Carvedilol or propranolol in portal hypertension? A randomized comparison

The Efficacy of Carvedilol in Comparison to Propranolol in Reducing the Hepatic Venous Pressure Gradient and Decreasing the Risk of Variceal Bleeding in Adult Cirrhotic Patients: A Systematic Review

The most common cause of portal hypertension is liver cirrhosis. Portal hypertension causes many complications in cirrhotic patients; a significant complication is the formation of varices and the subsequent life-threatening variceal bleeding due to elevated portal venous pressures. Hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) is the gold standard for measuring portal hypertension and guides management. Pharmacological treatments lower the HVPG, preventing the progression of varices and subsequent variceal bleeding. The pharmacological treatments frequently used in primary and secondary prophylaxis of a variceal bleed are nonselective beta (β)-adrenergic blockers. Propranolol was the first nonselective β-adrenergic blocker used for lowering HVPG and has been well studied. However, in the past decade, clinical trials have shown that carvedilol has been more effective. This study aims to establish whether carvedilol is more effective than propranolol in reducing the hepatic venous pressure gradient and decreasing the risk of variceal bleeding in adult cirrhotic patients. A systematic review has been conducted to gather relevant clinical trials comparing drugs and their effects on HVPG. Four databases: PubMed (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE)), Google Scholar, the Cochrane Library, and ScienceDirect, were analyzed, and records from January 1, 1999, to January 1, 2023, were chosen. There were a total of 1,235 potentially eligible records across the four databases. Using the eligibility criteria for this systematic review, seven studies of 533 patients were included. Across all seven clinical trials, it was found that carvedilol reduced HVPG more than propranolol and decreased the risk of variceal bleeding in adult cirrhotic patients.

Review article: controversies surrounding the use of carvedilol and other beta blockers in the management of portal hypertension and cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Advanced chronic liver disease is an increasing cause of premature morbidity and mortality in the UK. Portal hypertension is the primary driver of decompensation, including the development of ascites, hepatic encephalopathy and variceal haemorrhage. Non-selective beta blockers (NSBB) reduce portal pressure and are well established in the prevention of variceal haemorrhage. Carvedilol, a newer NSBB, is more effective at reducing portal pressure due to additional α-adrenergic blockade and has additional anti-oxidant, anti-inflammatory and anti-fibrotic effects.

AIM

To summarise the available evidence on the use of beta blockers, specifically carvedilol, in cirrhosis, focussing on when and why to start METHODS: We performed a comprehensive literature search of PubMed for relevant publications.

RESULTS

International guidelines advise the use of NSBB in primary prophylaxis against variceal haemorrhage in those with high-risk varices, with substantial evidence of efficacy comparable with endoscopic band ligation (EBL). NSBB are also well established in secondary prophylaxis, in combination with EBL. More controversial is their use in patients without large varices, but with clinically significant portal hypertension. However, there is gathering evidence that NSBB, particularly carvedilol, reduce the risk of decompensation and improve survival. While caution is advised in patients with advanced cirrhosis and refractory ascites, recent evidence suggests that NSBB can continue to be used safely, and that premature discontinuation may be detrimental.

CONCLUSIONS

With increasing evidence of benefit independent of variceal bleeding, namely retardation of decompensation and improvement in survival, it is time to consider whether carvedilol should be offered to all patients with advanced chronic liver disease.

Cardiovascular Mapping in Cirrhosis From the Compensated Stage to Hepatorenal Syndrome: A Magnetic Resonance Study

INTRODUCTION

Arterial vasodilation and hyperdynamic circulation are considered hallmarks of the pathophysiological mechanisms of decompensation in cirrhosis. However, detailed characterization of peripheral, splanchnic, renal, and cardiac hemodynamic have not previously been published in a spectrum from healthy stage to advanced decompensated liver disease with hepatorenal syndrome-acute kidney injury (HRS-AKI).

METHODS

We included 87 patients with cirrhosis and 27 healthy controls in this prospective cohort study. The population comprised patients with compensated cirrhosis (n = 27) and decompensated cirrhosis (n = 60); patients with decompensated cirrhosis were further separated into subsets of responsive ascites (33), refractory ascites (n = 16), and HRS-AKI (n = 11). We measured portal pressure and assessed regional blood flow by magnetic resonance imaging.

RESULTS

Patients with compensated cirrhosis experienced higher azygos venous flow and higher hepatic artery flow fraction of cardiac index than controls ( P < 0.01), but other flow parameters were not significantly different. Patients with decompensated cirrhosis experienced significantly higher cardiac index ( P < 0.01), higher superior mesenteric artery flow ( P = 0.01), and lower systemic vascular resistance ( P < 0.001) compared with patients with compensated cirrhosis. Patients with HRS-AKI had the highest cardiac output and lowest renal flow of all groups ( P < 0.01 and P = 0.02, respectively). Associations of single hemodynamic parameters were stronger with model for end-stage liver disease than with portal pressure.

