Hemodynamic effects of the angiotensin II receptor antagonist irbesartan in patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension

The Renin-Angiotensin System in Liver Disease

The renin-angiotensin system (RAS) is a complex homeostatic entity with multiorgan systemic and local effects. Traditionally, RAS works in conjunction with the kidney to control effective arterial circulation, systemic vascular resistance, and electrolyte balance. However, chronic hepatic injury and resulting splanchnic dilation may disrupt this delicate balance. The role of RAS in liver disease, however, is even more extensive, modulating hepatic fibrosis and portal hypertension. Recognition of an alternative RAS pathway in the past few decades has changed our understanding of RAS in liver disease, and the concept of opposing vs. "rebalanced" forces is an ongoing focus of research. Whether RAS inhibition is beneficial in patients with chronic liver disease appears to be context-dependent, but further study is needed to optimize clinical management and reduce organ-specific morbidity and mortality. This review presents the current understanding of RAS in liver disease, acknowledges areas of uncertainty, and describes potential areas of future investigation.

Dual angiotensin receptor and neprilysin inhibitor reduced portal pressure through peripheral vasodilatation and decreasing systemic arterial pressure in cirrhotic rats

BACKGROUND

Portal hypertension develops along with the progression of liver cirrhosis. Natriuretic peptides have been shown to reduce portal pressure but concomitantly activate the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS). Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs) upregulate natriuretic peptides and avoid the adverse effects of RAAS activation. ARNIs have been shown to reduce portal pressure in rats with pre-hepatic portal hypertension, which involves relatively little liver injury. This study aimed to evaluate the relevant effects of an ARNI in rats with both liver cirrhosis and portal hypertension.

METHODS

Male Sprague-Dawley rats received common bile duct ligation to induce liver cirrhosis and portal hypertension. Sham-operated rats served as surgical controls. All rats were randomly allocated into three groups to receive distilled water (vehicle), LCZ696 (an ARNI), or valsartan for 4 weeks. Portal hypertension and relevant derangements were assessed after treatment.

RESULTS

Portal hypertension and hyperdynamic circulation developed in the cirrhotic rats. In the rats with cirrhosis and portal hypertension, both LCZ696 and valsartan reduced portal hypertension, mean arterial pressure, and systemic vascular resistance. The decrease in portal pressure was highly associated with the reduction in arterial pressure and systemic vascular resistance. Blood flow in hepatic, splanchnic, and portosystemic collateral systems was not altered. LCZ696 did not significantly influence liver injury or plasma cytokine levels. Liver fibrosis and splanchnic angiogenesis were not affected.

CONCLUSION

ARNI treatment exerted portal pressure lowering effects via peripheral vasodilatation and decreasing systemic arterial pressure in the rats with liver cirrhosis and portal hypertension. Caution should be taken when using ARNIs in liver cirrhosis.

The systemic and hepatic alternative renin-angiotensin system is activated in liver cirrhosis, linked to endothelial dysfunction and inflammation

We aimed to assess the systemic and hepatic renin-angiotensin-system (RAS) fingerprint in advanced chronic liver disease (ACLD). This prospective study included 13 compensated (cACLD) and 12 decompensated ACLD (dACLD) patients undergoing hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) measurement. Plasma components (all patients) and liver-local enzymes (n = 5) of the RAS were analyzed using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Patients with dACLD had significantly higher angiotensin (Ang) I, Ang II and aldosterone plasma levels. Ang 1-7, a major mediator of the alternative RAS, was almost exclusively detectable in dACLD (n = 12/13; vs. n = 1/13 in cACLD). Also, dACLD patients had higher Ang 1-5 (33.5 pmol/L versus cACLD: 6.6 pmol/L, p < 0.001) and numerically higher Ang III and Ang IV levels. Ang 1-7 correlated with HVPG (ρ = 0.655; p < 0.001), von Willebrand Factor (ρ = 0.681; p < 0.001), MELD (ρ = 0.593; p = 0.002) and interleukin-6 (ρ = 0.418; p = 0.047). Considerable activity of ACE, chymase, ACE2, and neprilysin was detectable in all liver biopsies, with highest chymase and ACE2 activity in cACLD patients. While liver-local classical and alternative RAS activity was already observed in cACLD, systemic activation of alternative RAS components occurred only in dACLD. Increased Ang 1-7 was linked to severe liver disease, portal hypertension, endothelial dysfunction and inflammation.

Evolution of care in cirrhosis: Preventing hepatic decompensation through pharmacotherapy

Cirrhosis is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality, impacting more than 120 million people worldwide. Although geographic differences exist, etiologic factors such as alcohol use disorder, chronic viral hepatitis infections, and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease are prevalent in nearly every region. Historically, significant effort has been devoted to modifying these risks to prevent disease progression. Nevertheless, more than 11% of patients with compensated cirrhosis experience hepatic decompensation each year. This transition signifies the most important prognostic factor in the natural history of the disease, corresponding to a decline in median survival to below 2 years. Over the past decade, the need for pharmacotherapies aimed at reducing the risk for hepatic decompensation has been emphasized, and non-selective beta-blockers have emerged as the most effective option to date. However, a critical therapeutic gap still exists, and additional therapies have been proposed, including statins, rifaximin, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. Based on the results of innovative retrospective analyses and small-scale prospective trials, these pharmacotherapies represent promising options, but further studies, including randomized controlled trials, are necessary before they can be incorporated into clinical use. This report highlights the potential impact of these agents and others in preventing hepatic decompensation and discusses how this paradigm shift may pave the way for guideline-directed medical therapy in cirrhosis.

Test-Retest Reliability and Consistency of HVPG and Impact on Trial Design: A Study in 289 Patients from 20 Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Portal hypertension (PH) is a major driver for cirrhosis complications. Portal pressure is estimated in practice by the HVPG. The assessment of HVPG changes has been used for drug development in PH. This study aimed at quantifying the test-retest reliability and consistency of HVPG in the specific context of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for the treatment of PH in cirrhosis and its impact on power calculations for trial design.

APPROACH AND RESULTS

We conducted a search of published RCTs in patients with cirrhosis reporting individual patient-level data of HVPG at baseline and after an intervention, which included a placebo or an untreated control arm. Baseline and follow-up HVPGs in the control groups were extracted after digitizing the plots. We assessed reliability and consistency and the potential impact of study characteristics. We retrieved a total of 289 before and after HVPG measurements in the placebo/untreated groups from 20 RCTs. The time span between the two HVPG measurements ranged between 20 minutes and 730 days. Pre-/post-HVPG variability was lower in studies including only compensated patients; therefore, modeled sample size calculations for trials in compensated cirrhosis were lower than for decompensated cirrhosis. A higher proportion of alcohol-associated cirrhosis and unicentric trials was associated with lower differences between baseline and follow-up measurements. The smallest detectable difference in an individual was 26% and 30% in compensated and decompensated patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The test-retest reliability of HVPG is overall excellent. Within-individual variance was higher in studies including higher proportions of decompensated patients. These findings should be taken into account when performing power analysis for trials based on the effects on HVPG or when considering HVPG as a tool to guide therapy of PH.

