Nonselective beta-blockers (NSBB) are the mainstay for treatment of portal hypertension (PH), but require caution in decompensated cirrhosis (DC) or acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) with hypotension, hyponatremia, acute kidney injury (AKI) or type 2 hepatorenal syndrome (HRS). Midodrine is oral, rapidly acting, α1-adrenergic agonist. We evaluated acute effects of midodrine on hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) in DC and ACLF with contraindications to NSBB.

Patients of DC (n = 30) with grade III ascites and serum sodium (Na) <130/systolic blood pressure (SBP) <90/type II HRS (group I) and ACLF patients (n = 30) with Na <130/SBP <90/AKI (group II) were included. HVPG was done at baseline and repeated 3 h after 10 mg midodrine. Primary outcome was HVPG response (reduction by >20% or to <12 mmHg).

In group I, midodrine significantly reduced HVPG (19.2 ± 4.6 to 17.8 ± 4.2, p = .02) and heart rate (HR) (86.3 ± 11.6 to 77.9 ± 13.1, p < .01) and increased mean arterial pressure (MAP) (74.1 ± 6.9 to 81.9 ± 6.6 mmHg, p < .01). In group II also, midodrine reduced HVPG (19.1 ± 4.1 to 17.0 ± 4.2) and HR (92.4 ± 13.7 to 84.6 ± 14.1) and increased MAP (85.4 ± 7.3 to 91.2 ± 7.6 mmHg), p < .01 for all. HVPG response was achieved in 3/30 (10%) in group I and 8/30 (26.7%) in group II. On logistic regression analysis, prerenal AKI (OR 11.04, 95% CI 1.83-66.18, p < .01) and increase in MAP (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.03-1.43, p = .02) were independent predictors of response. Increase in MAP by 8.5 mmHg with midodrine had best cut-off with AUROC of .76 for response.

In decompensated cirrhosis and ACLF patients with contraindications to NSBB, midodrine is useful in decreasing HVPG. Dose of midodrine should be titrated to increase MAP atleast by 8.5 mmHg.

Cirrhotic cardiomyopathy (CCM) is defined as cardiac dysfunction associated with cirrhosis in the absence of pre-existing heart disease. CCM manifests as the enlargement of cardiac chambers, attenuated systolic and diastolic contractile responses to stress stimuli, and repolarization changes. CCM significantly contributes to mortality and morbidity in patients who undergo liver transplantation and contributes to the pathogenesis of hepatorenal syndrome/acute kidney injury. There is currently no specific treatment. The traditional management for non-cirrhotic cardiomyopathies, such as vasodilators or diuretics, is not applicable because an important feature of cirrhosis is decreased systemic vascular resistance; therefore, vasodilators further worsen the peripheral vasodilatation and hypotension. Long-term diuretic use may cause electrolyte imbalances and potentially renal injury. The heart of the cirrhotic patient is insensitive to cardiac glycosides. Therefore, these types of medications are not useful in patients with CCM. Exploring the therapeutic strategies of CCM is of the utmost importance. The present review summarizes the possible treatment of CCM. We detail the current status of non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) in the management of cirrhotic patients and discuss the controversies surrounding NSBBs in clinical practice. Other possible therapeutic agents include drugs with antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and anti-apoptotic functions; such effects may have potential clinical application. These drugs currently are mainly based on animal studies and include statins, taurine, spermidine, galectin inhibitors, albumin, and direct antioxidants. We conclude with speculations on the future research directions in CCM treatment.

It has been suggested that a relevant proportion of patients do not respond to nonselective beta-blockers (NSBB)s, which raises questions regarding the need for individualized therapy. The existence of potential heterogeneity in the treatment response can be assessed using the variability ratio (VR) of the outcome measurement (in this case, HVPG) between the treated and placebo groups. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the potential heterogeneity in the portal pressure response to NSBBs.

After a systematic search, we quantified the heterogeneity of treatment response with the VR between the treatment and control groups, with VR > 1 indicating potential heterogeneity. We used a similar approach to compare carvedilol with propranolol and statins with placebo.

We identified 18 studies that included 965 patients. A comparison between beta-blockers and placebo showed a pooled VR of 0.99 (95% CI:0.87-1.14), which suggests a homogeneous HVPG response to NSBB at the individual patient level (ie, no evidence to support that some patients responded to beta-blockers and others did not). For the comparison between carvedilol and propranolol, pooled VR was 0.97 (95% CI 0.82-1.14), suggesting that carvedilol achieves a greater average response (rather than an increase in the proportion of responders). There was no evidence of a heterogeneous response to statins.

Our analysis did not support the existence of a heterogeneous patient-by-patient response to NSBBs in cirrhosis. These findings challenge the concept of personalized therapy based on portal pressure response and indicate that routine portal pressure measurement may not be necessary to guide NSBB therapy.