DISCUSSION

The regional cardiocirculatory changes seem closely linked to clinical symptoms with 3 distinguished hemodynamic stages from compensated to decompensated cirrhosis and, finally, to HRS-AKI. The attenuated renal perfusion despite high cardiac output in patients with HRS-AKI challenges the prevailing pathophysiological hypothesis of cardiac dysfunction as a causal factor in HRS-AKI. Finally, magnetic resonance imaging seems an accurate and reliable noninvasive method to assess hemodynamics and has potential as a diagnostic tool in patients with cirrhosis.

Using MR elastography to assess portal hypertension and response to beta-blockers in patients with cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

MR elastography can determine organ-related stiffness, which reflects the degree of fibrosis. Liver stiffness increases in cirrhosis, and stiffness increases further post-prandially due to increased portal blood in-flow. Non-selective beta-blockers (NSBB) reduce the portal venous inflow, but their effect on liver and spleen stiffness are disputed.

AIMS

To assess whether MR elastography of the liver or spleen reflects the severity of cirrhosis, whether treatment with NSBB changes liver and spleen stiffness and whether changes in stiffness can predict the effect of NSBB on portal pressure.

METHODS

Fifty-two patients with cirrhosis underwent liver vein catheterization and two-dimensional (2D) MR elastography on separate days. Thirty-six of the patients had a hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) of ≥12 mmHg and were tested prior to, and after, intravenous infusion of NSBB using HVPG measurement and MR elastography.

RESULTS

HVPG showed a strong, positive, linear relationship with liver stiffness (r²  = 0.92; P < .001) and spleen stiffness (r²  = 0.94; P < .001). The cut-off points for identifying patients with a HVPG ≥ 12 mmHg were 7.7 kPa for liver stiffness (sensitivity 0.78, specificity 0.64) and 10.5 kPa for spleen stiffness (sensitivity 0.8, specificity 0.79). Intravenous administration of NSBB significantly decreased spleen stiffness by 6.9% (CI: 3.5-10.4, P < .001), but NSBB had no consistent effect on liver stiffness. However, changes in spleen stiffness were not related to the HVPG response (P = .75).

CONCLUSIONS

Two-dimensional MR elastographic estimation of liver or spleen stiffness reflects the degree of portal hypertension in patients with liver cirrhosis, but changes in stiffness after NSBB do not predict the effect on HVPG.

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.

Randomised clinical study: acute effects of metformin versus placebo on portal pressure in patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension

BACKGROUND

Portal hypertension is the main determinant of clinical decompensation in patients with liver cirrhosis. In preclinical data metformin lowers portal pressure, but there are no clinical data for this beneficial effect.

AIMS

To investigate the acute effects of metformin on hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) and liver perfusion.

METHODS

In a randomised, double-blinded study design, we investigated 32 patients with cirrhosis before and 90 minutes after ingestion of 1000-mg metformin (n = 16) or placebo (n = 16). Liver vein catherisation was performed to evaluate HVPG and indocyanine green (ICG) infusion for investigation of hepatic blood flow.

RESULTS

The mean relative change in HVPG was -16% (95% CI: -28% to -4%) in the metformin group compared with 4% (95% CI: -6% to 14%) in the placebo group (time × group interaction, P = 0.008). In patients with baseline HVPG ≥12 mm Hg clinically significant improvements in HVPG (HVPG <12 mm Hg or a >20% reduction in HVPG) were observed in 46% (6/13) of metformin-treated and in 8% (1/13) of placebo-treated patients (P = 0.07). There were no changes or differences in systemic blood pressure, heart rate, hepatic plasma and blood flow, hepatic ICG clearance, hepatic O₂ uptake or inflammation markers between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

A single oral metformin dose acutely reduces HVPG in patients with portal hypertension without affecting systemic or liver hemodynamics or inflammatory biomarkers. This offers a promising perspective of a safe and inexpensive treatment option that should be investigated in larger-scale clinical studies with long-term outcomes in patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension.

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.

Long-term Outcomes with Carvedilol versus Propranolol in Patients with Index Variceal Bleed: 6-year Follow-up Study

AIMS AND BACKGROUND

There is limited information on comparison of clinical outcomes with carvedilol for secondary prophylaxis following acute variceal bleed (AVB) when compared with propranolol. We report long-term clinical and safety outcomes of a randomised controlled trial comparing carvedilol with propranolol with respect to reduction in hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) in patients after AVB.

METHODS

We conducted a post-hoc analysis of patients recruited in an open-label randomized controlled trial comparing carvedilol and propranolol following AVB, and estimated long-term rates of rebleed, survival, additional decompensation events and safety outcomes. Rebleed and other decompensations were compared using competing risks analysis, taking death as competing event, and survival was compared using Kaplan-Meier analysis.

