Carvedilol for portal hypertension in patients with cirrhosis

The influence of carvedilol posology timing on clinically significant portal hypertension: insights from elastography measurements

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Carvedilol has emerged as the preferred β-blocker for treating portal hypertension. However, there is still a debate in dosing regimen, with a potential lower bioavailability in once-daily regimens. The aim of this study is to assess the acute effects of carvedilol posology in patients with clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH), as a surrogate marker of bioavailability.

METHODS

In this experimental study, 34 patients with CSPH receiving carvedilol twice daily were asked to suppress the night dose of carvedilol, creating a standardized 24-hour dose interval. Spleen stiffness measurement (SSM) and liver stiffness measurement (LSM) by transient elastography (TE) were performed, with the exact interval between the last carvedilol administration and TE measurements consistently maintained at 24 hours and compared with values prior and under treatment.

RESULTS

Thirty-four patients were included, predominantly male (82.9%). SSM after suspending carvedilol for 24 hours [mean, 73.9kPa (SD, 17.0)] was significantly higher ( P < 0.001) than under treatment [mean, 56.3kPa (SD, 13.2)] and was not significantly different ( P = 0.908) from SSM prior to introduction of carvedilol [mean, 74.5kPa (SD, 12.4)]. Differences were also found in stratified analysis for carvedilol dosage, D'Amico classification stages, MELDNa scores, MELD3.0 scores, Child-Pugh class A and CSPH due to alcoholic cirrhosis. LSM after suspension was not significantly different from both under treatment and prior to treatment.

CONCLUSION

The differences in SSM after skipping one dose of carvedilol show both the importance of strict adherence to the prescribed dosing regimen to achieve the expected therapeutic benefits and the impact of twice daily prescription in bioavailability throughout the day.

Neuroimmunomodulation of adrenoblockers during liver cirrhosis: modulation of hepatic stellate cell activity

The sympathetic nervous system and the immune system are responsible for producing neurotransmitters and cytokines that interact by binding to receptors; due to this, there is communication between these systems. Liver immune cells and nerve fibres are systematically distributed in the liver, and the partial overlap of both patterns may favour interactions between certain elements. Dendritic cells are attached to fibroblasts, and nerve fibres are connected via the dendritic cell-fibroblast complex. Receptors for most neuroactive substances, such as catecholamines, have been discovered on dendritic cells. The sympathetic nervous system regulates hepatic fibrosis through sympathetic fibres and adrenaline from the adrenal glands through the blood. When there is liver damage, the sympathetic nervous system is activated locally and systemically through proinflammatory cytokines that induce the production of epinephrine and norepinephrine. These neurotransmitters bind to cells through α-adrenergic receptors, triggering a cellular response that secretes inflammatory factors that stimulate and activate hepatic stellate cells. Hepatic stellate cells are key in the fibrotic process. They initiate the overproduction of extracellular matrix components in an active state that progresses from fibrosis to liver cirrhosis. It has also been shown that they can be directly activated by norepinephrine. Alpha and beta adrenoblockers, such as carvedilol, prazosin, and doxazosin, have recently been used to reverse CCl₄-induced liver cirrhosis in rodent and murine models.KEY MESSAGESNeurotransmitters from the sympathetic nervous system activate and increase the proliferation of hepatic stellate cells.Hepatic fibrosis and cirrhosis treatment might depend on neurotransmitter and hepatic nervous system regulation.Strategies to reduce hepatic stellate cell activation and fibrosis are based on experimentation with α-adrenoblockers.

Hepatic Venous Pressure Gradient Predicts Further Decompensation in Cirrhosis Patients with Acute Esophageal Variceal Bleeding

BACKGROUND

The role of hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) in predicting further decompensation in cirrhosis patients with acute variceal bleeding (AVB) is not known. We aimed to evaluate the role of HVPG in predicting further decompensation in cirrhosis patients with AVB Methods: In this prospective study, 145 patients with cirrhosis with esophageal or gastric AVB were included. HVPG was measured on the day of the AVB. Decompensating events occurring after 42-days of AVB were considered further decompensation.

RESULTS

The median age of the study cohort was 44 years; 88.3% males. The predominant etiology of cirrhosis was alcohol (46.2%). Overall, 40 (27.6%) patients developed further decompensation during median follow-up of 296 days following AVB. Gastro intestinal bleeding n = 27 (18.6%) and new-onset/worsening ascites n = 20 (13.8%) were the most common decompensating events. According to the multivariate model, HVPG was an independent predictor of any further decompensation in esophageal AVB patients but not in gastric variceal bleeding patients. HVPG cut-off of ≥16 mmHg predicted further decompensation in the esophageal AVB. However, HVPG was not an independent predictor of mortality.

CONCLUSION

HVPG measured during an episode of acute variceal hemorrhage from esophageal varices predicts further decompensating events in cirrhosis patients.

Pharmacotherapies for Portal Hypertension: Current Status and Expanding Indications

Purpose

Non-selective beta blockers remain pharmacotherapy of choice for prevention of first episode of variceal bleeding (primary prevention) and for prevention of its recurrence after initial hemostasis (secondary prophylaxis). This review will update the current and emerging pharmacological therapies for portal hypertension.

Recent findings

Data have emerged on carvedilol in preventing hepatic decompensation and improving patient survival among patients with clinically significant portal hypertension. Because measurement of WHVP is invasive and not feasible in routine practice, non-invasive tests with liver stiffness measurement in combination with platelet count may be accurate in identifying clinically significant portal hypertension.

Summary

Carvedilol is more effective in reducing portal pressure compared to nadolol or propranolol. Its use has expanded to reduce risk of hepatic decompensation among patients with CSPH, which can be identified non-invasively using liver stiffness and platelet count. Studies are needed on non-invasive biomarkers to guide and optimize pharmacological treatment of portal hypertension.

Emerging Therapeutic Targets for Portal Hypertension

Purpose of Review

Portal hypertension is responsible of the main complications of cirrhosis, which carries a high mortality. Recent treatments have improved prognosis, but this is still far from ideal. This paper reviews new potential therapeutic targets unveiled by advances of key pathophysiologic processes.

Recent Findings

Recent research highlighted the importance of suppressing etiologic factors and a safe lifestyle and outlined new mechanisms modulating portal pressure. These include intrahepatic abnormalities linked to inflammation, fibrogenesis, vascular occlusion, parenchymal extinction, and angiogenesis; impaired regeneration; increased hepatic vascular tone due to sinusoidal endothelial dysfunction with insufficient NO availability; and paracrine liver cell crosstalk. Moreover, pathways such as the gut-liver axis modulate splanchnic vasodilatation and systemic inflammation, exacerbate liver fibrosis, and are being targeted by therapy. We have summarized studies of new agents addressing these targets.

Summary

New agents, alone or in combination, allow acting in complementary mechanisms offering a more profound effect on portal hypertension while simultaneously limiting disease progression and favoring regression of fibrosis and of cirrhosis. Major changes in treatment paradigms are anticipated.

Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Advanced Chronic Liver Disease and Hepatic Venous Pressure Gradient ≤ 10 mm Hg

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH), defined as hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) ≥ 10 mmHg predicts clinical decompensation (CD) in cirrhosis. A proportion of cirrhosis patients have HVPG 6-10 mmHg. Their natural history is largely unknown.