Nonselective beta-blockers (NSBBs) may exacerbate ascites by impairing cardiac function. This study evaluated the impact of achieving a heart rate target of 55-60 beats per minute (bpm) on ascites-related death and complications from worsening ascites in patients with cirrhosis and diuretic-responsive ascites using NSBBs. A retrospective study was conducted at the Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University (2012-2022) and analyzed patients with cirrhosis and diuretic-responsive ascites using NSBBs (propranolol/carvedilol) for variceal bleeding prophylaxis. The outcomes were incidence of ascites-related death and complications from worsening ascites, comparing the achievable target group (heart rate 55-60 bpm) and the unachievable target group (heart rate >60 bpm). A total of 206 patients were included in the study, with a median follow-up time of 20 months. The patients were divided into an achievable target group (n = 75, median heart rate = 58.0 bpm) and an unachievable target group (n = 131, median heart rate = 73.6 bpm). Propranolol was the most used NSBB (95.1%). The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for ascites-related death from spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) or refractory ascites (RA) or hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) or hepatic encephalopathy (HE) showed no difference between the groups (adjusted HR 0.59 [0.23-1.54]; p = 0.28). Additionally, no significant difference was found in the incidence of complications between groups, including SBP, RA, HRS, and HE. Achieving a heart rate target of 55-60 bpm with NSBBs for variceal bleeding prophylaxis is safe in patients with diuretic-responsive ascites and cirrhosis.

Hypertension is a very prevalent condition associated with high mortality and morbidity, secondary to changes resulting in blood vessels and resultant end-organ damage. Haemodynamic changes, including an initial rise in cardiac output followed by an increase in total peripheral resistance, denote the early changes associated with borderline or stage 1 hypertension, especially in young men. Increased sodium reabsorption leading to kidney damage is another mechanism proposed as one of the initial triggers for essential hypertension. The underlying pathophysiological mechanisms include catecholamine-induced α1- and ß1-adrenoceptor stimulation, and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system activation leading to endothelial dysfunction which is believed to lead to persistent blood pressure elevation.α1 blockers, α2 agonists, and ß blockers were among the first oral anti-hypertensives. They are no longer first-line therapy after outcome trials did not demonstrate any benefits over and above other agents, despite similar blood pressure reductions. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (or angiotensin receptor blockers), calcium channel blockers, and thiazide-like diuretics are now considered the first line of therapy, although adrenoceptor agents still have a role as second- or third-line therapy. The chapter also highlights hypertension in specific medical conditions such as pregnancy, phaeochromocytoma, hyperthyroidism, portal hypertension, pulmonary arterial hypertension, and ocular hypertension, to provide an overview for clinicians and researchers interested in the role of adrenoceptors in the pathophysiology and management of hypertension.

Background: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a serious complication of cirrhosis. Currently, non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) are commonly used to treat portal hypertension in patients with cirrhosis. The latest research shows that NSBBs can induce apoptosis and S-phase arrest in liver cancer cells and inhibit the development of hepatic vascular endothelial cells, which may be effective in preventing HCC in cirrhosis patients. Aim: To determine the relationship between different NSBBs and HCC incidence in patients with cirrhosis. Methods: We searched the Cochrane database, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science. Cohort studies, case‒control studies, and randomized controlled trials were included if they involved cirrhosis patients who were divided into an experimental group using NSBBs and a control group with any intervention. Based on heterogeneity, we calculated odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) using random-effect models. We also conducted subgroup analysis to explore the source of heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis and publication bias detection were performed. Results: A total of 47 studies included 38 reporting HCC incidence, 26 reporting HCC-related mortality, and 39 reporting overall mortality. The HCC incidence between the experimental group and the control group was OR = 0.87 (0.69 and 1.10), p = 0.000, and I2 = 81.8%. There was no significant association between propranolol (OR = 0.94 and 95%CI 0.62-1.44) or timolol (OR = 1.32 and 95%CI 0.44-3.95) and HCC incidence, while the risk of HCC decreased by 26% and 38% with nadolol (OR = 0.74 and 95%CI 0.64-0.86) and carvedilol (OR = 0.62 and 95%CI 0.52-0.74), respectively. Conclusion: Different types of NSBB have different effects on the incidence of patients with cirrhosis of the liver, where nadolol and carvedilol can reduce the risk. Also, the effect of NSBBs may vary in ethnicity. Propranolol can reduce HCC incidence in Europe and America. Systematic Review Registration: identifier https://CRD42023434175, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/.

Cirrhosis transcends various progressive stages from compensation to decompensation driven by the severity of portal hypertension. The downstream effect of increasing portal hypertension severity leads to various pathophysiological pathways, which result in the cardinal complications of cirrhosis, including ascites, variceal hemorrhage, and hepatic encephalopathy. Additionally, the severity of portal hypertension is the central driver for further advanced complications of hyperdynamic circulation, hepatorenal syndrome, and cirrhotic cardiomyopathy. The management of these individual complications has specific nuances which have undergone significant developments. In contrast to the classical natural history of cirrhosis and its complications which follows an insidious trajectory, acute-on-chronic failure (ACLF) leads to a rapidly downhill course with high short-term mortality unless intervened at the early stages. The management of ACLF involves specific interventions, which have quickly evolved in recent years. In this review, we focus on complications of portal hypertension and delve into an approach toward ACLF.

The hemodynamics of patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension are complex and variable. We aimed to investigate differences in venous pressures determined by innovative angiography and conventional angiography using balloon occlusion of the hepatic veins in patients with alcoholic cirrhosis and portal hypertension.

A total of 134 patients with alcoholic cirrhosis who fulfilled the inclusion criteria from June 2017 to June 2020 were included. During transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt, conventional and innovative angiography were performed, and venous pressures were measured. A paired t-test and Pearson's correlation coefficient were used for analysis.