RESULTS

Forty-eight patients (25 taking carvedilol; 23 propranolol) were followed up for 6 years from randomization. More number of patients on carvedilol had HVPG response when compared with those taking propranolol (72%- carvedilol versus 47.8% propranolol, p = 0.047). Comparable 1-year and 3-year rates of rebleed (16.0% and 24.0% for carvedilol versus 8.9% and 36.7% for propranolol; p = 0.457) and survival (94.7% and 89.0% for carvedilol versus 100.0% and 79.8% for propranolol; p = 0.76) were obtained. New/worsening ascites was more common in those receiving propranolol (69.5% vs 40%; p = 0.04). Other clinical decompensations and complications of liver disease occurred at comparable rates between two groups. Drug-related adverse-events were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Despite higher degree of HVPG response, long-term clinical, survival and safety outcomes in carvedilol are similar to those of propranolol in patients with decompensated cirrhosis after index variceal bleed with the exception of ascites that developed less frequently in patients with carvedilol.

Analogies and differences between cirrhotic cardiomyopathy and hepatopulmonary syndrome

Cirrhotic cardiomyopathy and hepatopulmonary syndrome are two quite frequent clinical entities that may complicate the course of liver cirrhosis. The common pathophysiological origin and the same clinical presentation make them difficult to compare. Cirrhotic cardiomyopathy and hepatopulmonary syndrome may start with dyspnea and breathlessness but the former is characterized by a chronic cardiac dysfunction and the latter by a defect of oxygenation due to pulmonary shunts formation. The focus is to differentiate them as soon as possible since the treatment is different until the patient undergoes liver transplant that is the real unique cure for them.

Randomised clinical trial: standard of care versus early-transjugular intrahepatic porto-systemic shunt (TIPSS) in patients with cirrhosis and oesophageal variceal bleeding

BACKGROUND

Early-transjugular intrahepatic porto-systemic shunt (TIPSS) has been recommended in international guidelines for high-risk patients with oesophageal variceal bleeding.

AIM

To validate the results of a previous randomised control trial which supports use of early-TIPSS.

METHODS

In a two-centre open-label parallel-group randomised control trial, patients with cirrhosis and acute variceal bleeding were recruited following haemostasis with vaso-active drugs and endoscopic band ligation. Participants were randomised to standard of care or early-TIPSS. The primary outcome was 1-year survival, secondary outcomes included early and late rebleeding, and complications of portal hypertension.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight patients (58 ± 11.12 years; 32.7% female) were randomised. After one year, seven patients died in the standard of care group and six in the early-TIPSS group, a 1-year survival of 75.9% vs 79.3% respectively (P = 0.79). Variceal rebleeding occurred in eight patients in the standard of care group compared with three patients in the early-TIPSS group (P = 0.09). Not all participants randomised to early-TIPSS received the intervention in time. For those receiving TIPSS per-protocol, variceal rebleeding rates were reduced (0% vs 27.6%, P = 0.04) but this had no effect on survival (76.9% vs 75.9%, P = 0.91). Serious adverse events were similar in both treatment groups, except that rates of hepatic encephalopathy were higher in patients receiving TIPSS (46.1% vs 20.7%, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Early-TIPSS reduced variceal rebleeding, increased encephalopathy but had no effect on survival in high-risk patients with oesophageal variceal bleeding. Early-TIPSS may not be feasible in many centres however, larger studies are needed. ClinicalTrials.gov reference: NCT02377141.

The efficacy comparison of carvedilol plus endoscopic variceal ligation and traditional, nonselective β-blockers plus endoscopic variceal ligation in cirrhosis patients for the prevention of variceal rebleeding: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Currently, the first-line treatment regimen in cirrhotic patients for variceal rebleeding prophylaxis is still under debate.

AIM

This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of carvedilol plus endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) and traditional, nonselective β-blockers (NSBBs) plus EVL in preventing variceal rebleeding.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Studies were found in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Med Online, and Wiper Database. Review Manager 5.3 was used to analyze the relevant data.

RESULTS

Nine trials including 802 patients were identified (402 for carvedilol and 400 for traditional NSBBs). Carvedilol was more efficacious than traditional NSBBs in decreasing the variceal rebleeding rate [odds ratio (OR): 0.53; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.38-0.75; P = 0.0003], lowering the degree of esophageal varices (OR: 4.40; 95% CI: 2.64-7.34; P < 0.00001), decreasing the mean arterial pressure (standard mean difference: - 0.35; 95% CI: - 0.56 to - 0.14; P = 0.0009), reducing the total adverse events occurrence (OR: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.28-0.53; P < 0.00001), and decreasing drug-related adverse events (OR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.25-0.56; P < 0.00001). No difference was noted between carvedilol and traditional NSBBs with respect to mortality and heart rate (OR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.43; 1.22; P = 0.22 and standard mean difference: 0.09; 95% CI: - 0.12 to 0.30; P = 0.40, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Combined with variceal ligation, carvedilol was more effective and safer than traditional NSBBs in the prevention of rebleeding in cirrhotic patients.