DESIGN

Consecutive patients with advanced chronic liver disease (aCLD) [histological cirrhosis(n = 196) or liver stiffness measurement (LSM) > 15 kPa(n = 65)] and HVPG 6-10 mmHg were included. Primary objective was to study their natural course and patterns of CD. We also analyzed the predictors of CD at presentation and on follow-up and response to carvedilol.

RESULTS

Of 261 patients with HVPG 6-10 mmHg, 129(49.4%) had CD at first presentation; 78(29.9%) had single and 51(19.5%) had ≥ 2 CD. The most common CDs were ascites(n = 77) and jaundice(n = 65). A baseline HVPG ≥ 8 mmHg was independently associated with greater risk of CD [HR:1.7; p-0.002, AUROC:0.85(95%CI-0.81-0.91)]. New CD developed in 14.4% patients with compensated aCLD (median duration-23.1 months). Despite comparable baseline HVPG, patients developing new CD had higher HVPG on follow-up(15.3 ± 3.7 vs. 8 ± 2.1 mmHg; p < 0.001). Baseline LSM > 26.6 kPa, portosystemic shunt and serum albumin independently predicted new CD. Overall HVPG response to carvedilol(n = 60) was 23.3%, independent of baseline CD and HVPG. Five-year mortality was higher with ≥ 2 CD compared to single or no CD (23.5, 10 and 3%, respectively; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Nearly one-half of aCLD patients with HVPG 6-10 mmHg had CD, justifying the need to redefine CSPH. Interventions to reduce portal pressure in patients with HVPG ≥ 8 mmHg might improve long-term outcomes.

Carvedilol reduces the risk of decompensation and mortality in patients with compensated cirrhosis in a competing-risk meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Whether non-selective β-blockers can prevent decompensation of cirrhosis warrants clarification. Carvedilol might be particularly effective since its intrinsic vasodilatory activity may ameliorate hepatic vascular resistance, a major mechanism of portal hypertension in early cirrhosis. We assessed whether carvedilol may prevent decompensation and improve survival in patients with compensated cirrhosis and clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH).

METHODS

By systematic review we identified randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) comparing carvedilol vs. control therapy (no-active treatment or endoscopic variceal ligation [EVL]) in patients with cirrhosis and CSPH without previous bleeding. We performed a competing-risk time-to-event meta-analysis using individual patient data (IPD) obtained from principal investigators of RCTs. Only compensated patients were included. Primary outcomes were prevention of decompensation (liver transplantation and death were competing events) and death (liver transplantation was a competing event). Models were adjusted using propensity scores for baseline covariates with the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) approach.

RESULTS

Among 125 full-text studies evaluated, 4 RCTs were eligible. The 4 provided IPD and were included, comprising 352 patients with compensated cirrhosis, 181 treated with carvedilol and 171 controls (79 received EVL and 92 placebo). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Standardized differences were <10% by IPTW. The risk of developing decompensation of cirrhosis was lower with carvedilol than in controls (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR] 0.506; 95% CI 0.289-0.887; p = 0.017; I2 = 0.0%, Q-statistic-p = 0.880), mainly due to a reduced risk of ascites (SHR 0.491; 95% CI 0.247-0.974; p = 0.042; I2 = 0.0%, Q-statistic-p = 0.384). The risk of death was also lower with carvedilol (SHR 0.417; 95% CI 0.194-0.896; p = 0.025; I2 = 0.0%, Q-statistic-p = 0.989).

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term carvedilol therapy reduced decompensation of cirrhosis and significantly improved survival in compensated patients with CSPH. This suggests that screening patients with compensated cirrhosis for CSPH to enable the prompt initiation of carvedilol could improve outcomes.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019144786.

LAY SUMMARY

The transition from compensated cirrhosis to decompensated cirrhosis is associated with markedly reduced life expectancy. Therefore, preventing decompensation in patients with compensated cirrhosis would be associated with greatly improved patient outcomes. There has been controversy regarding the use of non-selective β-blockers (portal pressure-lowering medications) in patients with cirrhosis and elevated portal blood pressure (portal hypertension). Herein, using a competing-risk meta-analysis to optimize sample size and properly investigate cirrhosis as a multistate disease and outcomes as time-dependent events, we show that carvedilol (a non-selective β-blocker) is associated with a reduced risk of decompensating events and improved survival in patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension.

Management of portal hypertension based on portal hemodynamics

Portal hypertension is most commonly caused by chronic liver disease. As liver damage progresses, portal pressure gradually elevates and hemodynamics of the portal system gradually change. In normal liver, venous returns from visceral organs join the portal trunk and flow into the liver (hepatopetal blood flow). As portal pressure increases due to liver damage, congestion of some veins of the visceral organ occurs (blood flow to and from). Finally, the direction of some veins (the left gastric vein in particular) of the visceral organ change (hepatofugal blood flow) and develop as collateral veins (portosystemic shunt) to reduce portal pressure. Therefore, esophagogastric varices serve as drainage veins for the portal venous system to reduce the portal pressure. In chronic liver disease, as intrahepatic vascular resistance is increased (backward flow theory) and collateral veins develop, adequate portal hypertension is required to maintain portal flow into the liver through an increase of blood flow into the portal venous system (forward flow theory). Splanchnic and systemic arterial vasodilatations increase the blood flow into the portal venous system (hyperdynamic state) and lead to portal hypertension and collateral formation. Hyperdynamic state, especially around the spleen, is detected in patients with portal hypertension. The spleen is a regulatory organ that maintains portal flow into the liver. In this review, surgical treatment, interventional radiology, endoscopic treatment, and pharmacotherapy for portal hypertension (esophagogastric varices in particular) are described based on the portal hemodynamics using schema.

Cirrhotic portal hypertension: From pathophysiology to novel therapeutics

Portal hypertension and bleeding from gastroesophageal varices is the major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with cirrhosis. Portal hypertension is initiated by increased intrahepatic vascular resistance and a hyperdynamic circulatory state. The latter is characterized by a high cardiac output, increased total blood volume and splanchnic vasodilatation, resulting in increased mesenteric blood flow. Pharmacological manipulation of cirrhotic portal hypertension targets both the splanchnic and hepatic vascular beds. Drugs such as angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II type receptor 1 blockers, which target the components of the classical renin angiotensin system (RAS), are expected to reduce intrahepatic vascular tone by reducing extracellular matrix deposition and vasoactivity of contractile cells and thereby improve portal hypertension. However, these drugs have been shown to produce significant off-target effects such as systemic hypotension and renal failure. Therefore, the current pharmacological mainstay in clinical practice to prevent variceal bleeding and improving patient survival by reducing portal pressure is non-selective -blockers (NSBBs). These NSBBs work by reducing cardiac output and splanchnic vasodilatation but most patients do not achieve an optimal therapeutic response and a significant proportion of patients are unable to tolerate these drugs. Although statins, used alone or in combination with NSBBs, have been shown to improve portal pressure and overall mortality in cirrhotic patients, further randomized clinical trials are warranted involving larger patient populations with clear clinical end points. On the other hand, recent findings from studies that have investigated the potential use of the blockers of the components of the alternate RAS provided compelling evidence that could lead to the development of drugs targeting the splanchnic vascular bed to inhibit splanchnic vasodilatation in portal hypertension. This review outlines the mechanisms related to the pathogenesis of portal hypertension and attempts to provide an update on currently available therapeutic approaches in the management of portal hypertension with special emphasis on how the alternate RAS could be manipulated in our search for development of safe, specific and effective novel therapies to treat portal hypertension in cirrhosis.