Bile Acids, Liver Cirrhosis, and Extrahepatic Vascular Dysfunction

The bile acid pool with its individual bile acids (BA) is modulated in the enterohepatic circulation by the liver as the primary site of synthesis, the motility of the gallbladder and of the intestinal tract, as well as by bacterial enzymes in the intestine. The nuclear receptor farnesoid X receptor (FXR) and Gpbar1 (TGR5) are important set screws in this process. Bile acids have a vasodilatory effect, at least according to in vitro studies. The present review examines the question of the extent to which the increase in bile acids in plasma could be responsible for the hyperdynamic circulatory disturbance of liver cirrhosis and whether modulation of the bile acid pool, for example, via administration of ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) or via modulation of the dysbiosis present in liver cirrhosis could influence the hemodynamic disorder of liver cirrhosis. According to our analysis, the evidence for this is limited. Long-term studies on this question are lacking.

Primary prevention of variceal bleeding in people with oesophageal varices due to liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Approximately 40% to 95% of people with cirrhosis have oesophageal varices. About 15% to 20% of oesophageal varices bleed in about one to three years. There are several different treatments to prevent bleeding, including: beta-blockers, endoscopic sclerotherapy, and variceal band ligation. However, there is uncertainty surrounding their individual and relative benefits and harms.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of different treatments for prevention of first variceal bleeding from oesophageal varices in adults with liver cirrhosis through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the different treatments for prevention of first variceal bleeding from oesophageal varices according to their safety and efficacy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers to December 2019 to identify randomised clinical trials in people with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices with no history of bleeding.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices with no history of bleeding. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had previous bleeding from oesophageal varices and those who had previously undergone liver transplantation or previously received prophylactic treatment for oesophageal varices.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and calculated the differences in treatments using hazard ratios (HR), odds ratios (OR), and rate ratios with 95% credible intervals (CrI) based on an available-case analysis, according to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance. We performed the direct comparisons from randomised clinical trials using the same codes and the same technical details.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 66 randomised clinical trials (6653 participants) in the review. Sixty trials (6212 participants) provided data for one or more comparisons in the review. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies and those at high risk of bleeding from oesophageal varices. The follow-up in the trials that reported outcomes ranged from 6 months to 60 months. All but one of the trials were at high risk of bias. The interventions compared included beta-blockers, no active intervention, variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy, beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus nitrates, nitrates, beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy, and portocaval shunt. Overall, 21.2% of participants who received non-selective beta-blockers ('beta-blockers') - the reference treatment (chosen because this was the most common treatment compared in the trials) - died during 8-month to 60-month follow-up. Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers, variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy, and beta-blockers plus nitrates all had lower mortality versus no active intervention (beta-blockers: HR 0.49, 95% CrI 0.36 to 0.67; direct comparison HR: 0.59, 95% CrI 0.42 to 0.83; 10 trials, 1200 participants; variceal band ligation: HR 0.51, 95% CrI 0.35 to 0.74; direct comparison HR 0.49, 95% CrI 0.12 to 2.14; 3 trials, 355 participants; sclerotherapy: HR 0.66, 95% CrI 0.51 to 0.85; direct comparison HR 0.61, 95% CrI 0.41 to 0.90; 18 trials, 1666 participants; beta-blockers plus nitrates: HR 0.41, 95% CrI 0.20 to 0.85; no direct comparison). No trials reported health-related quality of life. Based on low-certainty evidence, variceal band ligation had a higher number of serious adverse events (number of events) than beta-blockers (rate ratio 10.49, 95% CrI 2.83 to 60.64; 1 trial, 168 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers plus nitrates had a higher number of 'any adverse events (number of participants)' than beta-blockers alone (OR 3.41, 95% CrI 1.11 to 11.28; 1 trial, 57 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, adverse events (number of events) were higher in sclerotherapy than in beta-blockers (rate ratio 2.49, 95% CrI 1.53 to 4.22; direct comparison rate ratio 2.47, 95% CrI 1.27 to 5.06; 2 trials, 90 participants), and in beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation than in beta-blockers (direct comparison rate ratio 1.72, 95% CrI 1.08 to 2.76; 1 trial, 140 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, any variceal bleed was lower in beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation than in beta-blockers (direct comparison HR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.04 to 0.71; 1 trial, 173 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, any variceal bleed was higher in nitrates than beta-blockers (direct comparison HR 6.40, 95% CrI 1.58 to 47.42; 1 trial, 52 participants). The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in the remaining comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers, variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy, and beta-blockers plus nitrates may decrease mortality compared to no intervention in people with high-risk oesophageal varices in people with cirrhosis and no previous history of bleeding. Based on low-certainty evidence, variceal band ligation may result in a higher number of serious adverse events than beta-blockers. The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of beta-blockers versus variceal band ligation on variceal bleeding. The evidence also indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in most of the remaining comparisons.

Secondary prevention of variceal bleeding in adults with previous oesophageal variceal bleeding due to decompensated liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Approximately 40% to 95% of people with cirrhosis have oesophageal varices. About 15% to 20% of oesophageal varices bleed in about one to three years of diagnosis. Several different treatments are available, which include endoscopic sclerotherapy, variceal band ligation, beta-blockers, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), and surgical portocaval shunts, among others. However, there is uncertainty surrounding their individual and relative benefits and harms.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of different initial treatments for secondary prevention of variceal bleeding in adults with previous oesophageal variceal bleeding due to decompensated liver cirrhosis through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the different treatments for secondary prevention according to their safety and efficacy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers until December 2019 to identify randomised clinical trials in people with cirrhosis and a previous history of bleeding from oesophageal varices.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and previous history of bleeding from oesophageal varices. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had no previous history of bleeding from oesophageal varices, previous history of bleeding only from gastric varices, those who failed previous treatment (refractory bleeding), those who had acute bleeding at the time of treatment, and those who had previously undergone liver transplantation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and calculated the differences in treatments using hazard ratios (HR), odds ratios (OR) and rate ratios with 95% credible intervals (CrI) based on an available-case analysis, according to National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 48 randomised clinical trials (3526 participants) in the review. Forty-six trials (3442 participants) were included in one or more comparisons. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies. The follow-up ranged from two months to 61 months. All the trials were at high risk of bias. A total of 12 interventions were compared in these trials (sclerotherapy, beta-blockers, variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy, no active intervention, TIPS (transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt), beta-blockers plus nitrates, portocaval shunt, sclerotherapy plus variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus nitrates plus variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy plus nitrates). Overall, 22.5% of the trial participants who received the reference treatment (chosen because this was the commonest treatment compared in the trials) of sclerotherapy died during the follow-up period ranging from two months to 61 months. There was considerable uncertainty in the effects of interventions on mortality. Accordingly, none of the interventions showed superiority over another. None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. Based on low-certainty evidence, variceal band ligation may result in fewer serious adverse events (number of people) than sclerotherapy (OR 0.19; 95% CrI 0.06 to 0.54; 1 trial; 100 participants). Based on low or very low-certainty evidence, the adverse events (number of participants) and adverse events (number of events) may be different across many comparisons; however, these differences are due to very small trials at high risk of bias showing large differences in some comparisons leading to many differences despite absence of direct evidence. Based on low-certainty evidence, TIPS may result in large decrease in symptomatic rebleed than variceal band ligation (HR 0.12; 95% CrI 0.03 to 0.41; 1 trial; 58 participants). Based on moderate-certainty evidence, any variceal rebleed was probably lower in sclerotherapy than in no active intervention (HR 0.62; 95% CrI 0.35 to 0.99, direct comparison HR 0.66; 95% CrI 0.11 to 3.13; 3 trials; 296 participants), beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy than sclerotherapy alone (HR 0.60; 95% CrI 0.37 to 0.95; direct comparison HR 0.50; 95% CrI 0.07 to 2.96; 4 trials; 231 participants); TIPS than sclerotherapy (HR 0.18; 95% CrI 0.08 to 0.38; direct comparison HR 0.22; 95% CrI 0.01 to 7.51; 2 trials; 109 participants), and in portocaval shunt than sclerotherapy (HR 0.21; 95% CrI 0.05 to 0.77; no direct comparison) groups. Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers alone and TIPS might result in more, other compensation, events than sclerotherapy (rate ratio 2.37; 95% CrI 1.35 to 4.67; 1 trial; 65 participants and rate ratio 2.30; 95% CrI 1.20 to 4.65; 2 trials; 109 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions including those related to beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation in the remaining comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions on mortality. Variceal band ligation might result in fewer serious adverse events than sclerotherapy. TIPS might result in a large decrease in symptomatic rebleed than variceal band ligation. Sclerotherapy probably results in fewer 'any' variceal rebleeding than no active intervention. Beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy and TIPS probably result in fewer 'any' variceal rebleeding than sclerotherapy. Beta-blockers alone and TIPS might result in more other compensation events than sclerotherapy. The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in the remaining comparisons. Accordingly, high-quality randomised comparative clinical trials are needed.