Carvedilol for prevention of variceal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Beta-blockers are used for prophylaxis of variceal bleeding. Our aim was to assess the efficacy and safety of carvedilol for primary or secondary prevention of variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis.

Methods

We searched Medline, Embase, CENTRAL and gray literature sources for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing carvedilol with placebo or any active intervention. We synthesized data using random effects models. We summarized the strength of evidence using GRADE criteria.

Results

We included 13 trials with 1598 patients. Carvedilol was as efficacious as endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) (4 RCTs, risk ratio [RR] 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37-1.49) or propranolol (3 RCTs, RR 0.76, 95%CI 0.27-2.14) for primary prevention of variceal bleeding. Likewise, carvedilol was as efficacious as EVL (3 RCTs, RR 1.10, 95%CI 0.75-1.61), non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) plus isosorbide-5-mononitrate (2 RCTs, RR 1.02, 95%CI 0.70-1.51) or propranolol (2 RCTs, RR 0.39, 95%CI 0.15-1.03) for secondary prevention of variceal bleeding. Carvedilol was associated with lower all-cause mortality compared to EVL (3 RCTs, RR 0.51, 95%CI 0.33-0.79). There was no difference in any other efficacy outcome. Finally, there were no significant differences in the safety profiles compared with EVL and NSBBs. Our confidence in the effect estimates for all outcomes was very low.

Conclusion

Carvedilol is as efficacious and safe as standard-of-care interventions for the primary and secondary prevention of variceal bleeding.

Carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers for adults with cirrhosis and gastroesophageal varices

BACKGROUND

Non-selective beta-blockers are recommended for the prevention of bleeding in people with cirrhosis, portal hypertension and gastroesophageal varices. Carvedilol is a non-selective beta-blocker with additional intrinsic alpha₁-blocking effects, which may be superior to traditional, non-selective beta-blockers in reducing portal pressure and, therefore, in reducing the risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of carvedilol compared with traditional, non-selective beta-blockers for adults with cirrhosis and gastroesophageal varices.

SEARCH METHODS

We combined searches in the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary's Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and Science Citation Index with manual searches. The last search update was 08 May 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials comparing carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers, irrespective of publication status, blinding, or language. We included trials evaluating both primary and secondary prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in adults with cirrhosis and verified gastroesophageal varices.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors (AZ, RJ and LH), independently extracted data. The primary outcome measures were mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding and serious adverse events. We undertook meta-analyses and presented results using risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and I² values as a marker of heterogeneity. We assessed bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary domains and the quality of the evidence with GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven trials fulfilled our inclusion criteria. One trial did not report clinical outcomes. We included the remaining 10 randomised clinical trials, involving 810 participants with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices, in our analyses. The intervention comparisons were carvedilol versus propranolol (nine trials), or nadolol (one trial). Six trials were of short duration (mean 6 (range 1 to 12) weeks), while four were of longer duration (13.5 (6 to 30) months). Three trials evaluated primary prevention; three evaluated secondary prevention; while four evaluated both primary and secondary prevention. We classified all trials as at 'high risk of bias'. We gathered mortality data from seven trials involving 507 participants; no events occurred in four of these. Sixteen of 254 participants receiving carvedilol and 19 of 253 participants receiving propranolol or nadolol died (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.53; I² = 0%, low-quality evidence). There appeared to be no differences between carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers and the risks of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.37; 810 participants; 10 trials; I² = 45%, very low-quality evidence) and serious adverse events (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.42; 810 participants; 10 trials; I² = 14%, low-quality evidence). Significantly more deaths, episodes of upper gastrointestinal bleeding and serious adverse events occurred in the long-term trials but there was not enough information to determine whether there were differences between carvedilol and traditional, non-selective beta-blockers, by trial duration. There was also insufficient information to detect differences in the effects of these interventions in trials evaluating primary or secondary prevention. There appeared to be no differences in the risk of non-serious adverse events between carvedilol versus its comparators (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.29; 596 participants; 6 trials; I² = 88%; very low-quality evidence). Use of carvedilol was associated with a greater reduction in hepatic venous pressure gradient than traditional, non-selective beta-blockers both in absolute (MD -1.75 mmHg, 95% CI -2.60 to -0.89; 368 participants; 6 trials; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence) and percentage terms (MD -8.02%, 95% CI -11.49% to -4.55%; 368 participants; 6 trials; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). However, we did not observe a concomitant reduction in the number of participants who failed to achieve a sufficient haemodynamic response (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.02; 368 participants; 6 trials; I² = 42%; very low-quality evidence) or in clinical outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no clear beneficial or harmful effects of carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers on mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding, serious or non-serious adverse events despite the fact that carvedilol was more effective at reducing the hepatic venous pressure gradient. However, the evidence was of low or very low quality, and hence the findings are uncertain. Additional evidence is required from adequately powered, long-term, double-blind, randomised clinical trials, which evaluate both clinical and haemodynamic outcomes.