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.

Hemodynamic Effects of Adding Simvastatin to Carvedilol for Primary Prophylaxis of Variceal Bleeding: A Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

Beta-blockers are the mainstay agents for portal pressure reduction and to modestly reduce hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG). We studied whether addition of simvastatin to carvedilol in cirrhotic patients for primary prophylaxis improves the hemodynamic response.

METHODS

Cirrhotic patients with esophageal varices and with baseline HVPG > 12 mm Hg were prospectively randomized for primary prophylaxis to receive either carvedilol (group A, n = 110) or carvedilol plus simvastatin (group B, n = 110). Primary objective was to compare hemodynamic response (HVPG reduction of ≥20% or <12 mm Hg) at 3 months, and secondary objectives were to compare first bleed episodes, death, and adverse events.

RESULTS

The groups were comparable at baseline. The proportion of patients achieving HVPG response at 3 months was comparable between groups (group A-36/62 [58.1%], group B-36/59 [61%], P = 0.85). The degree of mean HVPG reduction (17.3% and 17.8%, respectively, P = 0.98) and hemodynamic response (odds ratio [OR]: 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.43-1.83, P = 0.74) was also not different between the groups. Patients who achieved target heart rate with no hypotensive episodes in either group showed better hemodynamic response (77.8% vs 59.2%, P = 0.04). Failure to achieve target heart rate (OR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.22-1.06) and Child C cirrhosis (OR: 4.49; 95% CI: 1.20-16.8) predicted nonresponse. Three (3.7%) patients on simvastatin developed transient transaminitis and elevated creatine phosphokinase and improved with drug withdrawal. Two patients in each group bled (P = 0.99). Three patients and 1 patient, respectively, in group A and B died (P = 0.32), with sepsis being the cause of death.

DISCUSSION

Addition of simvastatin to carvedilol for 3 months for primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding does not improve hemodynamic response over carvedilol monotherapy. Simvastatin usage should be closely monitored for adverse effects in Child C cirrhotic patients.

The Synergy of Ciprofloxacin and Carvedilol against Staphylococcus aureus-Prospects of a New Treatment Strategy?

Staphylococcus aureus infections are common and difficult to treat. The increasing number of drug-resistant staphylococcal infections has created the need to develop new strategies for the treatment of these infections. The synergistic antimicrobial activity of different pharmaceuticals seems to be an interesting alternative. The aim of this study was to assess the synergistic activity of ciprofloxacin and carvedilol against S. aureus strains. The antibacterial potential of ciprofloxacin and carvedilol was evaluated according to the CLSI guidelines. The calcium content in S. aureus cells was measured using flow cytometry and atomic absorption spectroscopy. Moreover, confocal and scanning electron microscopy were used to determine the mechanism of antibacterial synergy of ciprofloxacin and carvedilol. The antibacterial effect of ciprofloxacin was higher in the presence of carvedilol than in S. aureus cultures containing the antibiotic only. A significant increase in S. aureus membrane permeability was also observed. The simultaneous administration of the tested compounds caused damage to S. aureus cells visualized by SEM. Enhancement of the antimicrobial action of ciprofloxacin by carvedilol was correlated with an increase in free calcium content in S. aureus cells, morphological changes to the cells, and a reduction in the ability to form bacterial aggregates.

Pharmacologic Management of Portal Hypertension

Terlipressin, somatostatin, or octreotide are recommended as pharmacologic treatment of acute variceal hemorrhage. Nonselective β-blockers decrease the risk of variceal hemorrhage and hepatic decompensation, particularly in those 30% to 40% of patients with good hemodynamic response. Carvedilol, statins, and anticoagulants are promising agents in the management of portal hypertension. Recent advances in the pharmacologic treatment of portal hypertension have mainly focused on modifying an increased intrahepatic resistance through nitric oxide and/or modulation of vasoactive substances. Several novel pharmacologic agents for portal hypertension are being evaluated in humans.

Addition of Carvedilol to Gastric Variceal Obturation Does Not Decrease Recurrence of Gastric Variceal Bleeding in Patients With Cirrhosis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Gastric variceal bleeding (GVB) frequently recurs after hemostasis by gastric variceal obturation (GVO). We performed a multicenter, randomized controlled trial to determine the efficacy of carvedilol plus GVO in secondary prophylaxis of GVB.

METHODS

We performed a prospective study of 121 patients with cirrhosis (ages 20-80 years) with GVB proven by endoscopy within 24 hours of bleeding and stable hemodynamics for at least 3 days after initial GVO. Patients were randomly assigned into a group that underwent repeated GVO (n = 61) or a group received repeated GVO plus carvedilol (n = 60). Recurrent GVB, upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), adverse events, and survival were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

GVB recurred in 21 patients (34%) in the group that received repeated GVO and 14 patients (23%) in the group that received repeated GVO plus carvedilol (P = .18). Ascites (relative risk [RR], 2.69; 95% CI, 1.33-5.48; P = .006) and hepatoma (RR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.03-4.28; P = .04) were associated with recurrent GVB. Twenty-nine patients (48%) in the group that received repeated GVO and 17 patients (28%) in the group that received repeated GVO plus carvedilol had recurrent UGIB (P = .03). Carvedilol (RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.24-0.80; P = .007) was associated with reduced risk of UGIB recurrence. Ascites (RR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.59-5.73; P = .001) and hepatoma (RR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.10-3.88; P = .02) were associated with recurrent UGIB. A higher proportion of patients in the group that received repeated GVO plus carvedilol (53%) had adverse events than the group that received repeated GVO (15%) (P < .001). Mean survival times were 21 ± 18 months in the group that received repeated GVO vs 25 ± 20 months in the group that received repeated GVO plus carvedilol (P = .30).

CONCLUSION

In a randomized controlled trial, we found that addition of carvedilol to GVO did not decrease recurrence of GVB in patients with cirrhosis but was associated with decreased recurrence of UGIB. However, carvedilol plus GVO produced significantly more adverse events. Mean survival times did not differ significantly between groups. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT02504723.

Novel perspectives in the management of decompensated cirrhosis

The current approaches to the management of patients with decompensated cirrhosis are based on targeted strategies aimed at preventing or treating specific complications of the disease. The improved knowledge of the pathophysiological background of advanced cirrhosis, represented by a sustained systemic inflammation strictly linked to a circulatory dysfunction, provides a novel paradigm for the management of these patients, with the ambitious target of modifying the course of the disease by preventing the onset of complications and multiorgan failure; these interventions will eventually improve patients' quality of life, prolong survival and reduce health-care costs. Besides aetiological treatments, these goals could be achieved by persistently antagonizing key pathophysiological events, such as portal hypertension, abnormal bacterial translocation from the gut, liver damage, systemic inflammation, circulatory dysfunction and altered immunological responses. Interestingly, in addition to strategies based on new therapeutic agents, these targets can be tackled by employing drugs that are already used in patients with cirrhosis for different indications or in other clinical settings, including non-absorbable oral antibiotics, non-selective β-blockers, human albumin and statins. The scope of the present Review includes reporting updated information on the treatments that promise to influence the course of advanced cirrhosis and thus act as disease-modifying agents.

