40–120 mg/day) as secondary prophylaxis for variceal re-bleeding decreased overall mortality and varix rebleeding recurrence in patients with tense ascites.

Current and future pharmacological therapies for managing cirrhosis and its complications

Due to the restrictions of liver transplantation, complication-guided pharmacological therapy has become the mainstay of long-term management of cirrhosis. This article aims to provide a complete overview of pharmacotherapy options that may be commenced in the outpatient setting which are available for managing cirrhosis and its complications, together with discussion of current controversies and potential future directions. PubMed/Medline/Cochrane Library were electronically searched up to December 2018 to identify studies evaluating safety, efficacy and therapeutic mechanisms of pharmacological agents in cirrhotic adults and animal models of cirrhosis. Non-selective beta-blockers effectively reduce variceal re-bleeding risk in cirrhotic patients with moderate/large varices, but appear ineffective for primary prevention of variceal development and may compromise renal function and haemodynamic stability in advanced decompensation. Recent observational studies suggest protective, haemodynamically-independent effects of beta-blockers relating to reduced bacterial translocation. The gut-selective antibiotic rifaximin is effective for secondary prophylaxis of hepatic encephalopathy; recent small trials also indicate its potential superiority to norfloxacin for secondary prevention of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Diuretics remain the mainstay of uncomplicated ascites treatment, and early trials suggest alpha-adrenergic receptor agonists may improve diuretic response in refractory ascites. Vaptans have not demonstrated clinical effectiveness in treating refractory ascites and may cause detrimental complications. Despite initial hepatotoxicity concerns, safety of statin administration has been demonstrated in compensated cirrhosis. Furthermore, statins are suggested to have protective effects upon fibrosis progression, decompensation and mortality. Evidence as to whether proton pump inhibitors cause gut-liver-brain axis dysfunction is conflicting. Emerging evidence indicates that anticoagulation therapy reduces incidence and increases recanalisation rates of non-malignant portal vein thrombosis, and may impede hepatic fibrogenesis and decompensation. Pharmacotherapy for cirrhosis should be implemented in accordance with up-to-date guidelines and in conjunction with aetiology management, nutritional optimisation and patient education.

The Spectrum of Small Intestinal Lesions in Patients with Unexplained Iron Deficiency Anemia Detected by Video Capsule Endoscopy

Background and objectives: Video-capsule endoscopy (VCE) has shown a large range (38⁻83%) of diagnostic yield in unexplained iron deficiency anemia (IDA) and obscure-occult bleeding. Therefore, we retrospectively investigated the VCE-detected spectrum and the prevalence of small bowel injuries and associated risk factors in inpatients with both of the above reported conditions. Methods: We selected inpatients with IDA (hemoglobin <12 g/dL in women, <13 g/dL in men) and obscure-occult bleeding. We excluded VCE indications other than IDA. Complete medical histories and laboratory tests were collected. All subjects underwent PillCam SB2/SB3. The VCE feature Lewis score was calculated when appropriate. We used the t-test and Fisher's exact test for continuous and categorical variables, respectively, in univariate analysis. For multivariate analysis, we used binomial logistic regression. Results: We retrieved 109 patients (female:male ratio of 53:56; age 63.4 ± 18.9 years). Eighty patients (73.4%) showed ≥1 small bowel lesions. The Lewis score was calculated in 41 patients: 13 (31.7%) showed a mild (<135) and 28 (68.3%) a moderate-severe (135⁻790 and >790, respectively) score. In univariate analysis, the small bowel transit time (6.2 ± 2.9 versus 5.2 ± 2.1 h; p = 0.049) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use for at least two weeks (17.5% versus 0%; p = 0.01) were significantly higher in subjects with injuries. These associations were not confirmed at multivariate analysis. The severity of a lesion directly correlated with proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use and duration (not confirmed in multivariate analysis). VCE can reveal the source of obscure-occult bleeding in a high percentage of unexplained IDAs. A wide spectrum of endoscopic pictures may be found. Known as well as supposed risk factors for small bowel lesions may be detected.