Update on New Aspects of the Renin-Angiotensin System in Hepatic Fibrosis and Portal Hypertension: Implications for Novel Therapeutic Options

There is considerable experimental evidence that the renin angiotensin system (RAS) plays a central role in both hepatic fibrogenesis and portal hypertension. Angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE), a key enzyme of the classical RAS, converts angiotensin I (Ang I) to angiotensin II (Ang II), which acts via the Ang II type 1 receptor (AT1R) to stimulate hepatic fibrosis and increase intrahepatic vascular tone and portal pressure. Inhibitors of the classical RAS, drugs which are widely used in clinical practice in patients with hypertension, have been shown to inhibit liver fibrosis in animal models but their efficacy in human liver disease is yet to be tested in adequately powered clinical trials. Small trials in cirrhotic patients have demonstrated that these drugs may lower portal pressure but produce off-target complications such as systemic hypotension and renal failure. More recently, the alternate RAS, comprising its key enzyme, ACE2, the effector peptide angiotensin-(1–7) (Ang-(1–7)) which mediates its effects via the putative receptor Mas (MasR), has also been implicated in the pathogenesis of liver fibrosis and portal hypertension. This system is activated in both preclinical animal models and human chronic liver disease and it is now well established that the alternate RAS counter-regulates many of the deleterious effects of the ACE-dependent classical RAS. Work from our laboratory has demonstrated that liver-specific ACE2 overexpression reduces hepatic fibrosis and liver perfusion pressure without producing off-target effects. In addition, recent studies suggest that the blockers of the receptors of alternate RAS, such as the MasR and Mas related G protein-coupled receptor type-D (MrgD), increase splanchnic vascular resistance in cirrhotic animals, and thus drugs targeting the alternate RAS may be useful in the treatment of portal hypertension. This review outlines the role of the RAS in liver fibrosis and portal hypertension with a special emphasis on the possible new therapeutic approaches targeting the ACE2-driven alternate RAS.

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.

Pathways of hepatic and renal damage through non-classical activation of the renin-angiotensin system in chronic liver disease

In liver cirrhosis, renin-angiotensin system (RAS) activation sustains renal sodium retention and hepatic fibrogenesis. New information has recently enlivened the traditional concept of RAS. For instance, renin and prorenin bind their ubiquitous receptors, resulting in the local production of angiotensin (Ang) II; increased serum calcium and calcimimetic agents, through stimulation of extracellular calcium-sensing receptors (CaSR), blunt renin production and lead to natriuretic effects in human and experimental cirrhosis. Alongside systemic production, there is Ang II tissue production within various organs through RAS enzymes different from angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE), that is chymase, tissue plasminogen activator and several cathepsins. In experimental cirrhosis, inhibition of chymase leads to natriuretic and hepatic antifibrotic effects, without changes in systemic haemodynamics. In the kidney, local RAS coordinates proximal and distal tubular sodium reabsorption. However, renalase, whose plasma and tissue levels are severely altered in experimental cirrhosis, degrades systemic and renal tubule catecholamines, antagonizing the effects of renal RAS. Angiotensinogen-derived natriuretic and vasodilating peptides (Ang1-9, Ang1-7, Ang3-8) and their receptors have been described. Receptor agonists or antagonists are available to affect portal hypertension and sodium retention in cirrhosis. ACE2-dependent generation of Ang1-7 may inhibit experimental liver fibrosis. inhibition of Ang1-7 clearance by means of neprilysin blockade has portal hypotensive and natriuretic effects. Ang1-12, whose production renin does not regulate, is converted to several different angiotensin peptides via chymase. Finally, Ang II behaves as either an antinatriuretic or a natriuretic agent, based on the tissue content of AT₁ R and AT₂ R receptors, their ratio being prone to pharmacological modulation.

Renal Effects of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Angiotensin Receptor Blockers in Patients with Liver Cirrhosis: A Nationwide Cohort Study

Background

The use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) carries a risk of renal function deterioration in cirrhotic patients with ascites. However, whether the long-term use of ACEis/ARBs is safe in cirrhotic patients without ascites remains unknown.

Methods

In this nationwide cohort study, we identified 311,361 newly diagnosed cirrhotic patients between January 1997 and December 2013. To avoid indication and immortal time biases, patients receiving regular ACEi/ARB therapy, defined as the ACEi/ARB cohort, were matched to patients receiving regular calcium channel blockers (CCBs), defined as the CCB cohort, at a ratio of 1 : 1 by age, sex, and propensity scores for comorbidities and medications (2,188 patients in each cohort). Cumulative incidence rates and multivariate analyses of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) risk were adjusted for competing mortality.

Results

The 10-year cumulative incidence rates of ESRD were 2.32% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.45–3.20) in the ACEi/ARB cohort and 1.70% (95% CI: 1.03–2.36) in the CCB cohort (P = 0.610). In multivariate analyses, ACEi/ARB use was not associated with a higher risk of ESRD in cirrhotic patients (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.15; 95% CI: 0.69–1.94, P = 0.591). In the sensitivity test, the 10-year cumulative incidence rates of ESRD in cirrhotic patients with ascites were 6.50% (95% CI: 0.54–12.46) and 1.24% (95% CI: 0.00–2.71) in ACEi/ARB and CCB cohorts, respectively (P = 0.090).

Conclusions

Long-term ACEi/ARB use was not associated with a higher risk of ESRD in cirrhotic patients. However, the risk of ESRD tended to increase in cirrhotic patients with ascites.

