4.6 Article

Treatment with carvedilol improves survival of patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure: a randomized controlled trial

期刊

HEPATOLOGY INTERNATIONAL
卷 13, 期 6, 页码 800-813

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12072-019-09986-9

关键词

Acute-on-chronic liver failure; Beta blockers; Carvedilol

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and aims In addition to the portal pressure reducing effect, non-selective beta blockers (NSBBs) have possible immunomodulatory and effect in reducing bacterial translocation. Recently, it has been shown that patients who are already on NSBBs should be continued on them (if feasible), if acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) develops. It, however, remains unknown if patients with ACLF and no or small esophageal varices at presentation will benefit from the use of NSBBs. We studied the efficacy and safety of carvedilol in patients with ACLF in reducing mortality, variceal bleeding and non-bleeding complications. Methods 136 patients with ACLF (with no or small esophageal varices and HVPG = 12 mmHg) were randomized to either carvedilol (n = 66) or placebo arms (n = 70). Results Within 28 days, 7 (10.6%) of 66 patients in the carvedilol group and 17 (24.3%) of 70 in the placebo group died (p= 0.044). Fewer patients in the carvedilol compared to placebo group developed acute kidney injury (AKI) (13.6% vs 35.7%, p = 0.003 and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) (6.1% vs 21.4%, p= 0.013). Significantly, more patients in the placebo group had increase in APASL ACLF Research Consortium-ACLF grade (22.9% vs 6.1%, p= 0.007). There was no significant difference in the 90-day transplant-free survival rate and development of AKI, SBP, non-SBP infections (including pneumonia) and variceal bleed within 90 days, between the two groups. Conclusions In ACLF patients with either no or small esophageal varices and HVPG = 12 mmHg, carvedilol leads to improved survival and fewer AKI and SBP events up to 28 days. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier number NCT02583698.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据