Management of refractory cirrhotic ascites: challenges and solutions

Among the various risky complications of liver cirrhosis, refractory ascites is associated with poor survival of cirrhotics and persistently worsens their quality of life (QOL). Major clinical guidelines worldwide define refractory ascites as ascites that cannot be managed by medical therapy either because of a lack of response to maximum doses of diuretics or because patients develop complications related to diuretic therapy that preclude the use of an effective dose of diuretics. Due to the difficulty in receiving a liver transplantation (LT), the ultimate solution for refractory ascites, most cirrhotic patients have selected the palliative therapy such as repeated serial paracentesis, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt, or peritoneovenous shunt to improve their QOL. During the past several decades, new interventions and methodologies, such as indwelling peritoneal catheter, peritoneal-urinary drainage, and cell-free and concentrated ascites reinfusion therapy, have been introduced. In addition, new medical treatments with vasoconstrictors or vasopressin V2 receptor antagonists have been proposed. Both the benefits and risks of these old and new modalities have been extensively studied in relation to the pathophysiological changes in ascites formation. Although the best solution for refractory ascites is to eliminate hepatic failure either by LT or by causal treatment, the selection of the best palliative therapy for individual patients is of utmost importance, aiming at achieving the longest possible, comfortable life. This review briefly summarizes the changing landscape of variable treatment modalities for cirrhotic patients with refractory ascites, aiming at clarifying their possibilities and limitations. Evolving issues with regard to the impact of gut-derived systemic and local infection on the clinical course of cirrhotic patients have paved the way for the development of a new gut microbiome-based therapeutics. Thus, it should be further investigated whether the early therapeutic approach to gut dysbiosis provides a better solution for the management of cirrhotic ascites.

Tailored therapy guided by multichannel intraluminal impedance pH monitoring for refractory non-erosive reflux disease

A relevant percentage of non-erosive reflux disease (NERD) is refractory to proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) treatment. Multichannel intraluminal impedance pH (MII-pH) monitoring should give useful pathophysiological information about refractoriness. Therefore, our aim was to assess whether this technique could be useful to guide a 'tailored' therapy in refractory NERD. We retrospectively recruited NERD patients undergoing MII-pH monitoring for unsuccessful treatment. All patients had undergone upper endoscopy, and those with erosive esophagitis were excluded. No patient received PPI during MII-pH monitoring. Subjects were subgrouped into three categories: acid reflux, non-acid reflux and functional heartburn. MII-pH-guided therapy was performed for 4 weeks as follows: patients with acid reflux received PPI at double dose, patients with non-acid reflux PPI at full dose plus alginate four times a day and patients with functional heartburn levosulpiride 75 mg per day. A visual analog scale (VAS) ranging from 0 to 100 mm was administered before and after such tailored therapy to evaluate overall symptoms. Responders were defined by VAS improvement of at least 40%. Sixty-nine patients with refractory NERD were selected (female-male ratio 43 : 26, mean age 47.6±15.2 years). Overall effectiveness of tailored therapy was 84% without statistical difference among subgroups (88.5% acid reflux, 92% non-acid reflux, 66.6% functional heartburn; P=0.06). Univariate analysis showed that therapy failure directly correlated with functional heartburn diagnosis (OR=4.60) and suggested a trend toward a negative correlation with smoking and a positive one with nausea. However, at multivariate analysis, these parameters were not significant. Functional heartburn experienced a lower median percent VAS reduction than acid reflux (52.5% versus 66.6%, P<0.01) even if equal to non-acid reflux (66.6%). In conclusion, a tailored approach to refractory NERD, guided by MII-pH monitoring, demonstrated to be effective and should be promising to cure symptom persistence after conventional therapy failure. Nevertheless, standardized guidelines are advisable.

Beta-blockers in patients with advanced liver disease: Has the dust settled?

Nonselective beta-blockers (NSBBs) have been the backbone for the treatment of portal hypertension in cirrhosis for the last 3 decades. A publication in 2010 of a prospective observational study suggested that NSBBs could increase mortality in patients with refractory ascites. This opened a controversy about the safety and efficacy of NSBBs in patients with advanced liver disease and led to the publication of a large corpus of observational data assessing the safety of NSBBs in patients with advanced cirrhosis. In this article, we briefly review the clinical pharmacology of NSBBs, the pathophysiological basis for the underlying benefits and harms of NSBBs in advanced cirrhosis, and the evidence in favor and against the use of NSBBs in specific scenarios. Finally, we summarize the current recommendations and propose areas of opportunity for future research. Liver Transplantation 23 1058-1069 2017 AASLD.