Hemodynamic effect of Carvedilol vs. propranolol in cirrhotic patients: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Background. Carvedilol appears to be more effective than propranolol in the treatment of portal hypertension in cirrhotic patients.Aim. To compare the effects of carvedilol vs. propranolol on systemic and splanchnic haemodynamics and to evaluate the adverse events associated with these treatments.Material and methods. We performed a systematic review following the Cochrane and PRISMA recommendations. Randomised controlled trials comparing carvedilol versus propranolol, in the treatment of portal hypertension in cirrhotic patients with oesophageal varices, with or without bleeding history were included. The primary outcome measure was the haemodynamic response to treatment.Results. Four randomised trials and 153 patients were included; 79 patients received carvedilol (6.25-50 mg/d) and 74 patients received propranolol (10-320 mg/d). The hepatic vein pressure gradient (HVPG) decreased more with carvedilol than with propranolol (MD -2.21; 95% CI: −2.83 to −1.60, I2 = 0%, P < 0.00001). Carvedilol was superior to propranolol for reducing HVPG by ≥ 20% from the baseline value or to ≤ 12 mmHg (OR: 2.93; 95% CI: 1.50 to 5.74, I2 = 22%, P = 0.002). Overall adverse events did not differ between. In conclusion, there is limited evidence suggesting that carvedilol is more effective than propranolol for improving the haemodynamic response in cirrhotic patients with portal hypertension. Long-term randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm this information

Validation of prognostic scores for clinical outcomes in cirrhotic patients with acute variceal bleeding

Background. The Rockall, Glasgow-Blatchford, and AIMS65 are useful and validated scoring systems for predicting the outcomes of patients with nonvariceal gastrointestinal bleeding. However, there are no validated evidence for using them to predict outcomes on variceal bleeding. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the prognostic accuracy of different nonvariceal bleeding scores with other liver-specific scoring systems in cirrhotic patients. Material and methods. A retrospective multicenter study that included 160 cirrhotic patients with acute variceal bleeding. The AUROC’s to predict in-hospital mortality, and rebleeding, were analyzed for each scoring system.Results. Overall in-hospital mortality occurred in 13% and in-hospital rebleeding in 12% of patients. The systems with the best AUROC value for predicting mortality were MELD (0.828; 95% CI 0.748-0.909), and AIMS65 (0.817; 95% CI 0.724-0.909). The best score systems for predicting rebleeding were Glasgow-Blatchford (0.756; 95% CI 0.640-0.827), and Rockall (0.691; 95% CI 0.580-0.802).Conclusions. In addition to liver-specific scores, the AIMS65 score is accurate for predicting in-hospital mortality in cirrhotic patients with acute variceal bleeding. Other scoring systems might be useful for predicting significant clinical outcomes in these patients