TGR(mREN2)27 rats develop non-alcoholic fatty liver disease-associated portal hypertension responsive to modulations of Janus-kinase 2 and Mas receptor

Prevalence of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is increasing. Resulting fibrosis and portal hypertension, as a possible secondary event, may necessitate treatment. Overexpression of mouse renin in the transgenic rat model, TGR(mREN2)27, leads to spontaneous development of NAFLD. Therefore, we used TGR(mREN2)27 rats as a model of NAFLD where we hypothesized increased susceptibility and investigated fibrosis and portal hypertension and associated pathways. 12-week old TGR(mREN2)27 rats received either cholestatic (BDL) or toxic injury (CCl₄ inhalation). Portal and systemic hemodynamic assessments were performed using microsphere technique with and without injection of the Janus-Kinase 2 (JAK2) inhibitor AG490 or the non-peptidic Ang(1-7) agonist, AVE0991. The extent of liver fibrosis was assessed in TGR(mREN2)27 and wild-type rats using standard techniques. Protein and mRNA levels of profibrotic, renin-angiotensin system components were assessed in liver and primary hepatic stellate cells (HSC) and hepatocytes. TGR(mREN2)27 rats developed spontaneous, but mild fibrosis and portal hypertension due to the activation of the JAK2/Arhgef1/ROCK pathway. AG490 decreased migration of HSC and portal pressure in isolated liver perfusions and in vivo. Fibrosis or portal hypertension after cholestatic (BDL) or toxic injury (CCl₄) was not aggravated in TGR(mREN2)27 rats, probably due to decreased mouse renin expression in hepatocytes. Interestingly, portal hypertension was even blunted in TGR(mREN2)27 rats (with or without additional injury) by AVE0991. TGR(mREN2)27 rats are a suitable model of spontaneous liver fibrosis and portal hypertension but not with increased susceptibility to liver damage. After additional injury, the animals can be used to evaluate novel therapeutic strategies targeting Mas.

Angiotensin II receptor blockers for the treatment of portal hypertension in patients with liver cirrhosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showed inconsistent results regarding the efficacy of angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) on portal pressure as indicated by hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG).

METHODS

A meta-analysis of RCTs was performed to evaluate the influence of ARBs treatment on HVPG. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane's Library were searched for relevant RCTs. A fixed or a randomized effect model was used to pool the results according the heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses were performed to explore the source of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Eleven RCTs with 394 patients were included. ARBs treatment did not significantly change HVPG as compared with controls (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.73 to 0.47 mmHg, p = 0.26; I2 = 60%). These results were consistent in studies comparing ARBs with propranolol (WMD = -0.40, 95% CI -2.22 to 1.41 mmHg, p = 0.67; I2 = 68%), and those comparing ARBs with non-active controls including placebo or no treatment (WMD = -1.05, 95% CI -2.33 to 0.24 mmHg, p = 0.13; I2 = 44%). These results were also not affected by the individual ARBs used. Moreover, treatment of ARBs significantly reduced mean arterial blood pressure (WMD = -6.12, 95% CI -9.69 to -2.55 mmHg, p = 0.008; I2 = 53%), and the risk of symptomatic hypotension was increased (RR = 4.13, 95% CI 0.94 to 18.18, p = 0.06; I2 = 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

ARBs did not reduce portal pressure in patients with cirrhosis; moreover, the risk of symptomatic hypotension may increase.

Role of the renin-angiotensin system in hepatic fibrosis and portal hypertension

The renin-angiotensin system (RAS) is an important regulator of cirrhosis and portal hypertension. As hepatic fibrosis progresses, levels of the RAS components angiotensin (Ang) II, Ang-(1-7), angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE), and Ang II type 1 receptor (AT1R) are increased. The primary effector Ang II regulates vasoconstriction, sodium homoeostasis, fibrosis, cell proliferation, and inflammation in various diseases, including liver cirrhosis, through the ACE/Ang II/AT1R axis in the classical RAS. The ACE2/Ang-(1-7)/Mas receptor and ACE2/Ang-(1-9)/AT2R axes make up the alternative RAS and promote vasodilation, antigrowth, proapoptotic, and anti-inflammatory effects; thus, countering the effects of the classical RAS axis to reduce hepatic fibrogenesis and portal hypertension. Patients with portal hypertension have been treated with RAS antagonists such as ACE inhibitors, Ang receptor blockers, and aldosterone antagonists, with very promising hemodynamic results. In this review, we examine the RAS, its roles in hepatic fibrosis and portal hypertension, and current therapeutic approaches based on the use of RAS antagonists in patients with portal hypertension.

[A case of circulatory collapse during laparoscopic hepatectomy]

We report a case of intractable circulatory failure event in a hypertensive patient during laparoscopy hepatectomy and analyze the diagnosis and treatment by multidisciplinary physicians. This case suggests that both surgeons and anesthesiologists should give attention to oral angiotensin II receptor antagonist during the preoperative period to avoid refractory hypotension. In addition, the use of EV1000 hemodynamic monitoring system in intensive care provides more convenience for clinical liquid management.

Hemodynamic effects of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone inhibitor and β-blocker combination therapy vs. β-blocker monotherapy for portal hypertension in cirrhosis: A meta-analysis

β-blockers are commonly used for the treatment of acute variceal bleeding in cirrhosis. Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone antagonists (angiotensin I-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers and aldosterone antagonists) are potential therapies for portal hypertension. Several studies have compared the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitor and β-blocker combination therapy vs. β-blocker monotherapy, with inconsistent results. The aim of the present study was to assess the efficacy of the RAAS inhibitor and β-blocker combination therapy vs. β-blocker monotherapy for hepatic vein pressure gradient (HVPG) reduction in cirrhosis. Studies were obtained using PubMed, Embase, Medline and Cochrane library databases up to July 2015, and the weighted mean difference (WMD) in HVPG reduction was used as a measure of treatment efficacy. In total, three studies (91 patients) were included. When compared to the β-blocker monotherapy, the RAAS inhibitor and β-blocker combination therapy resulted in a significant HVPG reduction [WMD 1.70; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.52-2.88]. However, there was no significant difference in the heart rate reduction between the monotherapy and combination therapy groups (WMD -0.11; 95% CI: -3.51-3.29). In addition, no significant difference in the hemodynamic response was observed between the two groups (WMD 1.46; 95% CI: 0.93-2.30). In conclusion, the RAAS inhibitor and β-blocker combination therapy reduces portal hypertension significantly and to a greater extent than β-blocker monotherapy. Both therapies reduced the heart rate to similar levels; however, the RAAS inhibitor and β-blocker combination therapy reduced the mean arterial pressure to a greater extent. Due to the limited number of studies included, the data available do not allow a satisfactory comparison of adverse events. Moreover, further larger-scale trials are required in order to strengthen the results of the present study.

Role of Chymase in the Development of Liver Cirrhosis and Its Complications: Experimental and Human Data

Background

Tissue Angiotensin II (Ang-II), produced through local non ACE-dependent pathways, stimulates liver fibrogenesis, renal vasoconstriction and sodium retention.

Aim

To highlight chymase-dependent pathway of Ang-II production in liver and kidney during cirrhosis development.

Methods

Liver histology, portal pressure, liver and kidney function, and hormonal status were investigated in rat liver cirrhosis induced through 13 weeks of CCl₄, with or without chymase inhibitor SF2809E, administered between 4^th and 13^th CCl₄ weeks; liver and kidney chymase immunolocation and Ang-II content were assessed. Chymase immunohistochemistry was also assessed in normal and cirrhotic human liver, and chymase mRNA transcripts were measured in human HepG2 cells and activated hepatic stellate cells (HSC/MFs) in vitro.