Improved biopharmaceutical properties of carvedilol employing α-tocopheryl polyethylene glycol 1000 succinate-based self-emulsifying drug delivery system

The main objective of this study was to develop a self-emulsifying drug delivery system (SEDDS) of carvedilol (CAR) with improved oral absorption and hepatoprotective properties. SEDDS-CAR was prepared based on d-α-tocopheryl polyethylene glycol 1000 succinate (TPGS) and physicochemically characterized. Pharmacokinetic behaviors after the oral administration of CAR samples in rats were evaluated to clarify the possible enhancement of the oral absorption of CAR. The hepatoprotective effects of orally dosed CAR samples were assessed in a rat model of acute hepatic injury induced by carbon tetrachloride (CCl₄). SEDDS-CAR showed the immediate formation of fine micelles with a mean droplet size of 84 nm when introduced in aqueous media. SEDDS-CAR improved the dissolution behavior of CAR in distilled water as evidenced by at least five-fold higher solubility than the equilibrium solubility of CAR. After the single oral administration of SEDDS-CAR (10 mg-CAR/kg) in rats, enhanced CAR exposure was observed with an increase of AUC_0-∞ showing a 2.5-fold increase compared with crystalline CAR. In CCl₄-treated rats, orally dosed SEDDS-CAR (10 mg-CAR/kg, p.o.) led to 91.8 and 91.2% reductions of ALT and AST, respectively; however, crystalline CAR was found to be less effective. From these findings, SEDDS-CAR might be an efficacious oral dosage option for enhancing the hepatoprotective potential of CAR.

Role of band ligation for secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding

AIM

To summarize and critically examine the role of band ligation in secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis.

METHODS

A literature review was performed using the MEDLINE and PubMed databases. The search terms consisted of the words “endoscopic band ligation” OR “variceal band ligation” OR “ligation” AND “secondary prophylaxis” OR “secondary prevention” AND “variceal bleeding” OR “variceal hemorrhage” AND “liver cirrhosis”. The data collected from relevant meta-analyses and from the most recent randomized studies that were not included in these meta-analyses were used to evaluate the role of endoscopic band ligation in an effort to demonstrate the most recent advances in the treatment of esophageal varices.

RESULTS

This study included 11 meta-analyses published from 2002 to 2017 and 10 randomized trials published from 2010 to 2017 that evaluated the efficacy of band ligation in the secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding. Overall, the results proved that band ligation was superior to endoscopic sclerotherapy. Moreover, the use of β-blockers in combination with band ligation increased the treatment effectiveness, supporting the current recommendations for secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding. The use of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt was superior to combination therapy regarding rebleeding prophylaxis, with no difference in the survival rates; however, the results concerning the hepatic encephalopathy incidence were conflicting. Recent advances in the management of secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding have targeted a decrease in portal pressure based on the pathophysiological mechanisms of portal hypertension.

CONCLUSION

This review suggests that future research should be conducted to enhance current interventions and/or to develop innovative treatment options with improved clinical endpoints.

Carvedilol for reducing portal pressure in primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding: a dose-response study

BACKGROUND

Sequential measurements of hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) are used to assess the haemodynamic response to nonselective betablockers (NSBBs) in patients with portal hypertension.

AIMS

To assess the rates of HVPG response to different doses of carvedilol.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with cirrhosis undergoing HVPG-guided carvedilol therapy for primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding between 08/2010 and 05/2015 were retrospectively included. After baseline HVPG measurement, carvedilol 6.25 mg/d was administered and HVPG response (HVPG-decrease ≥20% or to ≤12 mm Hg) was assessed after 3-4 weeks. In case of nonresponse, carvedilol dose was increased to 12.5 mg/d and a third HVPG-measurement was performed after 3-4 weeks. We also assessed HVPG-response rates according to the Baveno VI consensus (HVPG decrease ≥10% or to ≤12 mm Hg) and changes in systolic arterial pressure (SAP).

RESULTS

Seventy-two patients (Child A, 37%; B, 35%; C, 28%) were included. 28 (39%) patients achieved a HVPG-decrease ≥ 20% with carvedilol 6.25 mg/d and another 10 (14%) with carvedilol 12.5 mg/d. Forty (56%) patients had a HVPG decrease ≥10% with carvedilol 6.25 mg/d and 24 (33%) with carvedilol 12.5 mg/d. Thus, in total, a HVPG-response of ≥20% and ≥10% and was achieved in 38 (53%) and 55 (76%) and of patients respectively. Notably, 6 patients (n = 4 with ascites) did not tolerate an increase to 12.5 mg/d due to hypotension/bradycardia. However, none of the other patients had a SAP < 90 mm Hg at the final HVPG measurement.

CONCLUSION

Carvedilol 12.5 mg/d was more effective than 6.25 mg/d in decreasing HVPG in primary prophylaxis. A total of 76% of patients achieved a HVPG-response of ≥ 10% to carvedilol 12.5 mg/d, however, arterial hypotension might occur, especially in patients with ascites.

Pharmacologic prevention of variceal bleeding and rebleeding

BACKGROUND

Variceal bleeding is a major complication of portal hypertension, which is associated with significant mortality. Moreover, patients surviving a variceal bleeding episode have very high risk of rebleeding, which is associated with mortality as high as that of the first bleed. Because of this, prevention of bleeding from gastroesophageal varices has been one of the main therapeutic goals since the advent of the first effective therapies for portal hypertension.

AIM

This review deals with the present day state-of-the-art pharmacological prevention of variceal bleeding in primary and secondary prophylaxis.

RESULTS

Pharmacological therapy aims to decrease portal pressure (PP) by acting on the pathophysiological mechanisms of portal hypertension such as increased hepatic vascular tone and splanchnic vasodilatation. Propranolol and nadolol block the beta-1 in the heart and the peripheral beta-2 adrenergic receptors. Beta-1 blockade of cardiac receptors reduces heart rate and cardiac output and subsequently decreases flow into splanchnic circulation. Beta-2 blockade leads to unopposed alpha-1 adrenergic activity that causes splanchnic vasoconstriction and reduction of portal inflow. Both effects contribute to reduction in PP. Carvedilol is more powerful in reducing hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) than traditional nonselective beta-blockers (NSBBs) and achieves good hemodynamic response in nearly 75 % of cases. Simvastatin and atorvastatin improve endothelial dysfunction mainly by enhancing endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) expression and phosphorylation and NO production. In addition, statins deactivate hepatic stellate cells and ameliorate hepatic fibrogenesis. These effects cause a decrease in HVPG and improve liver microcirculation and hepatocyte perfusion in patients with cirrhosis. In addition, several promising drugs under development may change the management of portal hypertension in the coming years.

CONCLUSION

This review provides a background on the most important aspects of the treatment of portal hypertension in patients with compensated and decompensated liver cirrhosis. However, despite the great improvement in the prevention of variceal bleeding over the last years, further therapeutic options are needed.

Severe carvedilol toxicity without overdose - caution in cirrhosis

Background

Carvedilol is used in the management of hypertension, ischemic heart disease, heart failure and most recently, portal hypertension. It has been associated with improved outcomes regarding variceal bleeding, hepatic decompensation and death when compared to propranolol and endoscopic band ligation. The main cause of portal hypertension is cirrhosis and therefore carvedilol is increasingly used in these patients. Due to its extensive hepatic metabolism, carvedilol is contraindicated in severe hepatic impairment. However, there are no dosage adjustments in the manufacturer's labelling for mild to moderate hepatic impairment.

