Carvedilol Achieves Higher Hemodynamic Response and Lower Rebleeding Rates Than Propranolol in Secondary Prophylaxis.


Journal

Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association
ISSN: 1542-7714
Titre abrégé: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101160775

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
08 2023
Historique:
received: 03 03 2022
revised: 11 05 2022
accepted: 05 06 2022
medline: 27 7 2023
pubmed: 17 7 2022
entrez: 16 7 2022
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Carvedilol induces stronger decreases in hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) than conventional nonselective β-blockers (ie, propranolol). Limited data exist on the efficacy of carvedilol in secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding. Patients undergoing paired HVPG measurements for guiding secondary prophylaxis with either carvedilol or propranolol were included in this retrospective analysis. All patients also underwent band ligation. Changes in HVPG and systemic hemodynamics were compared between the 2 groups. Long-term follow-up data on rebleeding, acute kidney injury, nonbleeding decompensation, and liver-related death were analyzed applying competing risk regression. Eighty-seven patients (carvedilol/propranolol, n = 45/42) were included in our study. The median baseline HVPG was 21 mm Hg (interquartile range, 18-24 mm Hg), and 39.1%/48.3%/12.6% had Child-Turcotte-Pugh A/B/C cirrhosis, respectively. Upon nonselective β-blocker initiation, HVPG decreased more strongly in carvedilol users (median relative decrease, -20% [interquartile range: -29% to -10%] vs -11% [-22% to -5%] for propranolol; P = .027), who also achieved chronic HVPG response more often (53.3% vs 28.6%; P = .034). Cumulative incidences for rebleeding (Gray test, P = .027) and liver-related death (P = .036) were significantly lower in patients taking carvedilol compared with propranolol. Notably, ascites development/worsening also was observed less commonly in carvedilol patients (P = .012). Meanwhile, acute kidney injury rates did not differ between the 2 groups (P = .255). Stratifying patients by HVPG response status yielded similar results. The prognostic value of carvedilol intake was confirmed in competing risk regression models. Carvedilol induces more marked reductions in HVPG than propranolol in secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding, and thus is associated with lower rates of rebleeding, liver-related death, and further nonbleeding decompensation.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND & AIMS
Carvedilol induces stronger decreases in hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) than conventional nonselective β-blockers (ie, propranolol). Limited data exist on the efficacy of carvedilol in secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding.
METHODS
Patients undergoing paired HVPG measurements for guiding secondary prophylaxis with either carvedilol or propranolol were included in this retrospective analysis. All patients also underwent band ligation. Changes in HVPG and systemic hemodynamics were compared between the 2 groups. Long-term follow-up data on rebleeding, acute kidney injury, nonbleeding decompensation, and liver-related death were analyzed applying competing risk regression.
RESULTS
Eighty-seven patients (carvedilol/propranolol, n = 45/42) were included in our study. The median baseline HVPG was 21 mm Hg (interquartile range, 18-24 mm Hg), and 39.1%/48.3%/12.6% had Child-Turcotte-Pugh A/B/C cirrhosis, respectively. Upon nonselective β-blocker initiation, HVPG decreased more strongly in carvedilol users (median relative decrease, -20% [interquartile range: -29% to -10%] vs -11% [-22% to -5%] for propranolol; P = .027), who also achieved chronic HVPG response more often (53.3% vs 28.6%; P = .034). Cumulative incidences for rebleeding (Gray test, P = .027) and liver-related death (P = .036) were significantly lower in patients taking carvedilol compared with propranolol. Notably, ascites development/worsening also was observed less commonly in carvedilol patients (P = .012). Meanwhile, acute kidney injury rates did not differ between the 2 groups (P = .255). Stratifying patients by HVPG response status yielded similar results. The prognostic value of carvedilol intake was confirmed in competing risk regression models.
CONCLUSIONS
Carvedilol induces more marked reductions in HVPG than propranolol in secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding, and thus is associated with lower rates of rebleeding, liver-related death, and further nonbleeding decompensation.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35842118
pii: S1542-3565(22)00642-5
doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2022.06.007
pii:
doi:

Substances chimiques

Propranolol 9Y8NXQ24VQ
Carvedilol 0K47UL67F2
Adrenergic beta-Antagonists 0

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

2318-2326.e7

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Mathias Jachs (M)

Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine III, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Vienna Hepatic Hemodynamic Laboratory, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine III, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Lukas Hartl (L)

Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine III, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Vienna Hepatic Hemodynamic Laboratory, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine III, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Benedikt Simbrunner (B)

Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine III, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Vienna Hepatic Hemodynamic Laboratory, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine III, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Christian Doppler Laboratory for Portal Hypertension and Liver Fibrosis, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

David Bauer (D)

Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine III, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Vienna Hepatic Hemodynamic Laboratory, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine III, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Rafael Paternostro (R)

Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine III, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Vienna Hepatic Hemodynamic Laboratory, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine III, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Lorenz Balcar (L)

Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine III, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Vienna Hepatic Hemodynamic Laboratory, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine III, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Benedikt Hofer (B)

Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine III, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Vienna Hepatic Hemodynamic Laboratory, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine III, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Christian Doppler Laboratory for Portal Hypertension and Liver Fibrosis, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Nikolaus Pfisterer (N)

Vienna Hepatic Hemodynamic Laboratory, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine III, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Internal Medicine IV, Klinik Landstraße, Vienna, Austria.

Michael Schwarz (M)

Vienna Hepatic Hemodynamic Laboratory, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine III, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Internal Medicine IV, Klinik Ottakring, Vienna, Austria.

Bernhard Scheiner (B)

Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine III, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Vienna Hepatic Hemodynamic Laboratory, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine III, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Albert F Stättermayer (AF)

Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine III, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Matthias Pinter (M)

Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine III, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Michael Trauner (M)

Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine III, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Mattias Mandorfer (M)

Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine III, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Vienna Hepatic Hemodynamic Laboratory, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine III, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Thomas Reiberger (T)

Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine III, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Vienna Hepatic Hemodynamic Laboratory, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine III, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Christian Doppler Laboratory for Portal Hypertension and Liver Fibrosis, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. Electronic address: thomas.reiberger@meduniwien.ac.at.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH