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

Advances in the management of complications from cirrhosis

Cirrhosis with complications of liver decompensation and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) constitute a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Portal hypertension is central to the progression of liver disease and decompensation. The most recent Baveno VII guidance included revision of the nomenclature for chronic liver disease, termed compensated advanced chronic liver disease, and leveraged the use of liver stiffness measurement to categorize the degree of portal hypertension. Additionally, non-selective beta blockers, especially carvedilol, can improve portal hypertension and may even have a survival benefit. Procedural techniques with interventional radiology have become more advanced in the management of refractory ascites and variceal bleeding, leading to improved prognosis in patients with decompensated liver disease. While lactulose and rifaximin are the preferred treatments for hepatic encephalopathy, many alternative treatment options may be used in refractory cases and even procedural interventions such as shunt embolization may be of benefit. The approval of terlipressin for the treatment of hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) in the USA has improved the way in which HRS is managed and will be discussed in detail. Malnutrition, frailty, and sarcopenia lead to poorer outcomes in patients with decompensated liver disease and should be addressed in this patient population. Palliative care interventions can lead to improved quality of life and clinical outcomes. Lastly, the investigation of systemic therapies, in particular immunotherapy, has revolutionized the management of HCC. These topics will be discussed in detail in this review.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Ascites and Chronic Liver Disease in Children

Development of ascites in children with chronic liver disease is the most common form of decompensation. It is associated with a poor prognosis and increased risk of mortality. A diagnostic paracentesis should be performed in liver disease patients with- new-onset ascites, at the beginning of each hospital admission and when ascitic fluid infection (AFI) is suspected. The routine analysis includes cell count with differential, bacterial culture, ascitic fluid total protein and albumin. A serum albumin-ascitic fluid albumin gradient of ≥1.1 g/dL confirms the diagnosis of portal hypertension. Ascites has been reported in children with non-cirrhotic liver disease like acute viral hepatitis, acute liver failure and extrahepatic portal venous obstruction. The main steps in management of cirrhotic ascites include dietary sodium restriction, diuretics and large-volume paracentesis. Sodium should be restricted to maximum of 2 mEq/kg/d (max 90 mEq/d) of sodium/day. Oral diuretic therapy comprises of aldosterone antagonists (e.g., spironolactone) with or without loop-diuretics (e.g., furosemide). Once the ascites is mobilized, the diuretics should be gradually tapered to the minimum effective dosage. Tense ascites should be managed with a large-volume paracentesis (LVP) preferably with albumin infusion. Therapeutic options for refractory ascites include recurrent LVP, transjugular intrahepatic porto-systemic shunt and liver transplantation. AFI (fluid neutrophil count ≥250/mm3) is an important complication, and requires prompt antibiotic therapy. Hyponatremia, acute kidney injury, hepatic hydrothorax and hernias are the other complications.

Hepatorenal syndrome: Current concepts and future perspectives

Hepatorenal syndrome (HRS), a progressive but potentially reversible deterioration of kidney function, remains a major complication in patients with advanced cirrhosis, often leading to death before liver transplantation (LT). Recent updates in the pathophysiology, definition, and classification of HRS have led to a complete revision of the nomenclature and diagnostic criteria for HRS type 1, which was renamed HRS-acute kidney injury (AKI). HRS is characterized by severe impairment of kidney function due to increased splanchnic blood flow, activation of several vasoconstriction factors, severe vasoconstriction of the renal arteries in the absence of kidney histologic abnormalities, nitric oxide dysfunction, and systemic inflammation. Diagnosis of HRS remains a challenge because of the lack of specific diagnostic biomarkers that accurately distinguishes structural from functional AKI, and mainly involves the differential diagnosis from other forms of AKI, particularly acute tubular necrosis. The optimal treatment of HRS is LT. While awaiting LT, treatment options include vasoconstrictor drugs to counteract splanchnic arterial vasodilation and plasma volume expansion by intravenous albumin infusion. In patients with HRS unresponsive to pharmacological treatment and with conventional indications for kidney replacement therapy (KRT), such as volume overload, uremia, or electrolyte imbalances, KRT may be applied as a bridging therapy to transplantation. Other interventions, such as transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt, and artificial liver support systems have a very limited role in improving outcomes in HRS. Although recently developed novel therapies have potential to improve outcomes of patients with HRS, further studies are warranted to validate the efficacy of these novel agents.