Conventional and innovative hepatic angiography detected lateral branches of the hepatic vein in 26 (19.4%) and 65 (48.5%) cases, respectively (P < 0.001). Innovative angiography detected a total of 65 patients with lateral shunts, of whom 37 (56.9%) had initial shunts. The average wedged hepatic venous pressure and portal venous pressure of the initial lateral branches were 21.27 ± 6.66 and 35.84 ± 7.86 mmHg, respectively, with correlation and determination coefficients of 0.342 (P < 0.05) and 0.117, respectively. The mean hepatic venous pressure gradient and portal pressure gradient were 9.59 ± 7.64 and 26.86 ± 6.78 mmHg, respectively, with correlation and determination coefficients of 0.292 (P = 0.079) and 0.085, respectively.

Innovative angiography reveals collateral branches of the hepatic veins more effectively than conventional angiography. Hepatic vein collateral branches are the primary factors leading to underestimation of wedged hepatic venous pressures and hepatic venous pressure gradients, with the initial hepatic vein collateral branches resulting in the most severe underestimations.

Non-selective beta blockers remain pharmacotherapy of choice for prevention of first episode of variceal bleeding (primary prevention) and for prevention of its recurrence after initial hemostasis (secondary prophylaxis). This review will update the current and emerging pharmacological therapies for portal hypertension.

Data have emerged on carvedilol in preventing hepatic decompensation and improving patient survival among patients with clinically significant portal hypertension. Because measurement of WHVP is invasive and not feasible in routine practice, non-invasive tests with liver stiffness measurement in combination with platelet count may be accurate in identifying clinically significant portal hypertension.

Carvedilol is more effective in reducing portal pressure compared to nadolol or propranolol. Its use has expanded to reduce risk of hepatic decompensation among patients with CSPH, which can be identified non-invasively using liver stiffness and platelet count. Studies are needed on non-invasive biomarkers to guide and optimize pharmacological treatment of portal hypertension.

With increasing decompensation, hyperdynamic circulatory disturbance occurs in liver cirrhosis despite activation of vasoconstrictors. Here, the concept of a therapy with non-selective beta-blockers was established decades ago. They lower elevated portal pressure, protect against variceal hemorrhage, and may also have pleiotropic immunomodulatory effects. Recently, the beneficial effect of carvedilol, which blocks alpha and beta receptors, has been highlighted. Carvedilol leads to "biased-signaling" via recruitment of beta-arrestin. This effect and its consequences have not been sufficiently investigated in patients with liver cirrhosis. Also, a number of questions remain open regarding the expression of beta-receptors and its intracellular signaling and the respective consequences in the intra- and extrahepatic tissue compartments. Despite the undisputed role of non-selective beta-blockers in the treatment of liver cirrhosis, we still can improve the knowledge as to when and how beta-blockers should be used in which patients.

The development of portal hypertension leads to a majority of complications associated with chronic liver disease. Therefore, adequate treatment of portal hypertension is crucial in the management of such patients. Current treatment options are limited and consist mainly of medications that decrease the hyperdynamic circulation, such as non-selective beta blockers, and treatment of hypervolemia with diuretics. Despite these options, mortality rates have not improved over the last two decades. Newer, more effective treatment options are necessary to help improve survival and quality of life in these patients.

Multiple preclinical models and clinical studies have demonstrated potential efficacy of a variety of new treatment modalities. We introduce treatment options including the use of vasodilation promotors, vasoconstriction inhibitors, anticoagulants, antiangiogenics, and anti-inflammatory drugs. We examine the most recent studies for treatment options within these drug classes and offer insights as to which show the most promise in this field.

Published studies that identified novel medical treatment options of portal hypertension were searched using PubMed (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/). Clinical trials listed in Clinicaltrials.gov were also searched with a focus on more recent and ongoing studies, including those with completed recruitment. Searching with key terms including "portal hypertension" as well as individually searching specific treatment medications that were listed in other publications was carried out. Finally, current societal guidelines and recent review articles relevant to the management of portal hypertension were evaluated, and listed references of interest were included.

Many ongoing early phase studies demonstrate promising results and may shape the field of portal hypertension management in future. As concrete results become available, larger RCTs will be required before making definitive conclusions regarding safety and efficacy and whether or not they can be incorporated into routine clinical practice. Statins, anticoagulants, and PDE inhibitors have been among the most studied and appear to be most promising.

Background and objectives: Over the last decade our understanding of the pathophysiology of portal hypertension has increased. Novel diagnostic technologies have facilitated and improved the diagnosis and treatment of hepatic fibrosis and cirrhosis. With this review we aim to provide an overview of contemporary diagnostic principles of portal hypertension and indications for measuring portal pressure in cirrhosis.Methods: By review of current literature, we assessed new and old principles of measuring portal hypertension and the diagnostic values of the methods.Results: Invasive measurement of the portal pressure is still the gold standard to quantitate portal hypertension and to assess response to vasoactive treatment. The size of the portal pressure is important to assess since it contains information on the course of the disease and risk of developing hepatic decompensation, hepatocellular carcinoma, and mortality. Reliable non-invasive Elastography techniques are emerging that adequately assess portal pressure, but the available methods are not yet sufficiently accurate.Conclusion: Although elastography techniques provide valuable information and are good monitoring tools, liver vein catheterization remains valuable in diagnosing and monitoring portal hypertension, especially in combination with a trans-jugular liver biopsy.

Efficient and thorough care of hospitalized patients with advanced chronic liver disease is of utter importance to improve outcomes and optimize quality of life. This requires understanding current evidence and best practices. To facilitate focus on up-to-date knowledge and a practical approach, we have created the HEPA-ROUNDS mnemonic while outlining a practical review of the literature with critical appraisal for the busy clinician. The HEPA-ROUNDS mnemonic provides a structured approach that incorporates critical concepts in terms of prevention, management, and prognostication of the most common complications frequently encountered in patients with advanced chronic liver disease. In addition, implementing the HEPA-ROUNDS mnemonic can facilitate education for trainees and staff caring for patients with advanced chronic liver disease.

Portal hypertension is the cause of the clinical complications associated with cirrhosis. The primary complications of portal hypertension are ascites, acute variceal bleed, and hepatic encephalopathy. Hepatic venous pressure gradient measurement remains the gold standard test for diagnosing cirrhosis-related portal hypertension. Hepatic venous pressure gradient more than 10 mmHg is associated with an increased risk of complications and is termed clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH). Clinical, laboratory, and imaging methods can also aid in diagnosing CSPH non-invasively. Recently, deep learning methods have been demonstrated to diagnose CSPH effectively. The management of portal hypertension is always individualized and is dependent on the etiology, the availability of therapies, and the degree of portal hypertension complications. In this review, we discuss the diagnosis and management of cirrhosis-related portal hypertension in detail. Also, we highlight the history of portal hypertension and future research areas in portal hypertension.

Cirrhosis-associated immune dysfunction (CAID) describes a panacea of innate and adaptive deficits that result from the sequelae of cirrhotic portal hypertension that is similar in its manifestations regardless of etiology of chronic liver injury. CAID is associated with synchronous observations of dysregulated priming of innate immune effector cells that demonstrate a proinflammatory phenotype but are functionally impaired and unable to adequately prevent invading pathogens. CAID is mainly driven by gut-barrier dysfunction and is associated with deficits of microbial compartmentalization and homeostasis that lead to tonic activation, systemic inflammation, and exhaustion of innate-immune cells. CAID leads to a high frequency of bacterial and fungal infections in patients with cirrhosis that are often associated with acute decompensation of chronic liver disease and acute-on-chronic liver failure and carry a high mortality rate. Understanding the deficits of mucosal and systemic immunity in the context of chronic liver disease is essential to improving care for patients with cirrhosis, preventing precipitants of acute decompensation of cirrhosis, and improving morbidity and survival. In this review, we summarize the detailed dynamic immunological perturbations associated with advanced chronic liver disease and highlight the importance of recognizing immune dysregulation as a sequela of cirrhosis. Furthermore, we address the role of screening, prevention, and early treatment of infections in cirrhosis in improving patient outcomes in transplant and nontransplant settings.

Content available: Author Interview and Audio Recording.

Patients with cirrhosis and esophageal varices bleed at a yearly rate of 5%-15%, and, when variceal hemorrhage develops, mortality reaches 20%. Patients are deemed at high risk of bleeding when they present with medium or large-sized varices, when they have red signs on varices of any size and when they are classified as Child-Pugh C and have varices of any size. In order to avoid variceal bleeding and death, individuals with cirrhosis at high risk of bleeding must undergo primary prophylaxis, for which currently recommended strategies are the use of traditional non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) (i.e., propranolol or nadolol), carvedilol (a NSBB with additional alpha-adrenergic blocking effect) or endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL). The superiority of one of these alternatives over the others is controversial. While EVL might be superior to pharmacological therapy regarding the prevention of the first bleeding episode, either traditional NSBBs or carvedilol seem to play a more prominent role in mortality reduction, probably due to their capacity of preventing other complications of cirrhosis through the decrease in portal hypertension. A sequential strategy, in which patients unresponsive to pharmacological therapy would be submitted to endoscopic treatment, or the combination of pharmacological and endoscopic strategies might be beneficial and deserve further investigation.

Andrew K (Andy) Burroughs passed away in March 2014 at the early age of 60 years. Andy was one of the last of the great all round giants of hepatology. He was a consummate physician, clinical investigator and educator. Over a period of 35 years at the Royal Free Hospital Liver Unit he produced a prodigious quantity of original research and made major contributions in many areas of hepatology including portal hypertension, liver transplantation and chronic liver disease. His work on the methodology of clinical trials is carried on by the Baveno consensus meetings. From bedside clinical mastery to early molecular biology applications to diagnosis and pathology, his contributions left a mark in liver science and advanced medical science in general. He also was praised by his work in medical education particularly in post-graduate mentorship and, an admirable human touch with patients. We will not see his like again.