Results

Rats receiving both CCl₄ and SF2809E showed liver fibrotic septa focally linking portal tracts but no cirrhosis, as compared to ascitic cirrhotic rats receiving CCl₄. SF2809E reduced portal pressure, plasma bilirubin, tissue content of Ang-II, plasma renin activity, norepinephrine and vasopressin, and increased glomerular filtration rate, water clearance, urinary sodium excretion. Chymase tissue content was increased and detected in α-SMA-positive liver myofibroblasts and in kidney tubular cells of cirrhotic rats. In human cirrhosis, chymase was located in hepatocytes of regenerative nodules. Human HepG2 cells and HSC/MFs responded to TGF-β1 by up-regulating chymase mRNA transcription.

Conclusions

Chymase, through synthesis of Ang-II and other mediators, plays a role in the derangement of liver and kidney function in chronic liver diseases. In human cirrhosis, chymase is well-represented and apt to become a future target of pharmacological treatment.

Recent advances in the diagnosis and management of cirrhosis-associated cardiomyopathy in liver transplant candidates: advanced echo imaging, cardiac biomarkers, and advanced heart failure therapies

Patients with end-stage liver disease in need of liver transplantation increasingly are older with a greater burden of cardiac disease and other co-morbidities, which may increase perioperative risk and adversely affect long-term prognosis. Cirrhosis of any etiology manifests hemodynamically as a state of low systemic vascular resistance, with high peripheral, but low central blood volume, leading to a state of neurohormonal activation and high cardiac output, which may adversely affect cardiac reserve under extreme perioperative stress, aptly termed cirrhosis-associated or cirrhotic cardiomyopathy. Evidence of asymptomatic cirrhotic cardiomyopathy may be found in subtle electrocardiographic and echocardiographic changes, but may progress to severe heart failure under the demands of bleeding and transfusions, vasopressors, rebounding peripheral vascular resistance, withdrawal of cardioprotective beta-blockers and mineralocorticoid antagonists, exacerbated by sepsis or systemic inflammatory response syndrome. This review will add to the current body of literature on cirrhotic cardiomyopathy by focusing on the role of advanced echocardiographic imaging techniques, cardiac biomarkers, and advanced heart failure therapies available to manage patients with cirrhotic cardiomyopathy while waiting for liver transplant and during the perioperative period.

Effects of candesartan and propranolol combination therapy versus propranolol monotherapy in reducing portal hypertension

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) inhibit activated hepatic stellate cell contraction and are thought to reduce the dynamic portion of intrahepatic resistance. This study compared the effects of combined treatment using the ARB candesartan and propranolol versus propranolol monotherapy on portal pressure in patients with cirrhosis in a prospective, randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

Between January 2008 and July 2009, 53 cirrhotic patients with clinically significant portal hypertension were randomized to receive either candesartan and propranolol combination therapy (26 patients) or propranolol monotherapy (27 patients). Before and 3 months after the administration of the planned medication, the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) was assessed in both groups. The dose of propranolol was subsequently increased from 20 mg bid until the target heart rate was reached, and the candesartan dose was fixed at 8 mg qd. The primary endpoint was the HVPG response rate; patients with an HVPG reduction of >20% of the baseline value or to <12 mmHg were defined as responders.

RESULTS

The mean portal pressure declined significantly in both groups, from 16 mmHg (range, 12-28 mmHg) to 13.5 mmHg (range, 6-20 mmHg) in the combination group (P<0.05), and from 17 mmHg (range, 12-27 mmHg) to 14 mmHg (range, 7-25 mmHg) in the propranolol monotherapy group (P<0.05). However, the medication-induced pressure reduction did not differ significantly between the two groups [3.5 mmHg (range, -3-11 mmHg) vs. 3 mmHg (range, -8-10 mmHg), P = 0.674]. The response rate (55.6% vs. 61.5%, P = 0.435) and the reductions in mean blood pressure or heart rate also did not differ significantly between the combination and monotherapy groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of candesartan (an ARB) to propranolol confers no benefit relative to classical propranolol monotherapy for the treatment of portal hypertension, and is thus not recommended.

Future therapy of portal hypertension in liver cirrhosis - a guess

In patients with chronic liver disease, portal hypertension is driven by progressive fibrosis and intrahepatic vasoconstriction. Interruption of the initiating and perpetuating etiology—mostly leading to necroinflammation—is possible for several underlying causes, such as autoimmune hepatitis, hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, and most recently hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. Thus, in the long run, lifestyle-related liver damage due to chronic alcoholism or morbid obesity will remain the main factor leading to portal hypertension. Both causes are probably more easily countered by socioeconomic measures than by individual approaches. If chronic liver injury supporting fibrogenesis and portal hypertension cannot be interrupted, a wide variety of tools are available to modulate and reduce intrahepatic resistance and therewith portal hypertension. Many of these have been evaluated in animal models. Also, some well-established drugs, which are used in humans for other indications (for example, statins), are promising if applied early and concomitantly to standard therapy. In the future, more individually tailored strategies must also be considered in line with the spectrum of portal hypertensive complications and risk factors defined by high-throughput analysis of the patient’s genome, transcriptome, metabolome, or microbiome.

Primary prevention of variceal bleeding: pharmacological therapy versus endoscopic banding

Variceal bleeding is one of the most feared complications in patients with liver cirrhosis. It continues to be a leading cause of death among patients with liver cirrhosis. Although its prognosis has improved over the last several decades, it still carries substantial mortality. Preventing variceal bleeding has been extensively studied and evaluated in several studies in the recent years and the comparison between the different modalities available to prevent variceal bleeding has been an area of discussion. Currently the two most widely used modalities to prevent variceal bleeding are pharmacologic (non-selective beta-blockers [NSBB]) and endoscopic (variceal band ligation [VBL]) which have replaced sclerotherapy in the recent years. In addition to NSBB and recent carvedilol, different other medications have been evaluated including isosorbide mononitrates, spironolactone and angiotensin blocking agents. Comparing the outcomes and adverse effects of these two modalities has been evaluated in different studies. Some studies have showed superiority of VBL until recently, when carvedilol has been included, however; overall mortality has been similar in most trials. Despite that, NSBB remain the first line treatment, as they are cheaper and relatively effective in preventing both esophageal and gastric bleeding. The following sections discuss the primary prevention of variceal bleeding with a focus on NSBB, carvedilol and VBL.

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.

Pre-primary and Primary Prophylaxis of Variceal Hemorrhage

Variceal hemorrhage is a life-threatening complication of portal hypertension. Thus, prevention of variceal formation (pre-primary prophylaxis) or at least prevention of variceal bleeding are important goals to improve life quality and—if possible—survival of patients with liver cirrhosis. Interruption of the underlying cause of liver disease is the most successful approach, which, however, often fails. For this situation interruption or modulation of different pathophysiological mechanisms leading to fibrosis, hyperdynamic circulation and portal hypertension have been shown effective in animal models. But few could be translated to humans. By contrast, different steps to prevent first bleeding from varices have proven successful in many clinical trials. These applied mainly drugs to lower portal pressure, such as nonselective β-blockers, or endoscopic obliteration of varices, while prophylactic shunt procedures are not advised.

Activation of the MAS receptor by angiotensin-(1-7) in the renin-angiotensin system mediates mesenteric vasodilatation in cirrhosis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Splanchnic vascular hypocontractility with subsequent increased portal venous inflow leads to portal hypertension. Although the renin-angiotensin system contributes to fibrogenesis and increased hepatic resistance in patients with cirrhosis, little is known about its effects in the splanchnic vasculature, particularly those of the alternate system in which angiotensin (Ang) II is cleaved by the Ang-converting enzyme-2 (ACE2) to Ang-(1-7), which activates the G-protein-coupled Mas receptor (MasR). We investigated whether this system contributes to splanchnic vasodilatation and portal hypertension in cirrhosis.

