Beta-blockers in patients with cirrhosis and ascites: type of beta-blocker matters

Ascites affects the benefit of carvedilol on patients with liver cirrhosis and esophageal and gastric varices

Esophageal and gastric varices (EGV) bleeding is a dangerous side effect of liver cirrhosis. Ascites may affect the effectiveness of carvedilol in preventing EGV rebleeding. A retrospective analysis was done on patients with EGV bleeding who visited our gastroenterology department between January 1, 2015, and October 29, 2020, and were given carvedilol therapy again. Patients were classified based on whether they had ascites. The primary outcome was EGV rebleeding. A total of 286 patients were included, with a median follow-up of 24.0 (19.0-42.0) months, comprising those without ascites (N = 155) and those with ascites (N = 131). The mean age of the patients was 55.15 ± 12.44 years, and 177 (61.9%) of them were men. There were 162 (56.6%) Child-Pugh A grades. The etiology of cirrhosis included 135 (47.2%) cases of hepatitis B. After carvedilol therapy, the patient's portal vein diameter (DPV) was widened (p < 0.05), velocity of portal vein (VPV) was slowed (p = 0.001). During the 1-year follow-up, patients with ascites had a substantially higher rebleeding rate than patients without ascites, with 24 (18.3%) versus 13 (8.4%), respectively (p = 0.013). On univariate analysis, ascites was a risk factor for rebleeding (p = 0.015). The multivariate analysis remained significant after adjusting for age, gender, etiology of cirrhosis, and previous endoscopic treatment, with OR of 2.37 (95% CI: 1.12-5.04; p = 0.025). Ascites was a risk factor for EGV rebleeding in patients undergoing carvedilol therapy. After carvedilol therapy, the patient's DPV was widened and VPV was slowed.

Novel approaches in the medical management of compensated cirrhosis

INTRODUCTION

Classically, clinical practice guidelines and expert recommendations have focused on the management of decompensated cirrhotic patients, so we focused this review on improving care for compensated cirrhotic patients who are followed up in outpatient clinics.

AREAS COVERED

We reviewed the current methods for establishing liver function, the diagnosis and management of advanced chronic liver disease and clinically significant portal hypertension as well as the prevention of its complications, with special attention to covert hepatic encephalopathy, we also paid attention to the extrahepatic complications of cirrhosis and the palliative care. All this from the perspective of evidence-based medicine and trying to empower precision medicine. The literature search was undertaken by PubMed with 'cirrhosis,' 'advanced chronic liver disease,' 'liver function,' 'portal hypertension,' 'covert hepatic encephalopathy,' 'minimal hepatic encephalopathy,' 'palliative care' as MeSH terms.

EXPERT OPINION

We must offer compensated cirrhotic patients specific care and measures to prevent the progression of the disease and the appearance of its complications beyond the calculation of liver function and imaging screening for hepatocellular carcinoma that we perform every six months. Entities that have typically received little attention, such as covert hepatic encephalopathy, extrahepatic complications and symptoms of cirrhosis, and palliative care, must come to the spotlight.

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.

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

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

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.

Conversion of Propranolol to Carvedilol Improves Renal Perfusion and Outcome in Patients With Cirrhosis and Ascites

BACKGROUND

In recent years, concerns have been raised on the potential adverse effects of nonselective beta-blockers, and particularly carvedilol, on renal perfusion and survival in decompensated cirrhosis with ascites. We investigated the long-term impact of converting propranolol to carvedilol on systemic hemodynamics and renal function, and on the outcome of patients with stable cirrhosis and grade II/III nonrefractory ascites.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Ninety-six patients treated with propranolol for esophageal varices' bleeding prophylaxis were prospectively evaluated. These patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to switch to carvedilol at 12.5 mg/d (CARVE group; n=64) or continue propranolol (PROPRA group; n=32). Systemic vascular resistance, vasoactive factors, glomerular filtration rate, and renal blood flow were evaluated at baseline before switching to carvedilol and after 6 and 12 months. Further decompensation and survival were evaluated at 2 years.