Case presentation

We present a case of cardiogenic shock that occurred after carvedilol 25 mg orally was administered to a patient with cirrhosis. As there was no overdose, the diagnosis was based on clinical recognition of the toxidrome. The patient was successfully treated with glucagon 5 mg bolus followed by infusion.

Conclusions

Patients with cirrhosis represent a special at-risk group for beta blocker toxicity. The typical threshold for carvedilol toxicity in overdose is 50 mg but in patients with cirrhosis this is not applicable. Nurses and physicians need to recognize the toxidrome early. Hospitals where carvedilol is used in patients with cirrhosis should have glucagon in formulary at doses to treat toxicity (bolus and infusion). Finally, dose adjustment and slow uptitration of carvedilol in cirrhosis is recommended.

A Randomized, Multi-Center, Open-Label Study to Evaluate the Efficacy of Carvedilol vs. Propranolol to Reduce Portal Pressure in Patients With Liver Cirrhosis

OBJECTIVES

Propranolol has been used as prophylaxis for variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis. More recent data suggest that carvedilol may be more effective for reducing the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) than propranolol. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the hemodynamic response to carvedilol compared with propranolol.

METHODS

A total of 110 patients with a baseline HVPG value >12 mm Hg were allocated randomly to receive either carvedilol or propranolol. The HVPG measurement was repeated after 6 weeks of daily medication. The primary end point was a ≥20% fall in HVPG compared with baseline or <12 mm Hg.

RESULTS

The difference in the proportion of responders in the carvedilol (49.1%) vs. propranolol (30.9%) groups did not reach statistical significance in the intention-to-treat analysis (P=0.08). However, among patients with a model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score ≥15, carvedilol resulted in a significantly greater response than that of propranolol (7/12, 58.3% vs. 0/10, 0%; P=0.005). Similarly, carvedilol was superior to propranolol in patients with Child-Pugh score ≥9 (46.2 vs. 0%; P=0.046). The presence of ascites also had a significant influence on the response rate (51.5 vs. 24.2%; P=0.042). A MELD score ≥15 was the only significant predictor of response among these post hoc groups after adjusting for multiple comparisons (P=0.005). Severe adverse events were higher in the carvedilol group although drug-associated adverse events were not different.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, carvedilol offered no clear advantage over propranolol but it may be more effective in advanced cirrhotic patients with a MELD score≥15 in reducing the portal pressure gradient. However, this potential benefit may come with a cost of increased risk of side-effects and outcome data over a longer term is needed to understand the relative risk benefit.

Repurposing of approved cardiovascular drugs

Research and development of new drugs requires both long time and high costs, whereas safety and tolerability profiles make the success rate of approval very low. Drug repurposing, applying known drugs and compounds to new indications, has been noted recently as a cost-effective and time-unconsuming way in developing new drugs, because they have already been proven safe in humans. In this review, we discuss drug repurposing of approved cardiovascular drugs, such as aspirin, beta-blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, cardiac glycosides and statins. Regarding anti-tumor activities of these agents, a number of experimental studies have demonstrated promising pleiotropic properties, whereas all clinical trials have not shown expected results. In pathological conditions other than cancer, repurposing of cardiovascular drugs is also expanding. Numerous experimental studies have reported possibilities of drug repurposing in this field and some of them have been tried for new indications ('bench to bedside'), while unexpected results of clinical studies have given hints for drug repurposing and some unknown mechanisms of action have been demonstrated by experimental studies ('bedside to bench'). The future perspective of experimental and clinical studies using cardiovascular drugs are also discussed.

Hemodynamic Response to Carvedilol is Maintained for Long Periods and Leads to Better Clinical Outcome in Cirrhosis: A Prospective Study

BACKGROUND

Non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs), e.g. propranolol, are recommended for prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in cirrhosis. Carvedilol, a newer NSBB with additional anti-α1-adrenergic activity, is superior to propranolol in reducing portal pressure. Repeated HVPG measurements are required to identify responders to NSBB. We aimed to determine whether a single-time HVPG measurement, using acute-hemodynamic-response-testing, is sufficient to predict long-term response to carvedilol, and whether these responders have better clinical outcome.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with cirrhosis, aged 18-70 years, in whom NSBB was indicated for primary/secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding, and who underwent HVPG were included. Acute-hemodynamic-response was defined as a decrease in HVPG ≥10% from baseline or absolute HVPG value declining to <12 mm Hg, 1 h after 25 mg oral carvedilol. The aims of the study were to determine: the proportion of patients who achieved acute-hemodynamic-response to carvedilol; whether HVPG-response is maintained for 6 months; and clinical outcome of acute-responders to carvedilol therapy for 6 months.

RESULTS

The study included 69 patients (median age 51, males 93%). Alcohol was the most common etiology; 59% patients belonged to Child-Pugh class B. NSBB was indicated for primary prophylaxis in 36% and secondary prophylaxis in 64% patients. According to the response criteria, 67% patients were found to be acute-hemodynamic-responders. At 6 months, 92% patients were found to be still maintaining their hemodynamic response to carvedilol. Using intention-to-treat analysis, 76% patients maintained their response. These acute responders, on chronic treatment with carvedilol during the 6-month period, had lesser episodes of variceal bleeding, better ascites control, and improved MELD and CTP scores, than non-carvedilol treated non-responders. However, survival remained similar in both the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

A single-time HVPG measurement with acute-hemodynamic-response-testing is simple and reliable method for identifying patients who are more likely to respond to carvedilol therapy. The HVPG-response is maintained over a long period in majority of these patients and carvedilol therapy leads to better clinical outcome in these patients.

Carvedilol for portal hypertension in cirrhosis: systematic review with meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical and haemodynamic effects of carvedilol for patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension.

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

We searched PubMed, Cochrane library databases, EMBASE and the Science Citation Index Expanded through December 2015. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included.

OUTCOME MEASURE

We calculated clinical outcomes (all-cause mortality, bleeding-related mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding) as well as haemodynamic outcomes (hepatic venous pressure (HVPG) reduction, haemodynamic response rate, post-treatment arterial blood pressure (mean arterial pressure; MAP) and adverse events).

RESULTS

12 RCTs were included. In 7 trials that looked at haemodynamic outcomes compared carvedilol versus propranolol, showing that carvedilol was associated with a greater reduction (%) of HVPG within 6 months (mean difference -8.49, 95% CI -12.36 to -4.63) without a greater reduction in MAP than propranolol. In 3 trials investigating differences in clinical outcomes between carvedilol versus endoscopic variceal band ligation (EVL), no significant differences in mortality or variceal bleeding were demonstrated. 1 trial compared clinical outcomes between carvedilol versus nadolol plus isosorbide-5-mononitrate (ISMN), and showed that no significant difference in mortality or bleeding had been found. 1 trial comparing carvedilol versus nebivolol showed a greater reduction in HVPG after 14 days follow-up in the carvedilol group.

CONCLUSIONS

Carvedilol may be more effective in decreasing HVPG than propranolol or nebivolol and it may be as effective as EVL or nadolol plus ISMN in preventing variceal bleeding. However, the overall quality of evidence is low. Further large-scale randomised studies are required before we can make firm conclusions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42015020542.

Therapies: Drugs, Scopes and Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt--When and How?