Severe carvedilol toxicity without overdose - caution in cirrhosis

Background

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

Case presentation

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

Conclusions

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

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.

Modulation of hepatic perfusion did not improve recovery from hepatic outflow obstruction

Background

Focal hepatic venous outflow obstruction frequently occurs after extended liver resection and leads to a portal hypertension, arterial hypoperfusion and parenchymal necrosis.

In this study, we investigated the pharmacological modulation of liver perfusion and hepatic damage in a surgical model of hepatic outflow obstruction after extended liver resection by administration of 5 different drugs in comparison to an operative intervention, splenectomy.

Methods

Male inbred Lewis rats (Lew/Crl) were subjected to right median hepatic vein ligation + 70% partial hepatectomy. Treatment consisted of a splenectomy or the application of saline, carvedilol or isosorbide-5-mononitrate (ISMN) (5 mg · kg⁻¹ respectively 7,2 mg · kg⁻¹ per gavage 12 h⁻¹). The splenectomy was performed during operation. The effect of the treatments on hepatic hemodynamics were measured in non-operated animals, immediately after operation (n = 4/group) and 24 h after operation (n = 5/group). Assessment of hepatic damage (liver enzymes, histology) and liver cell proliferation (BrdU-immunohistochemistry) was performed 24 h after operation. Furthermore sildenafil (10 μg · kg⁻¹ i.p. 12h⁻¹), terlipressin (0.05 mg · kg⁻¹ i.v. 12 h⁻¹) and octreotide (10 μg · kg⁻¹ s.c. 12 h⁻¹) were investigated regarding their effect on hepatic hemodynamics and hepatic damage 24 h after operation (n = 4/group).

Results

Carvedilol and ISMN significantly decreased the portal pressure in normal non-operated rats from 11,1 ± 1,1 mmHg (normal rats) to 8,4 ± 0,3 mmHg (carvedilol) respectively 7,4 ± 1,8 mmHg (ISMN). ISMN substantially reduced surgery-induced portal hypertension from 15,4 ± 4,4 mmHg to 9,6 ± 2,3 mmHg. Only splenectomy reduced the portal flow immediately after operation by approximately 25%. No treatment had an immediate effect on the hepatic arterial perfusion. In all treatment groups, portal flow increased by approximately 3-fold within 24 h after operation, whereas hepatic arterial flow decreased substantially. Neither treatment reduced hepatic damage as assessed 24 h after operation. The distribution of proliferating cells appeared very similar in all drug treated groups and the splenectomy group.

Conclusion

Transient relative reduction of portal pressure did not result in a reduction of hepatic damage. This might be explained by the development of portal hyperperfusion which was accompanied by arterial hypoperfusion.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40360-017-0155-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Rifaximin has no effect on hemodynamics in decompensated cirrhosis: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Decompensated cirrhosis is characterized by disturbed systemic and splanchnic hemodynamics. Bacterial translocation from the gut is considered the key driver in this process. Intestinal decontamination with rifaximin may improve hemodynamics. This double-blind, randomized, controlled trial (clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01769040) investigates the effects of rifaximin on hemodynamics, renal function, and vasoactive hormones. We randomized 54 stable outpatients with cirrhosis and ascites to rifaximin 550 mg twice a day (n = 36) or placebo twice a day (n = 18). Forty-five patients were male, mean age 56 years (±8.4), average Child score 8.3 (±1.3), and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score 11.7 (±3.9). Measurements of hepatic venous pressure gradient, cardiac output, and systemic vascular resistance were made at baseline and after 4 weeks. The glomerular filtration rate and plasma renin, noradrenaline, lipopolysaccharide binding protein, troponin T, and brain natriuretic peptide levels were measured. Rifaximin had no effect on hepatic venous pressure gradient, mean 16.8 ± 3.8 mm Hg at baseline versus 16.6 ± 5.3 mm Hg at follow-up, compared to the placebo, mean 16.4 ± 4 mm Hg at baseline versus 16.3 ± 4.4 mm Hg at follow-up, P = 0.94. No effect was found on cardiac output, mean 6.9 ± 1.7 L/min at baseline versus 6.9 ± 2.3 L/min at follow-up, compared to placebo, mean 6.6 ± 1.9 L/min at baseline compared to 6.5 ±2.1 L/min at follow-up, P = 0.66. No effects on the glomerular filtration rate, P = 0.14, or vasoactive hormones were found. Subgroup analyses on patients with increased lipopolysaccharide binding protein and systemic vascular resistance below the mean (1,011 dynes × s/cm⁵ ) revealed no effect of rifaximin.