RESULTS

During a 12-month follow-up, carvedilol induced an ongoing improvement of systemic vascular resistance (1372±34 vs. 1254±33 dynes/c/cm5; P=0.02) along with significant decreases in plasma renin activity (4.05±0.66 vs. 6.57±0.98 ng/mL/h; P=0.01) and serum noradrenaline (76.7±8.2 vs. 101.9±10.5 pg/mL; P=0.03) and significant improvement of glomerular filtration rate (87.3±2.7 vs. 78.7±2.3 mL/min; P=0.03) and renal blood flow (703±17 vs. 631±12 mL/min; P=0.03); no significant effects were noted in the PROPRA group. The 2-year occurrence of further decompensation was significantly lower in the CARVE group than in the PROPRA group (10.5% vs. 35.9%; P=0.003); survival at 2 years was significantly higher in the CARVE group (86% vs. 64.1%; P=0.01, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Carvedilol at the dose of 12.5 mg/d should be the nonselective beta-blocker treatment of choice in patients with cirrhosis and nonrefractory ascites, as it improves renal perfusion and outcome.

Clinical algorithms for the prevention of variceal bleeding and rebleeding in patients with liver cirrhosis

Portal hypertension (PH), a common complication of liver cirrhosis, results in development of esophageal varices. When esophageal varices rupture, they cause significant upper gastrointestinal bleeding with mortality rates up to 20% despite state-of-the-art treatment. Thus, prophylactic measures are of utmost importance to improve outcomes of patients with PH. Several high-quality studies have demonstrated that non-selective beta blockers (NSBBs) or endoscopic band ligation (EBL) are effective for primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding. In secondary prophylaxis, a combination of NSBB + EBL should be routinely used. Once esophageal varices develop and variceal bleeding occurs, standardized treatment algorithms should be followed to minimize bleeding-associated mortality. Special attention should be paid to avoidance of overtransfusion, early initiation of vasoconstrictive therapy, prophylactic antibiotics and early endoscopic therapy. Pre-emptive transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt should be used in all Child C10-C13 patients experiencing variceal bleeding, and potentially in Child B patients with active bleeding at endoscopy. The use of carvedilol, safety of NSBBs in advanced cirrhosis (i.e. with refractory ascites) and assessment of hepatic venous pressure gradient response to NSBB is discussed. In the present review, we give an overview on the rationale behind the latest guidelines and summarize key papers that have led to significant advances in the field.

Management of Patients With Non-alcoholic Steatohepatitis Undergoing Liver Transplantation: Considerations for the Anesthesiologist

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) currently affects more than 25% of the world population and is rising. NAFLD can progress to non-alcoholic steatohepatitis that is associated with hepatic inflammation and fibrosis and can result in cirrhosis with subsequent liver failure. Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) has now emerged as one of the leading etiologies for a liver transplant among adults in the United States. Given the rising incidence of liver transplants in patients with NASH-related cirrhosis, it is essential for anesthesiologists to be familiar with this condition as well as with NASH-related comorbidities and perioperative complications. Not only is NASH linked to metabolic syndrome, but it also is independently associated with cardiovascular disease, renal and thyroid dysfunction, obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), and a hypercoagulable state. The association with these conditions can affect the perioperative outcome of these patients, particularly because of increased mortality from major adverse cardiovascular events and sepsis. In order to decrease the perioperative morbidity and mortality of patients with NASH undergoing a liver transplant, a multidisciplinary approach to their perioperative management is essential, along with careful preoperative evaluation and aggressive intraoperative and postoperative monitoring. The focus of this review article is to provide a comprehensive overview of challenges associated with liver transplants in patients with NASH and to provide suggestions for appropriate patient selection and perioperative management.

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.