Portal hypertension, defined as increased pressure in the portal vein, develops as a consequence of increased intrahepatic vascular resistance due to the dysregulation of liver sinusoidal endothelial cells (LSECs) and hepatic stellate cells (HSCs), frequently arising from chronic liver diseases. Extrahepatic haemodynamic changes contribute to the aggravation of portal hypertension. The pathogenic complexity of portal hypertension and the unsuccessful translation of preclinical studies have impeded the development of effective therapeutics for patients with cirrhosis, while counteracting hepatic and extrahepatic mechanisms also pose a major obstacle to effective treatment. In this review article, we will discuss the following topics: i) cellular and molecular mechanisms of portal hypertension, focusing on dysregulation of LSECs, HSCs and hepatic microvascular thrombosis, as well as changes in the extrahepatic vasculature, since these are the major contributors to portal hypertension; ii) translational/clinical advances in our knowledge of portal hypertension; and iii) future directions.

Nonselective beta-adrenergic blocker (NSBB) therapy for the prevention of initial and recurrent gastrointestinal bleeding in cirrhotic patients with gastroesophageal varices has been used for the past four decades. NSBB therapy is considered the cornerstone of treatment for varices, and has become the standard of care. However, a 2010 study from the group that pioneered β-blocker therapy suggested a detrimental effect of NSBBs in decompensated cirrhosis, especially in patients with refractory ascites. Since then, numerous additional studies have incompletely resolved whether NSBBs are deleterious, although more recent evidence weighs against a harmful effect. The possibility of a "therapeutic window" has also been raised. We aimed to review the literature to analyze the pros and cons of using NSBBs in patients with cirrhosis, not only with respect to bleeding or mortality but also to other potential benefits and risks. β-blockers are highly effective in preventing first bleeding and recurrent bleeding. Furthermore, NSBBs improve congestion/ischemia of the gut mucosa, decrease intestinal permeability, and therefore indirectly alleviate systemic inflammation. β-blockers shorten the electrocardiographic prolonged QTc interval and may also decrease the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma. On the other hand, the possibility of deleterious effects in cirrhosis has not been completely eliminated. NSBBs may be associated with an increased risk of portal vein thrombosis, although this could be correlational artifact. Overall, we conclude that β-blockers in cirrhosis are much more of a friend than enemy.

Cirrhosis is the fifth leading cause of death in adults. Advanced cirrhosis can cause significant portal hypertension (PH), which is responsible for many of the complications observed in patients with cirrhosis, such as varices. If portal pressure exceeds a certain threshold, the patient is at risk of developing life-threatening bleeding from varices. Variceal bleeding has a high incidence among patients with liver cirrhosis and carries a high risk of mortality and morbidity. The management of variceal bleeding is complex, often requiring a multidisciplinary approach involving pharmacological, endoscopic, and radiologic interventions. In terms of management, three stages can be considered: primary prophylaxis, active bleeding, and secondary prophylaxis. The main goal of primary and secondary prophylaxis is to prevent variceal bleeding. However, active variceal bleeding is a medical emergency that requires swift intervention to stop the bleeding and achieve durable hemostasis. We describe the pathophysiology of cirrhosis and PH to contextualize the formation of gastric and esophageal varices. We also discuss the currently available treatments and compare how they fare in each stage of clinical management, with a special focus on drugs that can prevent bleeding or assist in achieving hemostasis.

Non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) are the mainstay of treatment for portal hypertension in the setting of liver cirrhosis. Randomised controlled trials demonstrated their efficacy in preventing initial variceal bleeding and subsequent rebleeding. Recent evidence indicates that NSBBs could prevent liver decompensation in patients with compensated cirrhosis. Despite solid data favouring NSBB use in cirrhosis, some studies have highlighted relevant safety issues in patients with end-stage liver disease, particularly with refractory ascites and infection. This review summarises the evidence supporting current recommendations and restrictions of NSBB use in patients with cirrhosis.

Portal hypertension is defined as increased pressure in the portal venous system. The most common cause of portal hypertension is cirrhosis. In this setting, there is an increase in intrahepatic resistance leading to an increase in portal pressure. By increasing portal blood flow, splanchnic vasodilation further aggravates portal hypertension. New pathogenic pathways are being established which might result in new therapeutic strategies. The presence of varices at endoscopy and/or other abdominal portosystemic collaterals confirms the diagnosis of portal hypertension. The role of non-invasive and imaging tests in the diagnosis and prognosis of portal hypertension has been clarified. Non-selective beta-blockers decrease both the risk of variceal haemorrhage and hepatic decompensation. Terlipressin, somatostatin or octreotide, in combination with early endoscopic therapy, are recommended for the treatment of acute variceal haemorrhage. Early Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is effective as salvage therapy in acute variceal bleeding in selected patients and prevents rebleeding more effectively than endoscopic and medical therapy resulting in an increased survival.