Variceal bleeding is the most serious complication of portal hypertension. All cirrhotic patients should be screened endoscopically for varices which are present in about 30% of compensated and 60% of decompensated patients at diagnosis. In patients without varices, endoscopy surveillance should be continued every 2 years. Patients with high-risk varices (moderate or large in size, or with red color signs, or in Child-Pugh C patients) should be treated with a nonselective β-blocker to prevent bleeding (propranolol, nadolol or carvedilol). Endoscopic banding ligation is also effective for the prevention of first bleeding, and it is the first choice in patients with contraindications or intolerance to β-blockers. Acute variceal hemorrhage still has a high mortality rate (around 15%) and requires intensive care management and conservative blood transfusion policy. Treatment is based on the combined use of vasoactive drugs, endoscopic band ligation and prophylactic antibiotics. Failures are best managed by transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS). Balloon tamponade or specifically designed covered esophageal stents can be used as a bridge to definitive therapy in unstable patients. Early, preemptive TIPS might be the first choice in patients at high risk of failure (Child-Pugh B with active bleeding or Child-Pugh C up to 13 points). Patients surviving a variceal bleeding are at high risk of rebleeding. A combination of β-blockers and endoscopic band ligation is the most effective therapeutic approach. Preliminary data suggest that the addition of simvastatin increases survival in these patients.

Evolution in the understanding of the pathophysiological basis of portal hypertension: How changes in paradigm are leading to successful new treatments

Among the common complication of cirrhosis portal hypertension witnessed a major improvement of prognosis during the past decades. Principally due to the introduction of rational treatments based on new pathophysiological paradigms (concepts of thought) developed in the 1980s. The best example being the use of non-selective beta-blockers and of vasopressin analogs, somatostatin, and its analogs. Further refinement in the knowledge of the molecular mechanisms involved in the regulation of both the splanchnic and hepatic circulation has led to the emergence of new treatments, which are based on evidence that show not only structural but also vasoactive components increase the hepatic vascular resistance, as well as of angiogenesis. This knowledge and future improvements will most likely result in more effective treatment of portal hypertension and effective prevention of its complications in early stages.

The renal effects of droxidopa are maintained in propranolol treated cirrhotic rats

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Droxidopa improves hemodynamic and renal alterations of cirrhotic rats without changing portal pressure. We aimed to evaluate the effects of a combined treatment with droxidopa and non-selective beta-blockers or statins in order to decrease portal pressure, while maintaining droxidopa beneficial effects.

METHODS

Acute studies combining droxidopa with carvedilol, propranolol or atorvastatin in four-week bile-duct ligated (BDL) rats and a chronic study combining propranolol and droxidopa for 5 days in CCl4 -cirrhotic rats were performed. Hemodynamic values were registered and biochemical parameters from blood and urine samples analyzed.

RESULTS

Bile-duct ligated rats treated with carvedilol + droxidopa showed no changes in mean arterial pressure (MAP) and portal pressure (PP) compared to vehicles. Atorvastatin + droxidopa combination also failed to reduce PP, but maintained the beneficial increase in MAP and superior mesenteric artery resistance (SMAR) and decrease in blood flow (SMABF) caused by droxidopa. In contrast, the acute administration of propranolol + droxidopa significantly reduced PP maintaining a mild increase in MAP and improving, in an additive way, the decrease in SMABF and increase in SMAR caused by droxidopa. This combination also preserved droxidopa diuretic effect. When chronically administered to CCl4 -cirrhotic rats, propranolol + droxidopa caused a decrease in PP, a significant reduction in SMABF and an increase in SMAR. The combination did not alter liver function and droxidopa diuretic and natriuretic effect, and even improved free water clearance.

CONCLUSION

Droxidopa could be effective for the renal alterations of cirrhotic patients on propranolol therapy and the combination of both drugs may balance the adverse effects of each treatment.

The effect of carvedilol and propranolol on portal hypertension in patients with cirrhosis: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Several randomized controlled clinical trials have been conducted to investigate the role of carvedilol and propranolol on the effect of portal pressure in patients with cirrhosis, leading to controversial results. Current meta-analysis was performed to compare the efficacy of the two drugs on portal pressure.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Two-hundred and ninety eligible patients were recruited. Published studies were selected based on PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Chinese Journal Full-text Database, and Wanfang Database. The outcome measurements included the mean difference (MD) in the percentage of hepatic vein pressure gradient reduction (%HVPG reduction), the risk ratio (RR) of nonresponders in hemodynamic assessment, and the percentage of mean arterial pressure reduction (%MAP reduction). Subgroup analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Seven trials were identified (including five acute and three long-term drug administration randomized controlled trials). A summary of pooled MD between the %HVPG reduction is as follows: overall -8.62 (confidence interval [CI] -11.76, -5.48, P<0.00001), acute -10.05 (CI -14.24, -5.86, P<0.00001), and long term -6.80 (CI -11.53, -2.07, P=0.005), while summary of pooled RR of hemodynamic nonresponders with carvedilol was as follows: overall 0.64 (CI 0.51, 0.81, P=0.0002), acute 0.63 (CI 0.47, 0.85, P=0.002), and long term 0.67 (CI 0.47, 0.97, P=0.03). Both of the outcome measurements favored carvedilol. Significant heterogeneity (P<0.1, I (2)=92%) existed between the two treatment groups in %MAP reduction. No considerable difference could be observed in the %MAP reduction through the poor overlapping CI boundaries.

CONCLUSION

Carvedilol has a greater portal hypertensive effect than propranolol. Further comparative trials of the two drugs are required to identify the effect of MAP reduction.

Liver cirrhosis

Cirrhosis is an increasing cause of morbidity and mortality in more developed countries, being the 14th most common cause of death worldwide but fourth in central Europe. Increasingly, cirrhosis has been seen to be not a single disease entity, but one that can be subclassified into distinct clinical prognostic stages, with 1-year mortality ranging from 1% to 57% depending on the stage. We review the current understanding of cirrhosis as a dynamic process and outline current therapeutic options for prevention and treatment of complications of cirrhosis, on the basis of the subclassification in clinical stages. The new concept in management of patients with cirrhosis should be prevention and early intervention to stabilise disease progression and to avoid or delay clinical decompensation and the need for liver transplantation. The challenge in the 21st century is to prevent the need for liver transplantation in as many patients with cirrhosis as possible.

Primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding

Primary prevention of variceal bleeding is an important and long-debated topic in the management of patients with cirrhosis and esophageal varices. Prophylaxis is recommended for high-risk patients with small esophageal varices (advanced liver disease and/or presence of red wale marks) and those with medium/large varices. Nonselective β-blockers and endoscopic band ligation have been shown to be equally effective in primary prevention of variceal bleeding and are the only currently recommended therapies. Controversy still exists, however, regarding which one of these strategies is preferred. This article reviews the established recommendations and recent advances in the prevention of first esophageal variceal bleeding.

Pharmacologic management of portal hypertension

Progress in the knowledge of the pathophysiology of portal hypertension has disclosed new targets for therapy, resulting in a larger spectrum of drugs with a potential role for clinical practice. This review focuses on pharmacologic treatments already available for reducing portal pressure and summarizes drugs currently under investigation in this field.

Carvedilol vs. esophageal variceal band ligation in the primary prophylaxis of variceal hemorrhage: a multicentre randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Esophageal variceal bleed is a major problem in patients with cirrhosis. Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) has been shown to be equal to or better than propranolol in preventing first bleed. Carvedilol is a non-selective β blocker with alpha-1 adrenergic blocker activity. Hemodynamic studies have shown carvedilol to be more effective than propranolol at reducing portal pressure. We compared efficacy of carvedilol with EVL for primary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleed.

