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.
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.
Authors: Salvador Augustin; Antonio González; Laia Badia; Laura Millán; Aranzazu Gelabert; Alejandro Romero; Antoni Segarra; María Martell; Rafael Esteban; Jaime Guardia; Joan Genescà Journal: Hepatology Date: 2012-07-06 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Thomas Reiberger; Gregor Ulbrich; Arnulf Ferlitsch; Berit Anna Payer; Philipp Schwabl; Matthias Pinter; Birgit B Heinisch; Michael Trauner; Ludwig Kramer; Markus Peck-Radosavljevic Journal: Gut Date: 2012-12-18 Impact factor: 23.059