METHODS

We measured levels of renin-angiotensin system messenger RNA and proteins in splanchnic vessels from patients and rats with cirrhosis. Production of Ang-(1-7) and splanchnic vascular reactivity to Ang-(1-7) was measured in perfused mesenteric vascular beds from rats after bile-duct ligation. Ang-(1-7) and MasR were blocked in rats with cirrhosis to examine splanchnic vascular hemodynamics and portal pressure response.

RESULTS

Levels of ACE2 and MasR were increased in splanchnic vessels from cirrhotic patients and rats compared with healthy controls. We also observed an ACE2-dependent increase in Ang-(1-7) production. Ang-(1-7) mediated splanchnic vascular hypocontractility in ex vivo splanchnic vessels from rats with cirrhosis (but not control rats) via MasR stimulation. Identical effects were observed in the splanchnic circulation in vivo. MasR blockade reduced portal pressure, indicating that activation of this receptor in splanchnic vasculature promotes portal inflow to contribute to development of portal hypertension. In addition, the splanchnic effects of MasR required nitric oxide. Interestingly, Ang-(1-7) also decreased hepatic resistance.

CONCLUSIONS

In the splanchnic vessels of patients and rats with cirrhosis, increased levels of ACE2 appear to increase production of Ang-(1-7), which leads to activation of MasR and splanchnic vasodilatation in rats. This mechanism could cause vascular hypocontractility in patients with cirrhosis, and might be a therapeutic target for portal hypertension.

Prevention and management of variceal hemorrhage

Variceal hemorrhage is a common and devastating complication of portal hypertension and is a leading cause of death in patients with cirrhosis. The management of gastroesophageal varices has evolved over the last decade resulting in improved mortality and morbidity rates. Regarding the primary prevention of variceal hemorrhaging, nonselective β -blockers should be the first-line therapy in all patients with medium to large varices and in patients with small varices associated with high-risk features such as red wale marks and/or advanced cirrhosis. EVL should be offered in cases of intolerance or side effects to β -blockers, or for patients at high-risk for variceal bleeding who have medium or large varices with red wale marks or advanced liver cirrhosis. In acute bleeding, vasoactive agents should be initiated along with antibiotics followed by EVL or endoscopic sclerotherapy (if EVL is technically difficult) within the first 12 hours of presentation. Where available, terlipressin is the preferred agent because of its safety profile and it represents the only drug with a proven efficacy in improving survival. All patients surviving an episode of bleeding should undergo further prophylaxis to prevent rebleeding with EVL and nonselective β -blockers.

Kidneys in chronic liver diseases

Acute kidney injury (AKI), defined as an abrupt increase in the serum creatinine level by at least 0.3 mg/dL, occurs in about 20% of patients hospitalized for decompensating liver cirrhosis. Patients with cirrhosis are susceptible to developing AKI because of the progressive vasodilatory state, reduced effective blood volume and stimulation of vasoconstrictor hormones. The most common causes of AKI in cirrhosis are pre-renal azotemia, hepatorenal syndrome and acute tubular necrosis. Differential diagnosis is based on analysis of circumstances of AKI development, natriuresis, urine osmolality, response to withdrawal of diuretics and volume repletion, and rarely on renal biopsy. Chronic glomerulonephritis and obstructive uropathy are rare causes of azotemia in cirrhotic patients. AKI is one of the last events in the natural history of chronic liver disease, therefore, such patients should have an expedited referral for liver transplantation. Hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) is initiated by progressive portal hypertension, and may be prematurely triggered by bacterial infections, nonbacterial systemic inflammatory reactions, excessive diuresis, gastrointestinal hemorrhage, diarrhea or nephrotoxic agents. Each type of renal disease has a specific treatment approach ranging from repletion of the vascular system to renal replacement therapy. The treatment of choice in type 1 hepatorenal syndrome is a combination of vasoconstrictor with albumin infusion, which is effective in about 50% of patients. The second-line treatment of HRS involves a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt, renal vasoprotection or systems of artificial liver support.

Aliskiren reduces portal pressure in portal hypertensive rats

BACKGROUND

Aliskiren is a direct renin inhibitor used in the treatment for arterial hypertension. It can also augment nitric oxide (NO) production, which plays a crucial role in the pathogenesis of portal hypertension and modulation of porto-systemic collaterals. This study investigated the effects of aliskiren on portal pressure and porto-systemic collaterals of portal vein-ligated (PVL) rats.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sham-operated and PVL rats received aliskiren (50 mg/kg per day) or distilled water (control) treatment for 10 days. The mean arterial pressure and portal pressure were measured by catheterization of the right femoral artery and mesenteric vein, while the superior mesenteric arterial blood flow was measured by Doppler technique. The left adrenal vein and superior mesentery artery were dissected for mRNA study. The PVL rats also underwent preincubation with (i) Krebs solution (control); (ii) 10(-4) M aliskiren; or (iii) 10(-4) M aliskiren plus nonselective NO inhibitor N(ω)-nitro-L-arginine (10(-4) M), followed by the addition of arginine vasopressin (AVP) to evaluate the collateral vascular responsiveness.

RESULTS

Aliskiren had systemic arterial pressure- and portal pressure-lowering effects in PVL rats. Superior mesentery arterial resistance also decreased. The constitutive NO synthase was enhanced in the left adrenal vein and superior mesentery artery after aliskiren treatment. Aliskiren attenuated the collateral vasoconstrictive effects of AVP, but the vasodilatory effects were abolished after nonselective NO synthase inhibition.

CONCLUSIONS

Chronic aliskiren use reduces portal pressure in portal hypertensive rats partly due to the modulation of splanchnic and collateral NO synthase.

Effects of 1-year administration of olmesartan on portal pressure and TGF-beta1 in selected patients with cirrhosis: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The renin-angiotensin system plays an important role in hepatic fibrosis and portal hypertension. We evaluated the long-term effects of olmesartan, an angiotensin type 1 (AT1) receptor blocker, on hemodynamics and liver fibrosis.

METHODS

Forty-eight selected patients with cirrhosis were randomly divided into two groups of 24 patients each, those who received and those who did not receive olmesartan treatment for 1 year. Hepatic hemodynamic studies, and measurements of transforming growth factor-beta1 (TGF-beta1) and blood markers of hepatic fibrosis, including serum hyaluronic acid (HA), type IV collagen, and procollagen III N-terminal propeptide levels, were also performed at the beginning and end of the study.

RESULTS

The median dose of the final drug administration was 20 mg (range 10-40 mg). Olmesartan reduced the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) by -12.9 ± 9.1% (p = 0.035) after 1 year. No significant changes were seen in controls. Six of the 24 patients (25%) in the olmesartan group showed a >20% reduction of HVPG from baseline values. TGF-beta1 was significantly decreased in patients who received olmesartan (7.0 ± 8.2 vs. 3.1 ± 1.6 ng/mL, p = 0.046) but there was no decrease in the controls. A significant trend was shown by correlating HA and TGF-beta1 variations in cirrhosis patients (p = 0.018, r = 0.377). Fibrosis markers were unchanged at the end of the study in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Olmesartan induced a mild reduction of portal pressure and TGF-beta1 for 1 year, but did not suppress hepatic fibrosis markers.