Pathophysiology and Management of Variceal Bleeding

Cirrhosis is the fifth leading cause of death in adults. Advanced cirrhosis can cause significant portal hypertension (PH), which is responsible for many of the complications observed in patients with cirrhosis, such as varices. If portal pressure exceeds a certain threshold, the patient is at risk of developing life-threatening bleeding from varices. Variceal bleeding has a high incidence among patients with liver cirrhosis and carries a high risk of mortality and morbidity. The management of variceal bleeding is complex, often requiring a multidisciplinary approach involving pharmacological, endoscopic, and radiologic interventions. In terms of management, three stages can be considered: primary prophylaxis, active bleeding, and secondary prophylaxis. The main goal of primary and secondary prophylaxis is to prevent variceal bleeding. However, active variceal bleeding is a medical emergency that requires swift intervention to stop the bleeding and achieve durable hemostasis. We describe the pathophysiology of cirrhosis and PH to contextualize the formation of gastric and esophageal varices. We also discuss the currently available treatments and compare how they fare in each stage of clinical management, with a special focus on drugs that can prevent bleeding or assist in achieving hemostasis.

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.

Perceptions on the management of varices and on the use of albumin in patients with cirrhosis among GI specialists in Austria

BACKGROUND

Portal hypertension (PH) causes severe complications in patients with liver cirrhosis, such as variceal bleeding and ascites; however, data on the knowledge and perceptions on guideline recommendations for the management of varices and the use of albumin is scarce.

METHODS

We designed two structured surveys on (i) the management of varices and (ii) the use of albumin for Austrian physicians of specialized Gastro-Intestinal (GI) centers. The interviewed physicians were confronted spontaneously and provided ad hoc responses to the questionnaire.

RESULTS

In total, 158 surveys were completed. Interestingly, many specialists (30%) would recommend a follow-up gastroscopy after 1 year in patients with compensated cirrhosis without varices (i.e., overtreatment). For small varices, 81.5% would use non-selective beta blockers (NSBB) for primary prophylaxis (PP). For PP in patients with large varices, endoscopic band ligation (EBL) plus NSBB was preferred by 51.4% (i.e., overtreatment). Knowledge on the indication criteria for early TIPS (transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt) was reported by 54.3%, but only 20% could report these criteria correctly. The majority (87.1%) correctly indicated a preference to use NSBB and EBL for secondary prophylaxis (SP). The majority of participating gastroenterologists reported no restrictions on the use of albumin (89.8%) in their hospitals. Of the interviewed specialists, 63.6% would use albumin in patients with SBP; however, only 11.4% would use the doses recommended by guidelines. The majority of specialists indicated using albumin at the recommended doses for hepatorenal syndrome (HRS-AKI, 86.4%) and for large volume paracentesis (LVP, 73.3%). The individual responses regarding albumin use for infections/sepsis, hyponatremia, renal impairment, and encephalopathy were heterogeneous.

CONCLUSION

The reported management of PH and varices is mostly adherent to guidelines, but endoscopic surveillance in patients without varices is too intense and EBL is overused in the setting of PP. Knowledge on the correct use of early TIPS must be improved among Austrian specialists. Albumin use is widely unrestricted in Austria; however, albumin is often underdosed in established indications.

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.

Propranolol plus endoscopic ligation for variceal bleeding in patients with significant ascites: Propensity score matching analysis

The use of beta-blockers in decompensated cirrhosis accompanying ascites is still under debate. The aim of this study was to compare overall survival (OS) and incidence of cirrhotic complications between endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) only and EVL + non-selective beta-blocker (NSBB) combination therapy in cirrhotic patients with significant ascites (≥grade 2).This retrospective study included 271 consecutive cirrhotic patients with ascites who were treated with EVL only or EVL + NSBB combination therapy as a primary prophylaxis of esophageal varices. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Propensity score matching was performed between the 2 groups to minimize baseline difference.Median observation period was 42.1 months (interquartile range, 18.4-75.1 months). All patients had deteriorated liver function: 81.1% Child-Pugh class B and 18.9% Child-Pugh class C. All-cause mortality was significantly higher in the EVL + NSBB group than in the EVL only group not only in non-matched cohort, but also in matched cohort (48.9% vs 31.2%; P = .039). More people died from hepatic failure in the EVL + NSBB group than that in the EVL only group (40.5% vs 20.0%; P = .020). However, the incidence of variceal bleeding, hepatorenal syndrome (HRS), or spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) was not significantly different between the 2 groups.The use of NSBB might worsen the prognosis of cirrhotic patients with significant ascites. These results suggest that EVL alone is a more appropriate treatment option for prophylaxis of esophageal varices than propranolol combination therapy when patients have significant ascites.

