Sang G Kim1,2, Tae Y Kim3,2, Joo H Sohn4, Soon H Um5, Yeon S Seo5, Soon K Baik6, Moon Y Kim6, Jae Y Jang7, Soung W Jeong7, Bora Lee8, Young S Kim1, Ki T Suk9, Dong J Kim9. 1. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Soonchunhyang University College of Medicine, Bucheon, Korea. 2. SGK and TYK equally contributed to the manuscript. 3. Institute of Medical Science, Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea. 4. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Guri, Korea. 5. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 6. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Wonju, Korea. 7. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Soonchunhyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 8. Department of Biostatistic Consulting, Soonchunhyang University Bucheon Hospital, Bucheon, Korea. 9. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Hallym University College of Medicine, Chuncheon, Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES:Propranolol has been used as prophylaxis for variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis. More recent data suggest that carvedilol may be more effective for reducing the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) than propranolol. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the hemodynamic response to carvedilol compared with propranolol. METHODS: A total of 110 patients with a baseline HVPG value >12 mm Hg were allocated randomly to receive either carvedilol or propranolol. The HVPG measurement was repeated after 6 weeks of daily medication. The primary end point was a ≥20% fall in HVPG compared with baseline or <12 mm Hg. RESULTS: The difference in the proportion of responders in the carvedilol (49.1%) vs. propranolol (30.9%) groups did not reach statistical significance in the intention-to-treat analysis (P=0.08). However, among patients with a model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score ≥15, carvedilol resulted in a significantly greater response than that of propranolol (7/12, 58.3% vs. 0/10, 0%; P=0.005). Similarly, carvedilol was superior to propranolol in patients with Child-Pugh score ≥9 (46.2 vs. 0%; P=0.046). The presence of ascites also had a significant influence on the response rate (51.5 vs. 24.2%; P=0.042). A MELD score ≥15 was the only significant predictor of response among these post hoc groups after adjusting for multiple comparisons (P=0.005). Severe adverse events were higher in the carvedilol group although drug-associated adverse events were not different. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, carvedilol offered no clear advantage over propranolol but it may be more effective in advanced cirrhotic patients with a MELD score≥15 in reducing the portal pressure gradient. However, this potential benefit may come with a cost of increased risk of side-effects and outcome data over a longer term is needed to understand the relative risk benefit.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES:Propranolol has been used as prophylaxis for variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis. More recent data suggest that carvedilol may be more effective for reducing the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) than propranolol. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the hemodynamic response to carvedilol compared with propranolol. METHODS: A total of 110 patients with a baseline HVPG value >12 mm Hg were allocated randomly to receive either carvedilol or propranolol. The HVPG measurement was repeated after 6 weeks of daily medication. The primary end point was a ≥20% fall in HVPG compared with baseline or <12 mm Hg. RESULTS: The difference in the proportion of responders in the carvedilol (49.1%) vs. propranolol (30.9%) groups did not reach statistical significance in the intention-to-treat analysis (P=0.08). However, among patients with a model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score ≥15, carvedilol resulted in a significantly greater response than that of propranolol (7/12, 58.3% vs. 0/10, 0%; P=0.005). Similarly, carvedilol was superior to propranolol in patients with Child-Pugh score ≥9 (46.2 vs. 0%; P=0.046). The presence of ascites also had a significant influence on the response rate (51.5 vs. 24.2%; P=0.042). A MELD score ≥15 was the only significant predictor of response among these post hoc groups after adjusting for multiple comparisons (P=0.005). Severe adverse events were higher in the carvedilol group although drug-associated adverse events were not different. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, carvedilol offered no clear advantage over propranolol but it may be more effective in advanced cirrhoticpatients with a MELD score≥15 in reducing the portal pressure gradient. However, this potential benefit may come with a cost of increased risk of side-effects and outcome data over a longer term is needed to understand the relative risk benefit.
Authors: Dhiraj Tripathi; James W Ferguson; Narendra Kochar; Joanna A Leithead; George Therapondos; Norma C McAvoy; Adrian J Stanley; Ewan H Forrest; William S Hislop; Peter R Mills; Peter C Hayes Journal: Hepatology Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Joanna A Leithead; Neil Rajoriya; Nadeem Tehami; James Hodson; Bridget K Gunson; Dhiraj Tripathi; James W Ferguson Journal: Gut Date: 2014-10-03 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Davide Roccarina; Lawrence Mj Best; Suzanne C Freeman; Danielle Roberts; Nicola J Cooper; Alex J Sutton; Amine Benmassaoud; Maria Corina Plaz Torres; Laura Iogna Prat; Mario Csenar; Sivapatham Arunan; Tanjia Begum; Elisabeth Jane Milne; Maxine Tapp; Chavdar S Pavlov; Brian R Davidson; Emmanuel Tsochatzis; Norman R Williams; Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-04-06
Authors: Francesca Tamarozzi; Veronica A Fittipaldo; Hans Martin Orth; Joachim Richter; Dora Buonfrate; Niccolò Riccardi; Federico G Gobbi Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis Date: 2021-03-25
Authors: José Ignacio Fortea; Ángela Puente; Patricia Ruiz; Iranzu Ezcurra; Javier Vaquero; Antonio Cuadrado; María Teresa Arias-Loste; Joaquín Cabezas; Susana Llerena; Paula Iruzubieta; Carlos Rodríguez-Lope; Patricia Huelin; Fernando Casafont; Emilio Fábrega; Javier Crespo Journal: World J Clin Cases Date: 2018-11-06 Impact factor: 1.337
Authors: Antony P Zacharias; Rebecca Jeyaraj; Lise Hobolth; Flemming Bendtsen; Lise Lotte Gluud; Marsha Y Morgan Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-10-29