The effect of amlodipine besylate, losartan potassium, olmesartan medoxomil, and other antihypertensives on central aortic blood pressure and biomarkers of vascular function

Biomarkers are being increasingly used in the study of cardiovascular disease because they provide readily quantifiable surrogate endpoints and allow accurate assessment of the effects of therapy on particular pathological processes. However, in order to be useful, biomarkers must be relevant, predictable, accurate, and reproducible. There is compelling evidence from large-scale clinical trials that inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin system [angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin type II receptor blockers (ARBs)] and calcium channel blockers (CCBs) may have beneficial effects beyond blood pressure control in the treatment of hypertension. Biomarkers are expected to provide further insight into these beneficial effects and allow for quantitative assessment. This review summarizes the published clinical evidence on the effects of various antihypertensive drugs, particularly ARBs (e.g. losartan and olmesartan medoxomil) and CCBs (e.g. amlodipine), alone and in combination with other agents (e.g. hydrochlorothiazide), on central aortic pressure and the biomarkers high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), adiponectin, cystatin C, homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), procollagen, tumor necrosis factor-α, and interleukin-6. Of these biomarkers, the benefits of antihypertensive therapy on hsCRP, adiponectin, and HOMA-IR reflect a potential for quantifiable long-term vascular benefits.

Pathophysiology of portal hypertension and its clinical links

Portal hypertension is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with liver cirrhosis. Intrahepatic vascular resistance due to architectural distortion and intrahepatic vasoconstriction, increased portal blood flow due to splanchnic vasodilatation, and development of collateral circulation have been considered as major factors for the development of portal hypertension. Recently, sinusoidal remodeling and angiogenesis have been focused as potential etiologic factors and various researchers have tried to improve portal hypertension by modulating these new targets. This article reviews potential new treatments in the context of portal hypertension pathophysiology concepts.

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.

Angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists in the treatment of hypertension in elderly patients: focus on patient outcomes

Hypertension in the elderly is one of the main risk factors of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases. Knowledge regarding the mechanisms of hypertension and specific considerations in managing hypertensive elderly through pharmacological intervention(s) is fundamental to improving clinical outcomes. Recent clinical studies in the elderly have provided evidence that angiotensin II type 1 (AT(1)) receptor antagonists can improve clinical outcomes to a similar or, in certain populations, an even greater extent than other classical arterial blood pressure-lowering agents. This newer class of antihypertensive agents presents several benefits, including potential for improved adherence, excellent tolerability profile with minimal first-dose hypotension, and a low incidence of adverse effects. Thus, AT(1) receptor antagonists represent an appropriate option for many elderly patients with hypertension, type 2 diabetes, heart failure, and/or left ventricular dysfunction.

Clinical pharmacology of portal hypertension

Portal hypertension is an increase in pressure in the portal vein and its tributaries. It is defined as a portal pressure gradient (the difference in pressure between the portal vein and the hepatic veins) greater than 5 mm Hg. Although this gradient defines portal hypertension, a gradient of 10 mm Hg or greater defines clinically significant portal hypertension, because this pressure gradient predicts the development of varices, decompensation of cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma. The most direct consequence of portal hypertension is the development of gastroesophageal varices that may rupture and lead to the development of variceal hemorrhage. This article reviews the pathophysiologic bases of the different pharmacologic treatments for portal hypertension in patients with cirrhosis and places them in the context of the natural history of varices and variceal hemorrhage.

Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone inhibitors in the reduction of portal pressure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone antagonists [ACE inhibitors (ACEi), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), aldosterone antagonists (AA)] are potential therapies for portal hypertension. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of RAAS inhibitors in hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) reduction.

METHODS

We included full-text controlled trials in patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension. The primary outcome was mean change in HVPG between treatment and control. Two independent reviewers performed trial selection and quality assessment. An individual patient meta-analysis based on the data of three studies was performed.

RESULTS

From 193 citations, 19 controlled trials (n=678) were included. When compared to placebo, ARB/ACEi resulted in significant HVPG reduction. The best quality trials compared ARB/ACEi to beta-blockers (BB). Pooled individual patient data for three of four of these trials showed that BB decreased the HVPG more than ARB/ACEi. In patients with Child Pugh A cirrhosis, the HVPG reduction with ARB/ACEi (-17%; 95% CI: -28 to -6), was similar to that of BB (-21%; 95% CI: -32 to -9). Significant variation in the comparison groups of AA trials precluded pooling. There was no difference in adverse events in any group but selected studies noted adverse hemodynamic effects in decompensated patients on ARB/ACEi.

CONCLUSIONS

ARB/ACEi reduce portal pressure in patients with Child Pugh A cirrhosis without adverse events. The efficacy and safety in this group may be secondary to a targeted effect on the local hepatic RAAS system, as compared to decompensated patients who risk hypotension and renal insufficiency due to activation of the systemic RAAS. Further studies should determine the potential of these drugs as an alternative or adjunct to BB.

Role of endoscopy in primary prophylaxis for esophageal variceal bleeding

Cirrhosis is the leading cause of portal hypertension in the Western world. From a clinical standpoint, the most significant consequence of portal hypertension is the development of esophageal varices. Despite the many advances in the management of variceal bleeding, it remains a life-threatening complication of portal hypertension. Primary prophylaxis to prevent the first bleeding episode in patients with cirrhosis and esophageal varices is therefore critically important in the management of patients with cirrhosis.

Diagnosis and treatment of portal hypertension

Major progress has been made in the area of diagnosis and treatment of portal hypertension. Multi-detector row computed tomography (MD-CT) enabled the revelation of the precise overview of portal hemodynamics and was applied into the decision of therapeutic strategies. A noninvasive liver stiffness measurement device, transient elastography, is expected to be applied in the prediction of existence of esophageal varices. Balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (B-RTO) is performed mainly in Japan to eradiate the fundic varices and high eradiation rate and low recurrence rate are reported. Partial splenic embolization (PSE) has been performed to improve hypersplenism without serious side-effect and excellent result is reported. Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are promising drugs for its portal hypotensive effect and antifibrotic effect and more investigation is necessary. Anti-fibrotic therapy, including autologous bone marrow therapy, has the possibility to improve not only liver fibrosis but also portal hypertension.

Management and treatment of patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension: recommendations from the Department of Veterans Affairs Hepatitis C Resource Center Program and the National Hepatitis C Program

Cirrhosis represents the end stage of any chronic liver disease. Hepatitis C and alcohol are currently the main causes of cirrhosis in the United States. Although initially cirrhosis is compensated, it eventually becomes decompensated, as defined by the presence of ascites, variceal hemorrhage, encephalopathy, and/or jaundice. These management recommendations are divided according to the status, compensated or decompensated, of the cirrhotic patient, with a separate section for the screening, diagnosis, and management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), as this applies to patients with both compensated and decompensated cirrhosis. In the compensated patient, the main objective is to prevent variceal hemorrhage and any practice that could lead to decompensation. In the decompensated patient, acute variceal hemorrhage and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis are severe complications that require hospitalization. Hepatorenal syndrome is also a severe complication of cirrhosis but one that usually occurs in patients who are already in the hospital and, as it represents an extreme of the hemodynamic alterations that lead to ascites formation, it is placed under treatment of ascites. Recent advances in the pathophysiology of the complications of cirrhosis have allowed for a more rational management of cirrhosis and also for the stratification of patients into different risk groups that require different management. These recommendations are based on evidence in the literature, mainly from randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses of these trials. When few or no data exist from well-designed prospective trials, emphasis is given to results from large series and consensus conferences with involvement of recognized experts. A rational management of cirrhosis will result in improvements in quality of life, treatment adherence, and, ultimately, in outcomes.