Liver volume index predicts the risk of esophageal variceal hemorrhage in cirrhotic patients on propranolol prophylaxis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Non-selective β-blockers (NSBBs) are used for primary prevention of esophageal variceal hemorrhage (VH) in patients with portal hypertension, but a significant number of patients develop VH while on NSBB therapy. In this study, we sought to determine whether liver volume can predict the risk of primary prophylaxis failure in cirrhotic patients on NSBB therapy.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort of 309 patients on prophylactic propranolol was analyzed. Liver volume was measured in portal venous phase images of multidetector computed tomography. Predictors of VH were assessed using a Cox proportional hazards model with competing-risks analysis. A nomogram was developed for estimation of the risk of primary prophylaxis failure.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 36 months, 37 patients on propranolol developed VH. Liver volume index, the ratio of measured-to-expected liver volume, was an independent predictor of VH (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 2.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.37 to 5.33; p = 0.004) as were the presence of large varices and the absence of ascites. A nomogram-based volume score of > 0.6 was predictive of prophylaxis failure (HR, 7.54; 95% CI, 2.88 to 19.73; p < 0.001). Time-dependent receiver operating characteristic curve analysis revealed that a nomogram-based risk score had significantly better discriminatory power than the North Italian Endoscopy Club index in predicting prophylaxis failure at 6 and 8 years.

CONCLUSION

Liver volume index is an independent predictor of first VH and a nomogram-based volume score stratifies the VH risk in cirrhotic patients on propranolol prophylaxis.

Current and future pharmacological therapies for managing cirrhosis and its complications

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

Managing portal hypertension in patients with liver cirrhosis

Portal hypertension is one cause and a part of a dynamic process triggered by chronic liver disease, mostly induced by alcohol or incorrect nutrition and less often by viral infections and autoimmune or genetic disease. Adequate staging - continuously modified by current knowledge - should guide the prevention and treatment of portal hypertension with defined endpoints. The main goals are interruption of etiology and prevention of complications followed, if necessary, by treatment of these. For the past few decades, shunts, mostly as intrahepatic stent bypass between portal and hepatic vein branches, have played an important role in the prevention of recurrent bleeding and ascites formation, although their impact on survival remains ambiguous. Systemic drugs, such as non-selective beta-blockers, statins, or antibiotics, reduce portal hypertension by decreasing intrahepatic resistance or portal tributary blood flow or by blunting inflammatory stimuli inside and outside the liver. Here, the interactions among the gut, liver, and brain are increasingly examined for new therapeutic options. There is no general panacea. The interruption of initiating factors is key. If not possible or if not possible in a timely manner, combined approaches should receive more attention before considering liver transplantation.

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Austrian consensus guidelines on the management and treatment of portal hypertension (Billroth III)

The Billroth III guidelines were developed during a consensus meeting of the Austrian Society of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (ÖGGH) and the Austrian Society of Interventional Radiology (ÖGIR) held on 18 February 2017 in Vienna. Based on international guidelines and considering recent landmark studies, the Billroth III recommendations aim to help physicians in guiding diagnostic and therapeutic strategies in patients with portal hypertension.

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

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

Carvedilol use is associated with improved survival in patients with liver cirrhosis and ascites

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Carvedilol, a non-selective beta-blocker (NSBB) with additional anti-alpha 1 receptor activity, is a potent portal hypotensive agent and has been used as prophylaxis against variceal bleeding. However, its safety in patients with decompensated liver cirrhosis and ascites is still disputed. In this study, we examined whether long-term use of carvedilol in patients with ascites is a risk factor for mortality.