Nonselective beta-blockers may lead to stage 2 acute kidney injury and waitlist mortality in child class C cirrhosis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Nonselective beta-blockers (NSBB) protect patients with compensated cirrhosis; however, it is unclear if NSBB is associated with acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients with decompensated cirrhosis. We aimed to determine if the use of NSBB was associated with an increased risk of stage II AKI or greater and waitlist mortality (WLM) among patients with decompensated cirrhosis awaiting liver transplant stratified by cirrhosis severity.

METHODS

Included were 1816 outpatients listed for liver transplantation at UCSF from June 2012 to April 2022. Our primary outcome was stage 2 AKI (>200% increase in serum creatinine). Our secondary outcome was WLM (all-cause mortality). Our primary exposure was the use of any NSBB derived using natural language processing of clinical notes. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models with time-dependent variables were used to determine the HR of NSBB use on stage 2 AKI and WLM, stratified by Child-Pugh Score.

RESULTS

The average age of the cohort was 58 years old, with 35% identifying as female. In multivariable time-dependent models, NSBB use was associated with 1.53 × (95 CI 1.19-1.97) the hazard of stage 2 AKI in the cohort overall and 1.80 × (95 CI 1.26-2.57) among those with Child C cirrhosis, respectively. Similarly, NSBB use was associated with 1.30 × (95 CI 1.07-1.59) and 1.45 × (95 CI 1.03-2.03) the hazard of WLM, overall and in Child C, respectively. NSBB use was not significantly associated with AKI nor WLM among those with Child A.

CONCLUSION

NSBB use is associated with Stage 2 AKI and WLM in patients awaiting liver transplantation and Child C cirrhosis. These data suggest cautious use of NSBBs in patients in this population.

Austrian consensus on the diagnosis and management of portal hypertension in advanced chronic liver disease (Billroth IV)

The Billroth IV consensus was developed during a consensus meeting of the Austrian Society of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (ÖGGH) and the Austrian Society of Interventional Radiology (ÖGIR) held on the 26th of November 2022 in Vienna.Based on international recommendations and considering recent landmark studies, the Billroth IV consensus provides guidance regarding the diagnosis and management of portal hypertension in advanced chronic liver disease.

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

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

Nonselective beta-blockers are associated with a lower risk of hepatocellular carcinoma among cirrhotic patients in the United States

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have demonstrated an association between nonselective beta-blockers (NSBBs) and lower risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in cirrhosis. However, there has been no population-based study investigating the risk of HCC among cirrhotic patients treated using carvedilol.

AIMS

To determine the risk of HCC among cirrhotic patients with NSBBs including carvedilol.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study utilised the Cerner Health Facts database in the United States from 2000 to 2017. Kaplan-Meier estimate, Cox proportional hazards regression, and propensity score matching (PSM) were used to test the HCC risk among the carvedilol, nadolol, and propranolol groups compared with no beta-blocker group.

RESULTS

The final cohort comprised 107 428 eligible patients. The 100-month cumulative HCC incidence of NSBBs was significantly lower than the no beta-blocker group (carvedilol (11.24%) vs no beta-blocker (15.69%), nadolol (27.55%) vs no beta-blocker (32.11%), and propranolol (26.17%) vs no beta-blocker (28.84%) (P values < 0.0001). NSBBs were associated with a significantly lower risk of HCC (Hazard ratio: carvedilol 0.61 (95% CI 0.51-0.73), nadolol 0.74 (95% CI 0.63-0.87), propranolol 0.75 (95% CI 0.66-0.84) after PSM in the multivariate cox analysis. In subgroup analysis, NSBBs reduced the risk of HCC in cirrhosis with complications and non-alcoholic cirrhosis.

CONCLUSIONS

NSBBs, including carvedilol, were associated with a significantly decreased risk of HCC in patients with cirrhosis when compared with no beta-blocker regardless of complications status. Future randomised-controlled studies comparing the incidence of HCC among NSBBs should elucidate which NSBB would be the best option to prevent HCC in cirrhosis.

β-blockers in advanced cirrhosis: More friend than enemy

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

Keeping Patients with End-Stage Liver Disease Alive While Awaiting Transplant: Management of Complications of Portal Hypertension

Complications of portal hypertension such as gastroesophageal variceal hemorrhage, ascites, and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, as well as pulmonary complications, are often responsible for diminished quality of life, excess morbidity and mortality, increased health care resource use and expenditure, and dropout from the liver transplant (LT) waiting list. Therefore, the care of LT candidates on the waiting list must be centered on anticipation and prompt intervention for these complications.