METHODS

Cirrhotic patients with esophageal varices were randomized to carvedilol 12.5mg daily or EVL at three university hospitals of Pakistan. End points were esophageal variceal bleeding, death or liver transplant.

RESULTS

Two hundred and nine patients were evaluated. Eighty two and eighty six patients were randomized in carvedilol and EVL arms respectively. Mean age was 48 ± 12.2 years; 122 (72.7%) were males; 89.9% had viral cirrhosis; mean Child-Pugh score was 7.3 ± 1.6 and mean follow up was 13.3 ± 12.1 months (range 1-50 months). Both EVL and carvedilol groups had comparable variceal bleeding rates (8.5% vs. 6.9%), bleed related mortality (4.6% vs. 4.9%) and overall mortality (12.8% vs. 19.5%) respectively. Adverse events in carvedilol group were hypotension (n=2), requiring cessation of therapy, while transient nausea (n=18) and dyspnea (n=30) resolved spontaneously. In the EVL arm, post banding ulcer bleed (n=1) and chest pain (n=17), were termed as serious adverse events while transient dysphagia (n=58) resolved without treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Although our study is underpowered, the findings suggest that carvedilol is probably not superior to EVL in preventing first variceal bleed in patients with viral cirrhosis.

The changing role of beta-blocker therapy in patients with cirrhosis

Cirrhosis is a leading cause of death in the United States and worldwide. Beta-blockers have been established in numerous studies as part of the cornerstone of the medical management of cirrhosis, particularly in the primary and secondary prevention of variceal hemorrhage. However, new evidence has cautioned the use of beta-blockers in patients with end-stage cirrhosis and refractory ascites. In this article, we review the beneficial effects of beta-blocker therapy, the potential harms of aggressive beta-blocker therapy, and provide suggestions regarding the appropriate use of this class of medications in patients with cirrhosis.

Effects of carvedilol and propranolol on circulatory regulation and oxygenation in cirrhosis: a randomised study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Newer studies suggest that carvedilol, a beta-blocker with a moderate anti-alpha-1 activity, is superior to propranolol in reducing the portal pressure and risk of variceal bleeding. The effect on arterial blood pressure is a matter of concern especially in decompensated patients.

AIMS

to assess potential differential effects of beta-blockers and beta-blockers with moderate anti-alpha-1 activity on selected haemodynamic, humoral, and respiratory characteristics in cirrhosis.

METHODS

Patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension were randomised to receive carvedilol (n=16) or propranolol (n=13). Cardiac, systemic and splanchnic parameters along with oxygen saturation and plasma renin were measured at inclusion and after 3 months.

RESULTS

Arterial blood pressure, heart rate, and cardiac output decreased equally, central circulation time and systemic vascular resistance increased significantly but similarly. Central blood volume, plasma volume and arterial compliance were unaltered. The QTc interval and renin levels decreased in the carvedilol group, however not significantly different from the propranolol group. Arterial oxygen saturation and alveolar arterial oxygen gradient remained constant in both groups. Hepatic venous pressure gradient decreased equally in the carvedilol and propranolol groups (-17% and -20%, non significant).

CONCLUSIONS

Systemic haemodynamics and pulmonary effects of carvedilol and propranolol are modest and this study could not demonstrate any significant difference between the two treatments.

Carvedilol for primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients with haemodynamic non-response to propranolol

OBJECTIVE

Non-selective β-blockers or endoscopic band ligation (EBL) are recommended for primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in patients with oesophageal varices. Additional α-adrenergic blockade (as by carvedilol) may increase the number of patients with haemodynamic response (reduction in hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) of ≥ 20% or to values <12 mm Hg).

DESIGN

Patients with oesophageal varices undergoing measurement of HVPG before and under propranolol treatment (80-160 mg/day) were included. HVPG responders were kept on propranolol (PROP group), while non-responders were placed on carvedilol (6.25-50 mg/day). Carvedilol responders continued treatment (CARV group), while non-responders to carvedilol underwent EBL. The primary aim was to assess haemodynamic response rates to carvedilol in propranolol non-responders.

RESULTS

36% (37/104) of patients showed a HVPG response to propranolol. Among the propranolol non-responders 56% (38/67) eventually achieved a haemodynamic response with carvedilol, while 44% (29/67) patients were finally treated with EBL. The decrease in HVPG was significantly greater with carvedilol (median 12.5 mg/day) than with propranolol (median 100 mg/day): -19 ± 10% versus -12 ± 11% (p<0.001). During a 2 year follow-up bleeding rates for PROP were 11% versus CARV 5% versus EBL 25% (p=0.0429). Fewer episodes of hepatic decompensation (PROP 38%/CARV 26% vs EBL 55%; p=0.0789) and significantly lower mortality (PROP 14%/CARV 11% vs EBL 31%; p=0.0455) were observed in haemodynamic responders compared to the EBL group.

CONCLUSIONS

Carvedilol leads to a significantly greater decrease in HVPG than propranolol. Using carvedilol for primary prophylaxis a substantial proportion of non-responders to propranolol can achieve a haemodynamic response, which is associated with improved outcome with regard to prevention of variceal bleeding, hepatic decompensation and death.

Management of varices in patients with cirrhosis

Variceal bleeding remains a life-threatening condition with a 6-week mortality rate of ∼20%. Prevention of variceal bleeding can be achieved using nonselective β-blockers (NSBBs) or endoscopic band ligation (EBL), with NSBBs as the first-line treatment. EBL should be reserved for cases of intolerance or contraindications to NSBBs. Although NSBBs cannot be used to prevent varices, if the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) is ≤10 mmHg, prognosis is excellent. Survival after acute variceal bleeding has improved over the past three decades, but patients with Child-Pugh grade C cirrhosis remain at greatest risk. Vasoactive drugs combined with endoscopic therapy and antibiotics are the best therapeutic strategy for these patients. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPS) should be used in patients with uncontrolled bleeding or those who are likely to have difficult-to-control bleeding. Rebleeding from varices occurs in ∼60% of patients 1-2 years after the initial bleeding episode, with a mortality rate of 30%. Secondary prophylaxis should start at day 6 after initial bleeding using a combination of NSBBs and EBL. TIPS with polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stents are the preferred option in patients who fail combined treatment with NSBBs and EBL. Despite the improvement in patient survival, further studies are needed to direct the management of patients with gastro-oesophageal varices and variceal bleeding.

Austrian consensus on the definition and treatment of portal hypertension and its complications (Billroth II)

In November 2004, the Austrian Society of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (ÖGGH) held for the first time a consensus meeting on the definitions and treatment of portal hypertension and its complications in the Billroth-Haus in Vienna, Austria (Billroth I-Meeting). This meeting was preceded by a meeting of international experts on portal hypertension with some of the proponents of the Baveno consensus conferences (http://www.oeggh.at/videos.asp). The consensus itself is based on the Baveno III consensus with regard to portal hypertensive bleeding and the suggestions of the International Ascites Club regarding the treatment of ascites. Those statements were modified by new knowledge derived from the recent literature and also by the current practice of medicine as agreed upon by the participants of the consensus meeting. In October 2011, the ÖGGH organized the second consensus meeting on portal hypertension and its complications in Vienna (Billroth II-Meeting). The Billroth II-Guidelines on the definitions and treatment of portal hypertension and its complications take into account the developments of the last 7 years, including the Baveno-V update and several key publications.