CONCLUSION

Four weeks of treatment with rifaximin did not reduce the hepatic venous pressure gradient or improve systemic hemodynamics in patients with cirrhosis and ascites; rifaximin did not affect glomerular filtration rate or levels of vasoactive hormones. (Hepatology 2017;65:592-603).

Carvedilol versus propranolol effect on hepatic venous pressure gradient at 1 month in patients with index variceal bleed: RCT

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) plus beta blocker is the mainstay treatment after index bleed to prevent rebleed. Primary objective of this study was to compare EVL plus propranolol versus EVL plus carvedilol on reduction of HVPG after 1 month of therapy.

METHODS

Patients of cirrhosis presenting with index esophageal variceal bleed received standard treatment (Somatostatin therapy f/b EVL) following which HVPG was measured and patients were randomized to propranolol or carvedilol group if HVPG was >12 mmHg. Standard endotherapy protocol was continued in both groups. HVPG was again measured at 1 month of treatment.

RESULTS

Out of 129 patients of index esophageal variceal bleed, 59 patients were eligible and randomized into carvedilol (n = 30) and propranolol (n = 29). At 1 month of treatment, decrease in heart rate, mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) and HVPG was significant within each group (p = 0.001). Percentage decrease in MAP was significantly more in carvedilol group as compared to propranolol group (p = 0.04). Number of HVPG responders (HVPG decrease >20 % or below 12 mmHg) was significantly more in carvedilol group (22/29) as compared to propranolol group (14/28), p = 0.04.

CONCLUSION

Carvedilol is more effective in reducing portal pressure in patients with cirrhosis with esophageal bleed. Though a larger study is required to substantiate this, the results in this study are promising for carvedilol. Clinical trials online government registry (CTRI/2013/10/004119). Trial registration number CTRI/2013/10/004119.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

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

OUTCOME MEASURE

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42015020542.

U.K. guidelines on the management of variceal haemorrhage in cirrhotic patients

These updated guidelines on the management of variceal haemorrhage have been commissioned by the Clinical Services and Standards Committee (CSSC) of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) under the auspices of the liver section of the BSG. The original guidelines which this document supersedes were written in 2000 and have undergone extensive revision by 13 members of the Guidelines Development Group (GDG). The GDG comprises elected members of the BSG liver section, representation from British Association for the Study of the Liver (BASL) and Liver QuEST, a nursing representative and a patient representative. The quality of evidence and grading of recommendations was appraised using the AGREE II tool.The nature of variceal haemorrhage in cirrhotic patients with its complex range of complications makes rigid guidelines inappropriate. These guidelines deal specifically with the management of varices in patients with cirrhosis under the following subheadings: (1) primary prophylaxis; (2) acute variceal haemorrhage; (3) secondary prophylaxis of variceal haemorrhage; and (4) gastric varices. They are not designed to deal with (1) the management of the underlying liver disease; (2) the management of variceal haemorrhage in children; or (3) variceal haemorrhage from other aetiological conditions.

Cirrhotic cardiomyopathy in the pre- and post-liver transplantation phase

Patients with advanced liver cirrhosis may develop a clinical syndrome characterized by a blunted contractile responsiveness to stress and/or altered diastolic relaxation, called "cirrhotic cardiomyopathy." This syndrome, which is initially asymptomatic, is often misdiagnosed due to the presence of symptoms that characterize other disorders present in patients with advanced liver cirrhosis, such as exercise intolerance, fatigue, and dyspnea. Stress and other conditions such as liver transplantation and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) may unmask this syndrome. Liver transplantation in this group of patients results in a clinical improvement and can be a cure for the cardiomyopathy. However, post-transplant prognosis depends on the identification of cirrhotics with cardiomyopathy in the pre-transplant phase; an early diagnosis of cirrhotic cardiomyopathy in the pre-transplant phase may avoid an acute onset or worsening of cardiac failure after liver transplantation. Since a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction may mask the presence of cirrhotic cardiomyopathy, the use of newer noninvasive diagnostic techniques (i.e. tissue Doppler, myocardial strain) is necessary to identify cirrhotics with this syndrome, in the pre-transplant phase. A pre-transplant treatment of heart failure in cirrhotics with cardiomyopathy improves the quality of life in this phase and reduces the complications during and immediately after liver transplantation. Since specific therapies for cirrhotic cardiomyopathy are lacking, due to the absence of a clear understanding of the pathophysiology of the cardiomyopathy, further research in this field is required.