Background It is not clear whether β₁-selective or nonselective β-blockers should be used in patients with cirrhosis and acute myocardial infarction. Methods and Results Medical records were retrieved from Taiwan NHIRD (National Health Insurance Research Database) during 2001-2013. Patients were excluded for age <20, previous acute myocardial infarction, contraindication to β-blockers, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, or atrioventricular conduction disease. Patients who died during index admission, had a follow-up <6 months, had a medication ratio of either β₁-selective or nonselective β-blocker <80%, or who switched between β-blockers were also excluded. Patients on β₁-selective blockers and nonselective β-blockers were propensity score matched and compared for outcome. Primary outcomes were 1- and 2-year cardiovascular events, liver adverse outcomes, and all-cause mortality. A total of 203 595 patients with acute myocardial infarction were enrolled, of whom 6355 had cirrhosis. After screening for exclusion criteria, 1769 patients (655 patients on β-blockers and 1114 patients not on β-blockers) were eligible for analysis. Among patients on β-blockers, propensity score matching was performed, and 218 patients on β₁-selective blockers and 218 patients on nonselective β-blockers were studied. During a 2-year follow-up, patients on β₁-selective blockers had significantly fewer major cardiac and cerebrovascular events (hazard ratio=0.62; 95% confidence interval=0.42-0.91; P=0.014), a trend toward lower all-cause mortality (hazard ratio=0.66; 95% confidence interval=0.38-1.14; P=0.135), and nonworsening liver outcome (hazard ratio=0.66; 95% confidence interval=0.38-1.14; P=0.354). Conclusions In patients with cirrhosis and acute myocardial infarction, selecting a β-blocker is a clinical dilemma. Our study showed that the use of β₁-selective blockers is associated with lower risks of major cardiac and cerebrovascular events.

Terlipressin, somatostatin, or octreotide are recommended as pharmacologic treatment of acute variceal hemorrhage. Nonselective β-blockers decrease the risk of variceal hemorrhage and hepatic decompensation, particularly in those 30% to 40% of patients with good hemodynamic response. Carvedilol, statins, and anticoagulants are promising agents in the management of portal hypertension. Recent advances in the pharmacologic treatment of portal hypertension have mainly focused on modifying an increased intrahepatic resistance through nitric oxide and/or modulation of vasoactive substances. Several novel pharmacologic agents for portal hypertension are being evaluated in humans.

Esophageal variceal bleeding is a life-threatening complication in patients with liver cirrhosis, which is pathophysiologically explained by the presence of portal hypertension. The incidence of such bleeding greatly depends on the severity of the underlying liver disease.

The aim of this article is to present the current treatment concepts for acute esophageal variceal bleeding, the management in acute situations and the indications for treatment of the causal portal hypertension with a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS).

In patients with liver cirrhosis or any other disease causing portal hypertension, a staging examination by esophagogastroduodenoscopy is first carried out for determination of the stage of the varices and the resulting necessary treatment. In addition, determination of the portal pressure gradient is useful. In patients with varices a medicinal or endoscopic bleeding prophylaxis should subsequently additionally be initiated. After an acute variceal bleeding event, under clearly defined prerequisites an evaluation for TIPS implantation should be considered. This is the only effective treatment for reducing portal hypertension.

With appropriate indications implantation of a TIPS is an effective strategy to lower portal hypertension and therefore prevent recurrent variceal bleeding. The resulting improvement of the portal hemodynamics leads to an improvement in kidney function; however, it also leads to deterioration of liver function with subsequent development or deterioration of a previously existing hepatic encephalopathy.

Portal hypertension is one cause and a part of a dynamic process triggered by chronic liver disease, mostly induced by alcohol or incorrect nutrition and less often by viral infections and autoimmune or genetic disease. Adequate staging - continuously modified by current knowledge - should guide the prevention and treatment of portal hypertension with defined endpoints. The main goals are interruption of etiology and prevention of complications followed, if necessary, by treatment of these. For the past few decades, shunts, mostly as intrahepatic stent bypass between portal and hepatic vein branches, have played an important role in the prevention of recurrent bleeding and ascites formation, although their impact on survival remains ambiguous. Systemic drugs, such as non-selective beta-blockers, statins, or antibiotics, reduce portal hypertension by decreasing intrahepatic resistance or portal tributary blood flow or by blunting inflammatory stimuli inside and outside the liver. Here, the interactions among the gut, liver, and brain are increasingly examined for new therapeutic options. There is no general panacea. The interruption of initiating factors is key. If not possible or if not possible in a timely manner, combined approaches should receive more attention before considering liver transplantation.

The renin-angiotensin system (RAS) is an important regulator of cirrhosis and portal hypertension. As hepatic fibrosis progresses, levels of the RAS components angiotensin (Ang) II, Ang-(1-7), angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE), and Ang II type 1 receptor (AT1R) are increased. The primary effector Ang II regulates vasoconstriction, sodium homoeostasis, fibrosis, cell proliferation, and inflammation in various diseases, including liver cirrhosis, through the ACE/Ang II/AT1R axis in the classical RAS. The ACE2/Ang-(1-7)/Mas receptor and ACE2/Ang-(1-9)/AT2R axes make up the alternative RAS and promote vasodilation, antigrowth, proapoptotic, and anti-inflammatory effects; thus, countering the effects of the classical RAS axis to reduce hepatic fibrogenesis and portal hypertension. Patients with portal hypertension have been treated with RAS antagonists such as ACE inhibitors, Ang receptor blockers, and aldosterone antagonists, with very promising hemodynamic results. In this review, we examine the RAS, its roles in hepatic fibrosis and portal hypertension, and current therapeutic approaches based on the use of RAS antagonists in patients with portal hypertension.

Some studies indicate a reduced risk of serious upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) for users of beta-blockers, but the association remains to be confirmed in larger studies and characterized with respect to differences among beta-blockers. We aimed to assess whether beta-blocker use decreases the risk of UGIB.