METHODS

A single-centre retrospective analysis of 325 consecutive patients with liver cirrhosis and ascites presenting to our Liver Unit between 1st of January 2009 to 31st August 2012 was carried out. The primary outcome was all-cause and liver-specific mortality in patients receiving or not receiving carvedilol as prophylaxis against variceal bleeding.

RESULTS

The final cohort after propensity score matching comprised 264 patients. Baseline ascites severity and UK end-stage liver disease (UKELD) score between carvedilol (n=132) and non-carvedilol (n=132) treated patient groups were comparable. Median follow-up time was 2.3years. Survival at the end of the follow-up was 24% and 2% for the carvedilol and the non-carvedilol groups respectively (log-rank p<0.0001). The long-term survival was significantly better in carvedilol than non-carvedilol group (log-rank p<0.001). The survival difference remained significant after adjusting for age, gender, ascites severity, aetiology of cirrhosis, previous variceal bleed, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis prophylaxis, serum albumin and UKELD with hazard ratio of 0.59 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44, 0.80; p=0.001), suggesting a 41% reduction in mortality risk. When stratified by the severity of ascites, carvedilol therapy resulted in hazard ratio of 0.47 (95% CI: 0.29, 0.77; p=0.003) in those with mild ascites. Even with moderate or severe ascites, carvedilol use was not associated with increased mortality risk.

CONCLUSION

Long-term carvedilol therapy is not harmful in patients with decompensated cirrhosis and ascites.

LAY SUMMARY

The safety of carvedilol and other non-selective beta-blocker drugs in patients with liver cirrhosis and ascites is still debated. In this study, we have shown that carvedilol therapy in these patients was associated with reduced risk of mortality, particularly in those with mild ascites. We concluded that low dose, chronic treatment with carvedilol in patients with liver cirrhosis and ascites is not detrimental.

Beta adrenergic blockade and decompensated cirrhosis

Non-selective betablockers (NSBBs) remain the cornerstone of medical treatment of portal hypertension. The evidence for their efficacy to prevent variceal bleeding is derived from prospective trials, which largely excluded patients with refractory ascites and renal failure. In parallel to the increasing knowledge on portal hypertension-induced changes in systemic hemodynamics, cardiac function, and renal perfusion, emerging studies have raised concerns about harmful effects of NSBBs. Clinicians are facing an ongoing controversy on the use of NSBBs in patients with advanced cirrhosis. On the one hand, NSBBs are effective in preventing variceal bleeding and might also have beneficial non-hemodynamic effects, however, they also potentially induce hypotension and limit the cardiac reserve. An individualized NSBB regimen tailored to the specific pathophysiological stage of cirrhosis might optimize patient management at this point. This article aims to give practical recommendations on the use of NSBBs in patients with decompensated cirrhosis.

Beta blockers and cirrhosis, 2016

To date, non-selective beta blockers (NSBBs) are a cornerstone in the treatment of portal hypertension. During the last years, our understanding of the potential benefits of early initiation of NSBB treatment, their effects beyond the prevention of variceal bleeding (i.e., their non-hemodyamic effects), as well as potential detrimental effects in patients with advanced disease has continuously evolved. In addition, we have learned that not all NSBBs are equal. Due to its additional anti-α1-adrenergic activity, carvedilol has been shown to be more potent in decreasing portal pressure, but might lead to more pronounced decreases in systemic arterial pressure, when compared to conventional NSBBs. It might be particularly beneficial in 'early' portal hypertension, when potential detrimental effects on systemic hemodynamics are less critical. In contrast, there is increasing evidence that the use of carvedilol or high NSBB doses should be carefully scrutinized in patients with severe or refractory ascites. Our review summarizes the current knowledge on the use of NSBBs for preventing variceal bleeding and other decompensating events and provides guidance for their safe use in hemodynamically 'vulnerable' patient populations. Finally, we also highlight areas for further research.