Is hydrophobia necessary for the hepatologist prescribing nonselective beta-blockers in cirrhosis?

Non-selective β-blockers in advanced cirrhosis: a critical review of the effects on overall survival and renal function

Introduction

Non-selective β-blockers (NSBBs) are widely prescribed in patients with cirrhosis for primary and secondary prophylaxis of bleeding oesophageal varices. Furthermore, it has been suggested that the clinical benefits of NSBBs may extend beyond their haemodynamic effects. Recently, a potentially harmful effect has been described in patients with refractory ascites or spontaneous bacterial peritonitis.

Methodology

A comprehensive literature search on β-blockers and cirrhosis survival using the electronic databases PubMed/MEDLINE, AMED, CINAHL and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Full-text manuscripts published over more than 35 years, from 1980 to April 2016 were reviewed for relevance and reference lists were cross-checked for additional pertinent studies regarding potential NSBB effects, especially focused on those concerned with survival and/or acute kidney injury (AKI).

Discussion

The proposed review will be able to provide valuable evidence to help decision making in the use of NSBB for the treatment of advanced cirrhosis and highlights some limitations in existing evidence to direct future research.

Rethinking the role of non-selective beta blockers in patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension

Non-selective beta blockers (NSBB) are commonly used to prevent portal hypertensive bleeding in cirrhotics. Nevertheless, in the last years, the use of NSBB in critically decompensated patients, especially in those with refractory ascites, has been questioned, mainly for an increased risk of mortality and worsening of systemic hemodynamics. Moreover, even if NSBB have been reported to correlate with a higher risk of renal failure and severe infection in patients with advanced liver disease and hypotension, their use has been associated with a reduction of risk of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, modification of gut permeability and reduction of bacterial translocation. This manuscript systematically reviews the published evidences about harms and benefits of the use of NSBB in patients with decompensated cirrhosis.

Nonselective β-blockers do not affect mortality in cirrhosis patients with ascites: Post Hoc analysis of three randomized controlled trials with 1198 patients

The safety of nonselective β-blockers (NSBBs) in advanced cirrhosis has been questioned. We used data from three satavaptan trials to examine whether NSBBs increase mortality in cirrhosis patients with ascites. The trials were conducted in 2006-2008 and included 1198 cirrhosis patients with ascites followed for 1 year. We used Cox regression to compare all-cause mortality and cirrhosis-related mortality between patients who did and those who did not use NSBBs at randomization, controlling for age, gender, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, Child-Pugh score, serum sodium, previous variceal bleeding, cirrhosis etiology, and ascites severity. Moreover, we identified clinical events predicting that a patient would stop NSBB treatment. At randomization, the 559 NSBB users were more likely than the 629 nonusers to have a history of variceal bleeding but less likely to have Child-Pugh class C cirrhosis, hyponatremia, or refractory ascites. The 52-week cumulative all-cause mortality was similar in the NSBB user and nonuser groups (23.2% versus 25.3%, adjusted hazard ratio = 0.92, 95% confidence interval 0.72-1.18), and NSBBs also did not increase mortality in the subgroup of patients with refractory ascites (588 patients, adjusted hazard ratio = 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.74-1.40) or in any other subgroup. Similarly, NSBBs did not increase cirrhosis-related mortality (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.00, 95% confidence interval 0.76-1.31). During follow-up, 29% of initial NSBB users stopped taking NSBBs, and the decision to stop NSBB treatment marked a sharp rise in mortality and coincided with hospitalization, variceal bleeding, bacterial infection, and/or development of hepatorenal syndrome.

CONCLUSION

This large and detailed data set on worldwide nonprotocol use of NSBBs in cirrhosis patients with ascites shows that NSBBs did not increase mortality; the decision to stop NSBB treatment in relation to stressful events may have added to the safety. (Hepatology 2016;63:1968-1976).

The use of beta-blockers is associated with the occurrence of acute kidney injury in severe alcoholic hepatitis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The beneficial effect of nonselective beta-blockers (NSBB) has recently been questioned in patients with end-stage cirrhosis. We analysed the impact of NSBB on outcomes in severe alcoholic hepatitis (AH).

METHODS

This study was based on a prospective database of patients with severe, biopsy-proven AH. Patients admitted from July, 2006 to July, 2014 were retrospectively studied. Patients were divided into two groups (with and without NSBB) and assessed for the occurrence of Acute Kidney Injury (AKI) and transplant-free mortality during a 168-day follow-up period.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-nine patients were included, the mean Maddrey score was 71 ± 34 and 86 patients (61.9%) developed AKI. Forty-eight patients (34.5%) received NSBB. The overall 168-day transplant-free mortality was 50.5% (95%CI, 41.3-60.0%). The overall 168-day cumulative incidence of AKI was 61.9% (95%CI, 53.2-69.4%). When compared, patients with NSBB had a lower heart rate (65 ± 13 vs 92 ± 12, P < 0.0001) and a lower mean arterial pressure (MAP, 78 ± 3 vs 87 ± 5, P < 0.0001). Patients with NSBB had comparable MELD scores, Maddrey scores, and medical histories. The 168-day transplant-free mortality was 56.8% (95%CI, 41.3-69.7%) in patients with NSBB and 46.7% (95%CI, 35.0-57.6%) without NSBB (P = 0.25). The 168-day cumulative incidence of AKI was 89.6% (95%CI, 74.9-95.9%) with NSBB compared to 50.4% (95%CI: 39.0-60.7) for no NSBB (P = 0.0001). The independent factors predicting AKI were a higher MELD score and the presence of NSBB.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of NSBB in patients with severe AH is independently associated with a higher cumulative incidence of AKI.