Hemodynamic response to propranolol in patients with recurrent hepatitis C virus-related cirrhosis after liver transplantation: a case-control study

Cirrhosis recurrence is frequent after orthotopic liver transplantation for hepatitis C virus (HCV). Because transplantation causes liver denervation, we hypothesized that the response to propranolol might differ in transplant patients versus nontransplant patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension. Twenty-one patients with cirrhosis recurrence after orthotopic liver transplantation with portal hypertension were compared to 20 nontransplant patients with cirrhosis, HCV, and portal hypertension, and they were matched by sex, age, presence of varices, and Child-Pugh score. The patients underwent systemic and hepatic hemodynamic measurements at the baseline and 20 minutes after intravenous propranolol (0.15 mg/kg). At the baseline, the transplant patients with cirrhosis had a lower hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) than the nontransplant patients with cirrhosis (14.8 ± 2.9 versus 17.3 ± 4.4 mm Hg, P = 0.03) but a higher mean arterial pressure (MAP; 100.3 ± 12.3 versus 91.8 ± 11.6 mm Hg, P = 0.04) and higher systemic vascular resistance (2253 ± 573 versus 1883 ± 525 dyn/second/cm(-5) , P = 0.03). There were no differences in the cardiac index (CI). Propranolol significantly decreased HVPG to similar extents in transplant patients and nontransplant patients with cirrhosis (-14.1% ± 8.0% versus -16.9% ± 9.5%, P > 0.99). MAP tended to increase in transplant patients with cirrhosis, whereas it slightly decreased in nontransplant patients (5.1% ± 14.2% versus -4.8% ± 6.4%, P = 0.007); however, the reduction in CI was less marked in transplant patients with cirrhosis (-18.6% ± 7.6% versus -26.9% ± 9.0%, P = 0.005). In conclusion, patients with HCV-related cirrhosis and portal hypertension after orthotopic liver transplantation have lower baseline HVPG values but similar HVPG responses to propranolol infusions in comparison with nontransplant patients with cirrhosis. In contrast to nontransplant patients, propranolol increases the systemic vascular resistance and arterial pressure in transplant patients with cirrhosis and attenuates the fall in CI.

Randomized, controlled trial of carvedilol versus nadolol plus isosorbide mononitrate for the prevention of variceal rebleeding

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Carvedilol has been shown to be more effective than propranolol in decreasing portal pressure. Sufficient data from controlled trials remains limited. This trial compared the relative safety and efficacy between carvedilol and nadolol plus isosorbide mononitrate in preventing variceal rebleeding.

METHODS

After successful control of acute esophageal variceal bleeding, eligible patients were randomized to the carvedilol group, 61 patients, using carvedilol 6.25-12.5 mg daily or the N + I group, 60 patients, using nadolol 40-80 mg plus isorsorbide-5-mononitrate 20 mg daily. The end points were rebleeding from varices, adverse events or death.

RESULTS

After a median follow up of 30 months, recurrent upper gastrointestinal bleeding developed in 37 patients (61%) in the carvedilol group and 37 patients (62%) in the N + I group (P = 0.90). Recurrent bleeding from esophageal varices occurred in 31 patients (51%) in the carvedilol group and in 26 patients (43%) in the N + I group (P = 0.46). Recurrent bleeding from gastric varices occurred in two patients (3%) in the carvedilol group and in eight patients (13%) in the N + I group (P = 0.05). Severe adverse events occurred in one patient in the carvedilol group and 17 patients in the N + I group (P < 0.0001). Fifteen patients of the carvedilol group and 17 patients in the N + I group died (P = 0.83). Two patients in the carvedilol group and three patients in the N + I group died of variceal bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

Carvedilol was as effective as nadolol plus isorsorbide-5 -mononitrate mononitrate in the prevention of gastroesophageal variceal rebleeding with fewer severe adverse events and similar survival.

Comparison of hepatic venous pressure gradient and two models of end-stage liver disease for predicting the survival in patients with decompensated liver cirrhosis

GOALS

We evaluated the efficacy of initial and follow-up hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG), models of end-stage liver disease (MELD), and MELD-Na for predicting the survival of patients with decompensated liver cirrhosis (LC).

BACKGROUND

MELD with/without Na score and HVPG have been important predictors of mortality in patients with LC.

STUDY

Between January 2006 and 2011, a total of 57 patients with decompensated LC, all of whom underwent >2 HVPG measurements for the confirmation of propranolol dosing, were enrolled. MELD and MELD-Na scores were calculated on the day of HVPG measurement. The prognostic accuracy of the initial and follow-up HVPG, MELD, and MELD-Na were analyzed, and independent factors for mortality were evaluated.

RESULTS

Ten patients (17.5%) died from LC. Initial HVPG (0.883), initial MELD-Na (0.877), follow-up HVPG (0.829), and follow-up MELD-Na (0.802) showed good area under the receiver operating characteristic curve scores in predicting 1-year mortality. In predicting 2-year mortality, only follow-up HVPG (0.821, cut-off value 18 mm Hg) showed good score. Overall area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (initial and follow-up) were 0.843 and 0.864 in HVPG, 0.721 and 0.674 in MELD, and 0.762 and 0.715 in MELD-Na, respectively. In the Cox regression analysis, only follow-up HVPG (P=0.02; odds ratio, 1.11) was associated with mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy of HVPG for predicting mortality is excellent compared with that of MELD or MELD-Na. Therefore, aside from the confirmation of adequate propranolol dosing, HVPG may be needed for predicting the survival of patients with decompensated LC.

Patients whose first episode of bleeding occurs while taking a β-blocker have high long-term risks of rebleeding and death

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Patients who have their first episode of variceal bleeding despite primary prophylaxis with a nonselective β-adrenergic receptor antagonist (also called a nonselective β-blocker [NSBB]) receive additional treatment by endoscopic band ligation to prevent further bleeding. However, little is known about their long-term outcomes.

METHODS

We collected data on 89 consecutive patients with cirrhosis who were admitted to the Liver Unit of Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, with acute esophageal variceal bleeding between June 2007 and February 2011. Thirty-four patients were receiving primary prophylaxis with NSBBs when they had their first episode of variceal bleeding, whereas 55 were not receiving NSBBs (controls). All patients were subsequently treated with a combination of endoscopic band ligation and NSBBs. Patients were examined after 1, 3, and 6 months and every 6 months thereafter until 2 years.

RESULTS

After 2 years, a greater proportion of patients who had their first episode of bleeding while on NSBBs had further bleeding, compared with controls (48% vs 24%; P = .01). Primary prophylaxis with NSBBs and serum levels of bilirubin were independent predictors of rebleeding. Overall, 11 patients died, and 5 underwent liver transplantation. Liver transplantation-free survival was lower among patients who had their first episode of bleeding while taking NSBBs (66% vs 88% for controls; P = .02). Primary prophylaxis with NSBBs and Child-Pugh class were independently associated with liver transplantation-free survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who have their first episode of variceal bleeding while on primary prophylaxis with a β-blocking agent have an increased risk of further bleeding and death, despite adding endoscopic band ligation. These patients possibly require alternative treatment approaches.