Complications of cirrhosis. A 50 years flashback

In patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension, it is largely the frequency and severity of complications relating to the diseased liver, degree of portal hypertension and hemodynamic derangement that determine the prognosis. It can be considered as a multiple organ failure that apart from the liver involves the heart, lungs, kidneys, the immune systems and other organ systems. Progressive fibrosis of the liver and subsequent metabolic impairment leads to a systemic and splanchnic arteriolar vasodilatation. With the progression of the disease development of portal hypertension leads to formation of esophageal varices and ascites. The circulation becomes hyperdynamic with cardiac, pulmonary as well as renal consequences for dysfunction and reduced survival. Infections and a changed cardiac function known as cirrhotic cardiomyopathy may be involved in further aggravation of other complications such as renal failure precipitating the hepatorenal syndrome. Patients with end-stage liver disease and related complications as for example the hepatopulmonary syndrome can only radically be treated by liver transplantation.

Is it time to replace propranolol with carvedilol for portal hypertension?

Beta-adrenergic receptor antagonists (β-blockers) have been well established for use in portal hypertension for more than three decades. Different Non-selective β-blockers like propranolol, nadolol, timolol, atenolol, metoprolol and carvedilol have been in clinical practice in patients with cirrhosis. Carvedilol has proven 2-4 times more potent than propranolol as a beta-receptor blocker in trials conducted testing its efficacy for heart failure. Whether the same effect extends to its potency in the reduction of portal venous pressures is a topic of on-going debate. The aim of this review is to compare the hemodynamic and clinical effects of carvedilol with propranolol, and attempt assess whether carvedilol can be used instead of propranolol in patients with cirrhosis. Carvedilol is a promising agent among the beta blockers of recent time that has shown significant effects in portal hypertension hemodynamics. It has also demonstrated an effective profile in its clinical application specifically for the prevention of variceal bleeding. Carvedilol has more potent desired physiological effects when compared to Propranolol. However, it is uncertain at the present juncture whether the improvement in hemodynamics also translates into a decreased rate of disease progression and complications when compared to propranolol. Currently Carvedilol shows promise as a therapy for portal hypertension but more clinical trials need to be carried out before we can consider it as a superior option and a replacement for propranolol.

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

PURPOSE

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Extrahepatic complications to cirrhosis and portal hypertension: Haemodynamic and homeostatic aspects

In addition to complications relating to the liver, patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension develop extrahepatic functional disturbances of multiple organ systems. This can be considered a multiple organ failure that involves the heart, lungs, kidneys, the immune systems, and other organ systems. Progressive fibrosis of the liver and subsequent metabolic impairment leads to a systemic and splanchnic arteriolar vasodilatation. This affects both the haemodynamic and functional homeostasis of many organs and largely determines the course of the disease. With the progression of the disease, the circulation becomes hyperdynamic with cardiac, pulmonary as well as renal consequences for dysfunction and reduced survival. Infections and a changed cardiac function known as cirrhotic cardiomyopathy may be involved in further aggravation of other complications such as renal failure precipitating the hepatorenal syndrome. Patients with end-stage liver disease and related complications as for example the hepatopulmonary syndrome can only radically be treated by liver transplantation. As a bridge to this treatment, knowledge on the mechanisms of the pathophysiology of complications is essential for the choice of vasoactive drugs, antibiotics, drugs with specific effects on fibrogenesis and inflammation, and drugs that target specific receptors.

Biomarkers of liver fibrosis

Liver fibrosis is the final common pathway for almost all causes of chronic liver injury. Liver fibrosis is now known to be a dynamic process having significant potential for resolution. Therefore, fibrosis prediction is an essential part of the assessment and management of patients with chronic liver disease. As such, there is strong demand for reliable liver biomarkers that provide insight into disease etiology, diagnosis, therapy, and prognosis in lieu of more invasive approaches such as liver biopsy. Current diagnostic strategies range from use of serum biomarkers to more advanced imaging techniques including transient elastography and magnetic resonance imaging. In addition to these modalities, there are other approaches including the use of novel, but yet to be validated, biomarkers. In this chapter, we discuss the biomarkers of liver fibrosis including the use of invasive and noninvasive biomarkers and disease-specific biomarkers in various chronic liver diseases.

Beta-blockers in portal hypertension: new developments and controversies

There are many studies investigating the role of non-selective beta-blockers in portal hypertension. Satisfactory reduction in portal pressure is possible in a third to half of patients with propranolol and nadolol, although combining these drugs with nitrates may be more effective. Carvedilol is a more potent agent than propranolol in reducing portal pressure, particularly in non-responders, and is better tolerated. All these drugs have been studied in primary and secondary prophylaxis, sometimes in combination with band ligation and/or nitrates. There is some evidence to support combining these agents with band ligation, despite a lack of survival benefit and increased adverse events. Hemodynamic monitoring can help select non-responders who may benefit from additional therapies such as band ligation, as lack of response is associated with worse outcomes. Propranolol should be used with caution in patients with refractory ascites, although the current evidence is not of sufficient quality to justify not using these drugs in such situations. Beta-blockers have been shown to reduce bacterial translocation and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in cirrhosis.