We conducted a register-based, population-based case-control study in Denmark. We identified cases with a first validated discharge diagnosis of UGIB during the period 1995-2006. Controls were selected by risk-set sampling in a ratio of 10:1. We estimated crude and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) of the association between current beta-blocker use and the risk of UGIB by using conditional logistic regression and further stratified by selective and non-selective beta-blockers, respectively.

We identified 3571 UGIB cases and 35,582 controls. Use of beta-blockers was not found to be associated with a decreased risk of UGIB (adjusted OR 1.10; 95% CI: 1.00-1.21). The association remained neutral after stratification by selective and non-selective beta-blockers, and by single beta-blocker substances. Similarly, we found no association between current beta-blocker use and the risk of UGIB within different subgroups.

We found no association between beta-blocker use and UGIB.

Non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) are recommended for prophylaxis of first variceal bleeding in patients of cirrhosis with large esophageal varices. However, the data is conflicting whether NSBBs can also prevent growth of small esophageal varices to large size.

To perform a meta-analysis of the randomized clinical trials comparing NSBBs with placebo for prevention of development of large esophageal varices in patients of cirrhosis with small esophageal varices.

The PubMed, EMBASE, Science Direct, and Cochrane library databases were searched for relevant papers. A meta-analysis was performed using risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) as the effect sizes.

Overall, 314 trials were initially retrieved from the database searches, of which five randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. The incidence of development of large varices (RR = 0.91, 95%CI: 0.29-2.86; P = 0.87) was similar between NSBB and placebo groups. However, the heterogeneity among studies was significant (P < 0.01) with an I² of 93%. The incidences of first variceal bleeding (RR = 0.72, 95%CI: 0.25-2.12; P = 0.55) and death (RR = 0.76, 95%CI: 0.50-1.15; P = 0.19) were also similar between NSBB and placebo groups; with no heterogeneity. The incidence of adverse events was significantly higher in the NSBB group compared with the placebo group (RR = 4.66, 95%CI: 1.36-15.91; P = 0.01).

The results of this meta-analysis indicate that NSBBs are not effective in preventing growth of small varices and may lead to significant adverse effects. Hence, NSBBs should not be recommended for cirrhotic patients with small varices.

Non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) are used for bleeding prophylaxis in cirrhotic patients with gastroesophageal varices (GEVs). Recent data suggested that NSBB treatment might increase the risk of renal dysfunction in patients with refractory ascites due to an impaired response to acute haemodynamic stress.

Retrospective longitudinal assessment of kidney function in a cohort of cirrhotic patients with GEVs with vs. without NSBB therapy. Serum creatinine (SCre), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI), new onset of large volume ascites and TIPS-/transplant-free survival were compared.

Among 176 patients, 93 patients received NSBBs, while 83 did not. Most patients were male (77.8%), had alcoholic aetiology (52.3%) and compensated cirrhosis (51.1% Child-A, MELD: 12.1 ± 3.8). Over a 3-year follow-up, renal function was comparable between patients with and without NSBB treatment. Incidence of AKI was similar in NSBB vs. no-NSBB patients (p = .323). Even in potential risk groups (ascites, MAP <90 mmHg, baseline creatinine > ULN, hyponatraemia, MELD score ≥15 points, Child-Pugh B/C), there was no difference in SCre or eGFR with vs. without NSBBs (p = n.s. at 74/78 and 76/78 of analysed time points). However, multivariate analysis revealed that the presence of ascites (HR: 3.901, 95%CI: 1.352-11.251; p = .012) and pre-existing renal impairment (HR: 4.315, 95%CI: 1.054-17.672; p = .042) were independent risk factors for AKI. Importantly, NSBB use (HR: 0.319, 95%CI: 0.120-0.848; p = .022) was independently associated with improved TIPS-/transplant-free survival.

In our cohort of unselected, mostly compensated cirrhotic patients with GEVs, NSBB treatment was neither associated with worsening of kidney function nor with increased incidence of AKI. On the contrary, NSBB treatment improved TIPS-/transplant-free survival.

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is used to treat complications of cirrhosis such as variceal bleeding and refractory ascites, but it also bears the risk of liver failure, overt hepatic encephalopathy (HE) and cardiac decompensation. Variceal bleeding may be controlled using endoscopic and medical treatment in patients with compensated cirrhosis; in decompensated patients, however, TIPS improves survival. Therefore, an early TIPS (within 72h or if later, still early after bleeding) might improve the survival of patients by preventing an inflammatory response and bacterial translocation. Both these processes mediate an impaired immunological and hemodynamic response, thereby facilitating the development of acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) and/or death. Similarly, in patients with refractory ascites, TIPS should be used early in treatment to prevent acute kidney injury (AKI) and hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) after precipitating events induced by complications of portal hypertension. Whether TIPS and/or embolization should be used to treat portal vein thrombosis and spontaneous shunts is still a matter of debate and should be further investigated. In summary, the careful selection of patients for TIPS is crucial. New biomarkers, especially those evaluating systemic inflammation and bacterial translocation, might improve the predictive value of established clinical parameters such as bilirubin and overt HE. However, a significant amount of further research must be carried out.