Effect of valsartan on portal pressure and hepatic fibrosis in patients with hepatic cirrhosis

AIM: To observe the effects of valsartan on hemodynamic markers, CGRP, HA, CG and PAI-1 in patients with hepatic cirrhosis.

METHODS: Thirty-six patients with hepatic cirrhosis were divided into control group and observation group. Eighteen patients in control group received routine treatment for 1 month and eighteen patients in observation group received valsartan 80 mg/d based on routine treatment for the same time. Diameter of portal or splenic vein and their mean velocity were measured before and after treatment by color Doppler. Blood levels of calcitonin gene related peptide (CGRP), hyaluronic acid (HA), cholyglycine (CG) were simultaneously assessed by radioimmunoassay. Plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1) was measured by ELISA.

RESULTS: Valsartan reduced the diameter of portal or splenic vein and increased the mean velocity of portal or splenic vein.Valsartan also reduced the concentrations of CGRP, HA, CG and PAI-1 in blood (73.15 ± 14.59 vs 75.79 ± 15.06, 422.34 ± 183.94 vs 498.39 ± 197.53, 12.50 ± 8.92 vs 24.23 ± 13.05, 28.09 ± 10.80 vs 32.56 ± 11.18, all P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION: Valsartan can reduce portal hypertension and it may have the effect of anti-hepatic fibrosis.

Current and future anti-fibrotic therapies for chronic liver disease

Chronic injury results in a wound healing response that eventually leads to fibrosis. The response is generalized, with features common among multiple organ systems. In the liver, various different types of injury lead to fibrogenesis, implying a common pathogenesis. Although several specific therapies for patients who have different liver diseases have been successfully developed, including antiviral therapies for those who have hepatitis B and hepatitis C virus infection, specific and effective antifibrotic therapy remains elusive. Over the past 2 decades, great advances in the understanding of fibrosis have been made and multiple mechanisms underlying hepatic fibrogenesis uncovered. Elucidation of these mechanisms has been of fundamental importance in highlighting novel potential therapies. Preclinical studies have indicated several putative therapies that might abrogate fibrogenesis. This article emphasizes mechanisms underlying fibrogenesis and reviews available and future therapeutics.

Liver disease and the renin-angiotensin system: recent discoveries and clinical implications

The renin-angiotensin system (RAS) is a key regulator of vascular resistance, sodium and water homeostasis and the response to tissue injury. Historically, angiotensin II (Ang II) was thought to be the primary effector peptide of this system. Ang II is produced predominantly by the effect of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) on angiotensin I (Ang I). Ang II acts mainly through the angiotensin II type-1 receptor (AT(1)) and, together with ACE, these components represent the 'classical' axis of the RAS. Drug therapies targeting the RAS by inhibiting Ang II formation (ACE inhibitors) or binding to its receptor (angiotensin receptor blockers) are now in widespread clinical use and have been shown to reduce tissue injury and fibrosis in cardiac and renal disease independently of their effects on blood pressure. In 2000, two groups using different methodologies identified a homolog of ACE, called ACE2, which cleaves Ang II to form the biologically active heptapeptide, Ang-(1-7). Conceptually, ACE2, Ang-(1-7), and its putative receptor, the mas receptor represent an 'alternative' axis of the RAS capable of opposing the often deleterious actions of Ang II. Interestingly, ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers increase Ang-(1-7) production and it has been proposed that some of the beneficial effects of these drugs are mediated through upregulation of Ang-(1-7) rather than inhibition of Ang II production or receptor binding. The present review focuses on the novel components and pathways of the RAS with particular reference to their potential contribution towards the pathophysiology of liver disease.

Irbesartan plus low-dose propranolol versus low-dose propranolol alone in cirrhosis: a placebo-controlled, double-blind study

OBJECTIVES

Angiotensin II receptor antagonists have been shown to moderately lower portal pressure in some patients with cirrhosis but may have adverse effects on kidney function. This study aimed at comparing the effects of a combined treatment using irbesartan plus propranolol with propranolol monotherapy on portal pressure and kidney function in patients with cirrhosis.

METHODS

Thirty-two patients were included (Child A/B/C: 13/18/1, etiology: 16 alcohol, 13 viral, 3 other; bilirubin 1.4 +/- 1.1 mg/dL, creatinine 0.86 +/- 0.20 mg/dL, baseline hepatic venous pressure gradient 18.7 +/- 5.3 mmHg). All patients received 20 mg propranolol b.i.d. Additionally, they randomly received either placebo (N = 15) or irbesartan (step-up dosage titration up to 300 mg/d, N = 17). Patients were followed at weekly intervals, re-evaluation of hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) was performed after 8 wk.

RESULTS

One patient in the propranolol/irbesartan group was excluded due to variceal bleeding. No other adverse events occurred. Portal pressure declined in both groups (propranolol/irbesartan group 19.6 +/- 1.5 mmHg to 16.6 +/- 1.2 mmHg, P= 0.037, propranolol/placebo group 17.8 +/- 1.1 mmHg to 15.1 +/- 1.2 mmHg, P= 0.019). Sodium excretion significantly increased in the propranolol/irbesartan group (from 122 +/- 20 mmol/d to 230 +/- 23 mmol/d, P= 0.045), but not in the propranolol/placebo group.

CONCLUSIONS

Combination treatment of propranolol plus irbesartan is well tolerated in cirrhotic patients when titrating the angiotensin II antagonist in a step-up manner, and it increases sodium excretion in patients with compensated or moderately decompensated cirrhosis. Addition of irbesartan has no effect on portal pressure.

Portal hypertension and variceal hemorrhage

Portal hypertension, a major hallmark of cirrhosis, is defined as a portal pressure gradient exceeding 5 mm Hg. In portal hypertension, porto-systemic collaterals decompress the portal circulation and give rise to varices. Successful management of portal hypertension and its complications requires knowledge of the underlying pathophysiology, the pertinent anatomy, and the natural history of the collateral circulation, particularly the gastroesophageal varices.

Acute variceal bleeding: pharmacological treatment and primary/secondary prophylaxis

Variceal bleeding is one of the most severe complications of portal hypertension related to liver cirrhosis. Primary prophylaxis is considered mandatory in patients with cirrhosis and high-risk oesophageal varices, and once varices have bled, every effort should be made to arrest the haemorrhage and prevent further bleeding episodes. In acute variceal bleeding, vasoactive drugs that lower portal pressure should be started even before endoscopy, and should be maintained for up to 5 days. The choice of vasoactive drug should be made according to local resources. Terlipressin, somatostatin and octreotide can be used; vasopressin plus transdermal nitroglycerin may be used if no other drug is available. In variceal bleeding, antibiotic therapy is also mandatory. In primary and secondary prophylaxis, beta-blockers are the mainstay of therapy. In secondary prophylaxis (but not in primary prophylaxis) these drugs can be combined with organic nitrates.