Future treatments of cirrhosis

Cirrhosis can be sub-classified in clinical stages with distinct differences in prognosis and can even be reversed in some cases with successful etiological treatment. In this article, we review potential future therapies of cirrhosis, mainly focusing in the expansion of indications of currently licensed drugs. We strongly advocate that future therapies should focus on preventing the advent of complications and further progression of liver disease and should involve both primary and secondary care physicians. Such strategies could be based on the combination of currently licensed, relatively safe and inexpensive drugs and such randomized controlled trials should be prioritized in patients with advanced liver disease. The paradigm should be similar to that of prevention in cardiovascular diseases and long-term follow-up trials are needed.

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.

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.

New therapeutic paradigm for patients with cirrhosis

Cirrhosis is a major health problem, being the 5th cause of death in the U.K. and 12th in the U.S., but 4th in the 45 to 54 age group. Until recently cirrhosis was considered a single and terminal disease stage, with an inevitably poor prognosis. However, it is now clear that 1-year mortality can range from 1% in early cirrhosis to 57% in decompensated disease. As the only treatment for advanced cirrhosis is liver transplantation, what is urgently needed is strategies to prevent transition to decompensated stages. The evidence we present in this review clearly demonstrates that management of patients with cirrhosis should change from an expectant algorithm that treats complications as they occur, to preventing the advent of all complications while in the compensated phase. This requires maintaining patients in an asymptomatic phase and not significantly affecting their quality of life with minimal impairment due to the therapies themselves. This could be achieved with lifestyle changes and combinations of already licensed and low-cost drugs, similar to the paradigm of treating risk factors for cardiovascular disease. The drugs are propranolol, simvastatin, norfloxacin, and warfarin, which in combination would cost £128/patient annually-equivalent to U.S. $196/year. This treatment strategy requires randomized controlled trials to establish improvements in outcomes. In the 21st century, cirrhosis should be regarded as a potentially treatable disease with currently available and inexpensive therapies.

Quantitative histological-hemodynamic correlations in cirrhosis

We have previously shown, in a semiquantitative analysis of liver biopsies showing cirrhosis, that thickness of fibrous septa separating cirrhotic nodules and small size of cirrhotic nodules correlated independently with portal pressure (as determined by the hepatic venous pressure gradient; HVPG) and were independent predictors of the presence of clinically significant portal hypertension (PH). This study aimed to confirm these results using quantitative analysis of these biopsies using digital image analysis. Biopsies of 42 patients with cirrhosis and HVPG measurements within 6 months of the biopsy were included in the study. The following parameters were scored quantitatively and without knowledge of HVPG results: total fibrosis area, septal thickness, nodule size, and number of nodules per millimeter of length of liver biopsy. Fibrosis area was the only parameter that independently correlated with HVPG (r = 0.606; P < 0.0001). Correlation was significant, even among patients with clinically significant PH (r = 0.636; P < 0.005). Fibrosis area and nodule size were both independently predictive of the presence of clinically significant PH (r = 0.57; P = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

On quantitative analysis, fibrosis area was the parameter that correlated best with HVPG and the presence of clinically significant PH. Beyond pathophysiological implications, this also has methodological implications that are discussed in this article.

Treatment of portal hypertension

Portal hypertension is the main complication of cirrhosis and is defined as an hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) of more than 5 mmHg. Clinically significant portal hypertension is defined as HVPG of 10 mmHg or more. Development of gastroesophageal varices and variceal hemorrhage are the most direct consequence of portal hypertension. Over the last decades significant advancements in the field have led to standard treatment options. These clinical recommendations have evolved mostly as a result of randomized controlled trials and consensus conferences among experts where existing evidence has been reviewed and future goals for research and practice guidelines have been proposed. Management of varices/variceal hemorrhage is based on the clinical stage of portal hypertension. No specific treatment has shown to prevent the formation of varices. Prevention of first variceal hemorrhage depends on the size/characteristics of varices. In patients with small varices and high risk of bleeding, non-selective β-blockers are recommended, while patients with medium/large varices can be treated with either β-blockers or esophageal band ligation. Standard of care for acute variceal hemorrhage consists of vasoactive drugs, endoscopic band ligation and antibiotics prophylaxis. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is reserved for those who fail standard of care or for patients who are likely to fail (“early TIPS”). Prevention of recurrent variceal hemorrhage consists of the combination of β-blockers and endoscopic band ligation.

Managing varices: drugs, bands, and shunts

Drugs, bands, and shunts have all been used in the treatment of varices and variceal hemorrhage and have resulted in improved outcomes. However, the specific use of each of these therapies depends on the setting (primary or secondary prophylaxis, treatment of AVH) and on patient characteristics. The indications for each are summarized in Table 4.