Systematic review with meta-analysis: the haemodynamic effects of carvedilol compared with propranolol for portal hypertension in cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Propranolol is recommended for prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in cirrhosis. Carvedilol is a nonselective beta-blocker with a mild anti-alfa-1-adrenergic activity. Several studies have compared carvedilol and propranolol, yielding inconsistent results.

AIM

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the randomised clinical trials comparing carvedilol with propranolol for hepatic vein pressure gradient reduction.

METHODS

Studies were searched on the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane library databases up to November 2013. The weighted mean difference in percent hepatic vein pressure gradient reduction and the relative risk of failure to achieve a hemodynamic response (reduction ≥20% of baseline or to ≤12 mmHg) with each drug were used as measures of treatment efficacy.

RESULTS

Five studies (175 patients) were included. Indication to treatment was primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in 76% of patients. There were overall three acute (60-90 min after drug administration) and three long-term (after 7-90 days of therapy) comparisons. The summary mean weighted difference in % of reduction in hepatic vein pressure gradient was: acute -7.70 (CI -12.40, -3.00), long-term -6.81 (CI -11.35, -2.26), overall -7.24 (CI -10.50, -3.97), favouring carvedilol. The summary relative risk of failure to achieve a hemodynamic response with carvedilol was 0.66 (CI 0.44, 1.00). Adverse events were nonsignificantly more frequent and serious with carvedilol. However, quality of trials was mostly unsatisfactory.

CONCLUSIONS

Carvedilol reduces portal hypertension significantly more than propranolol. However, available data do not allow a satisfactory comparison of adverse events. These results suggest a potential for a cautious clinical use.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Cirrhotic Patients with Portal Hypertension

Gastrointestinal bleeding related to portal hypertension is a serious complication in patients with liver cirrhosis. Most patients bleed from esophageal or gastric varices, but bleeding from ectopic varices or portal hypertensive gastropathy is also possible. The management of acute bleeding has changed over the last years. Patients are managed with a combination of endoscopic and pharmacologic treatment. The endoscopic treatment of choice for esophageal variceal bleeding is variceal band ligation. Bleeding from gastric varices is treated by injection with cyanoacrylate. Treatment with vasoactive drugs as well as antibiotic treatment is started before or at the time point of endoscopy. The first-line treatment for primary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding is nonselective beta blockers. Pharmacologic therapy is recommended for most patients; band ligation is an alternative in patients with contraindications for or intolerability of beta blockers. Treatment options for secondary prophylaxis include variceal band ligation, beta blockers, a combination of nitrates and beta blockers, and combination of band ligation and pharmacologic treatment. A clear superiority of one treatment over the other has not been shown. Bleeding from portal hypertensive gastropathy or ectopic varices is less common. Treatment options include beta blocker therapy, injection therapy, and interventional radiology.

The insulin like growth factor system in cirrhosis. Relation to changes in body composition following adrenoreceptor blockade

OBJECTIVE

Circulating levels of IGF-I and IGFBP-3 are low in cirrhosis and are related to liver dysfunction. Metabolic disturbances include malnutrition with altered body composition and osteopenia. Since the effects of IGF-I may be associated to changes in body composition and bone mineral content (BMC) in cirrhotic patients, we investigated the relations between changes in the IGF-system and body composition and the effects of long-term alpha- and beta-blockade.

DESIGN

The study was designed as a combined cross-sectional and prospective randomised controlled study of 62 patients with cirrhosis. Twenty-three of these patients were randomised to treatment with beta- or combined alpha/beta-blocker for 3 months. Haemodynamics, body composition, and systemic and hepatic IGF-I and IGFBP-3 levels were determined in all patients. In the subgroup changes in body composition and IGF-I/IGFBP-3 levels after 3 months of beta- or combined alpha/beta-blockade were additionally examined.

RESULTS

Both the hepatic and the systemic IGF systems were suppressed and correlated with liver dysfunction and anthropometrics (p<0.05-0.001). Multivariate analyses revealed that changes in the IGF-system were determined by metabolic liver dysfunction as well as anthropometrics. In the follow-up study, hepatic venous IGF-I (p=0.05) and IGFBP-3 (p=0.02) increased after 3 months only in the group who received beta-blocker. In both groups, fat body mass increased significantly after 3 months (p=0.05-0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In cirrhosis, the IGF-system is associated with both anthropometrics and synthetic capacity of the liver. Changes in IGF-I relate to changes in anthropometrics and there seems to be a differential effect depending on the type of adrenoreceptor blockade. Future longitudinal studies are needed to unravel these mechanisms in cirrhosis.