Non-selective β-blockers (NSBBs) are widely prescribed in patients with cirrhosis for primary and secondary prophylaxis of bleeding oesophageal varices. Furthermore, it has been suggested that the clinical benefits of NSBBs may extend beyond their haemodynamic effects. Recently, a potentially harmful effect has been described in patients with refractory ascites or spontaneous bacterial peritonitis.

A comprehensive literature search on β-blockers and cirrhosis survival using the electronic databases PubMed/MEDLINE, AMED, CINAHL and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Full-text manuscripts published over more than 35 years, from 1980 to April 2016 were reviewed for relevance and reference lists were cross-checked for additional pertinent studies regarding potential NSBB effects, especially focused on those concerned with survival and/or acute kidney injury (AKI).

The proposed review will be able to provide valuable evidence to help decision making in the use of NSBB for the treatment of advanced cirrhosis and highlights some limitations in existing evidence to direct future research.

Non-selective beta-blockers (NSBB) are first choice for prevention of variceal bleeding. But possible deleterious effects in refractory ascites and frequent non-response are clinical drawbacks. Since levels of vasoactive proteins in antrum mucosa reflect vascular dysfunction in cirrhosis, these expression levels might also reflect hemodynamic response to NSBB.

Biopsies from the gastric and duodenal mucosa of 25 patients with cirrhosis were collected and the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) was measured before and after an acute propranolol challenge. Transcription and protein expression of Ras homolog family member A (RhoA), Rho-kinase (ROCK)2, beta-arrestin2 (βArr2), endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) and the phosphorylation of downstream effectors VASP and moesin were analyzed using PCR and Western blot. Further 21 patients on NSBB were evaluated on their follow up for events of variceal bleeding defined as non-response.

Ten patients showed HVPG <10mmHg, further seven patients showed significant hemodynamic response to NSBB, whereas eight patients were non-responders. The mucosal transcription of vasoactive proteins was higher in antrum mucosa compared to corpus and duodenum. The transcriptional levels of vasoactive proteins were higher in patients with HVPG >10mmHg and HVPG >16mmHg. Interestingly, mRNA levels of RhoA and ROCK2 were lower in patients with large varices at endoscopy. Moreover, RhoA and ROCK2 transcription correlated with the decrease of HVPG after acute NSBB challenge. Finally, acute and long-term non-responders showed lower expression of βArr2 in antrum mucosa.

This study shows for the first time that the expression of βArr2 in antrum mucosa biopsies might reflect the hemodynamic response to NSBB and their long-term protective effect. This finding might offer an easy approach at upper endoscopy to facilitate the decision to treat with NSBB if varices are present.

Nonselective β-blockers are useful to prevent bleeding in patients with cirrhosis and large varices but not to prevent the development of varices in those with compensated cirrhosis and portal hypertension (PHT). This suggests that the evolutionary stage of PHT may influence the response to β-blockers. To characterize the hemodynamic profile of each stage of PHT in compensated cirrhosis and the response to β-blockers according to stage, we performed a prospective, multicenter (tertiary care setting), cross-sectional study. Hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) and systemic hemodynamic were measured in 273 patients with compensated cirrhosis before and after intravenous propranolol (0.15 mg/kg): 194 patients had an HVPG ≥10 mm Hg (clinically significant PHT [CSPH]), with either no varices (n = 80) or small varices (n = 114), and 79 had an HVPG >5 and <10 mm Hg (subclinical PHT). Patients with CSPH had higher liver stiffness (P < 0.001), worse Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score (P < 0.001), more portosystemic collaterals (P = 0.01) and splenomegaly (P = 0.01) on ultrasound, and lower platelet count (P < 0.001) than those with subclinical PHT. Patients with CSPH had lower systemic vascular resistance (1336 ± 423 versus 1469 ± 335 dyne · s · cm(-5) , P < 0.05) and higher cardiac index (3.3 ± 0.9 versus 2.8 ± 0.4 L/min/m(2) , P < 0.01). After propranolol, the HVPG decreased significantly in both groups, although the reduction was greater in those with CSPH (-16 ± 12% versus -8 ± 9%, P < 0.01). The HVPG decreased ≥10% from baseline in 69% of patients with CSPH versus 35% with subclinical PHT (P < 0.001) and decreased ≥20% in 40% versus 13%, respectively (P = 0.001).

Patients with subclinical PHT have less hyperdynamic circulation and significantly lower portal pressure reduction after acute β-blockade than those with CSPH, suggesting that β-blockers are more suitable to prevent decompensation of cirrhosis in patients with CSPH than in earlier stages.

In patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension, it is largely the frequency and severity of complications relating to the diseased liver, degree of portal hypertension and hemodynamic derangement that determine the prognosis. It can be considered as a multiple organ failure that apart from the liver involves the heart, lungs, kidneys, the immune systems and other organ systems. Progressive fibrosis of the liver and subsequent metabolic impairment leads to a systemic and splanchnic arteriolar vasodilatation. With the progression of the disease development of portal hypertension leads to formation of esophageal varices and ascites. The circulation becomes hyperdynamic with cardiac, pulmonary as well as renal consequences for dysfunction and reduced survival. Infections and a changed cardiac function known as cirrhotic cardiomyopathy may be involved in further aggravation of other complications such as renal failure precipitating the hepatorenal syndrome. Patients with end-stage liver disease and related complications as for example the hepatopulmonary syndrome can only radically be treated by liver transplantation.