Guidelines on the management of ascites in cirrhosis

The British Society of Gastroenterology in collaboration with British Association for the Study of the Liver has prepared this document. The aim of this guideline is to review and summarise the evidence that guides clinical diagnosis and management of ascites in patients with cirrhosis. Substantial advances have been made in this area since the publication of the last guideline in 2007. These guidelines are based on a comprehensive literature search and comprise systematic reviews in the key areas, including the diagnostic tests, diuretic use, therapeutic paracentesis, use of albumin, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent shunt, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis and beta-blockers in patients with ascites. Where recent systematic reviews and meta-analysis are available, these have been updated with additional studies. In addition, the results of prospective and retrospective studies, evidence obtained from expert committee reports and, in some instances, reports from case series have been included. Where possible, judgement has been made on the quality of information used to generate the guidelines and the specific recommendations have been made according to the 'Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE)' system. These guidelines are intended to inform practising clinicians, and it is expected that these guidelines will be revised in 3 years' time.

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for the treatment of refractory ascites: A population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND: Randomized trials have shown that transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) improves control of ascites compared with serial large volume paracentesis (LVP) in patients with refractory ascites. However, the effect of TIPS on liver transplant-free (LTF) survival is controversial. Our objective was to compare TIPS versus serial LVP on LTF survival in the general population of patients with refractory ascites. METHODS: This is a retrospective, population-based cohort study using linked administrative health data from Ontario, Canada. Adult patients identified with refractory ascites from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2016 were included and followed until December 31, 2017. A propensity score was used to match patients treated with serial LVP to those who received TIPS in a 2:1 ratio. LTF survival was evaluated using Kaplan–Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards regression with TIPS treated as a time-varying exposure. RESULTS: Overall, 4,935 patients with refractory ascites were identified and 488 patients were matched (325 serial LVP, 163 TIPS). The mean age was 58 years, 70% were male, 50% had viral hepatitis, the median model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score was 12, 13% received liver transplant and the 1-year LTF survival was 72%. After TIPS, 80 patients (49%) had no further requirement for LVP by 6 months and 61 patients (37%) never required a repeat paracentesis. In survival analysis, there was marginally worse LTF survival in patients receiving TIPS (TIPS HR 1.29, 95% CI 1.00–1.67; p = .052). CONCLUSION: In this population-based study of patients with refractory ascites, TIPS was associated with improved control of ascites but not improved LTF survival.

HEP-Net opinion on the management of ascites and its complications in the setting of decompensated cirrhosis in the resource constrained environment of Pakistan

Approximately one half of patients develop ascites within 10 years of diagnosis of compensated cirrhosis. It is a poor prognostic indicator, with only 50% surviving beyond two years. Mortality worsens significantly to 20% to 50% at one year if the ascites becomes refractory to medical therapy. Pakistan has one of the highest prevalence of viral hepatitis in the world and patients with ascites secondary to liver cirrhosis make a major percentage of both inpatient and outpatient burden. Studies indicate that over 80% of patients admitted with ascites have liver cirrhosis as the cause.

This expert opinion suggests proper assessment of patients with ascites in the presence of underlying cirrhosis. This expert opinion includes appropriate diagnosis and management of uncomplicated ascites, refractory ascites and complicated ascites (including spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) ascites, hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) and hyponatremia. The purpose behind this expert opinion is to help consultants, postgraduate trainees, medical officers and primary care physicians optimally manage their patients with cirrhosis and ascites in a resource constrained setting as is often encountered in a developing country like Pakistan.

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

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

Use of nonselective β blockers after variceal eradication in cirrhotic patients undergoing secondary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding: a critical review of current evidence

Nonselective β blockers (NSBBs) combined with esophageal variceal ligation (EVL) are recommended for secondary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding (EVB) in cirrhotic patients according to the current practice guidelines and consensus. However, until now, there is a paucity of recommendations regarding the use of NSBBs in cirrhotic patients who achieved variceal eradication. In this review paper, we firstly introduced a case who achieved variceal eradication after additional use of NSBBs for secondary prophylaxis of EVB and then did not require further endoscopic therapy during repeated endoscopic surveillance, and subsequently discuss the importance of NSBBs for secondary prophylaxis of EVB, the effect of NSBBs after variceal eradication, adherence to NSBBs, screening for variceal recurrence, and timing of endoscopic surveillance after variceal eradication.