{"title":"Comparison of Carvedilol and Propranolol in Reducing the Portal Vein Pressure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.","authors":"Window Hu, Shunyu Yao, Min Qiao","doi":"10.1097/MCG.0000000000002106","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction and objectives: </strong>The portal vein pressure higher than 10 mm Hg in patients with hepatic cirrhosis is more likely to have serious complications and poor prognosis. Nonselective receptor blockers (NSBBs) can reduce the portal vein pressure; however, the efficacy and safety of different NSBBs in reducing portal vein pressure were unconsistent. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of carvedilol versus propranolol in reducing portal vein pressure in this study.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We assessed Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) through PubMed, Web of science, Embase, and Cochrane library up to January 2024. Data from eligible studies were pooled in fixed-effect or random-effect meta-analysis models, using RevMan software. Two researchers screened articles, extracted data, and assessed the study quality independently according to the PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcomes were the reduction of hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG), the hemodynamic response rate, and the incidence of adverse events. Secondary outcomes were mean artery pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 7 RCTs, including 351 patients, were included in our meta-analysis. The results indicated that the magnitude of reduction in HVPG was greater in carvedilol compared with propranolol (MD: 1.08; 95% CI: 0.61 to 1.54; I2=0%, P<0.00001) in short-term follow-up. Carvedilol's hemodynamic response rate was higher than that of propranolol (OR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.72; I2=0%, P = 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our meta-analysis indicated that compared with propranolol, carvedilol was better in lowering portal hypertensive and had higher response rate in patients with hepatic cirrhosis. There was no obvious difference in safety between the 2 medications.</p>","PeriodicalId":15457,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical gastroenterology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MCG.0000000000002106","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction and objectives: The portal vein pressure higher than 10 mm Hg in patients with hepatic cirrhosis is more likely to have serious complications and poor prognosis. Nonselective receptor blockers (NSBBs) can reduce the portal vein pressure; however, the efficacy and safety of different NSBBs in reducing portal vein pressure were unconsistent. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of carvedilol versus propranolol in reducing portal vein pressure in this study.
Materials and methods: We assessed Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) through PubMed, Web of science, Embase, and Cochrane library up to January 2024. Data from eligible studies were pooled in fixed-effect or random-effect meta-analysis models, using RevMan software. Two researchers screened articles, extracted data, and assessed the study quality independently according to the PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcomes were the reduction of hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG), the hemodynamic response rate, and the incidence of adverse events. Secondary outcomes were mean artery pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR).
Results: A total of 7 RCTs, including 351 patients, were included in our meta-analysis. The results indicated that the magnitude of reduction in HVPG was greater in carvedilol compared with propranolol (MD: 1.08; 95% CI: 0.61 to 1.54; I2=0%, P<0.00001) in short-term follow-up. Carvedilol's hemodynamic response rate was higher than that of propranolol (OR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.72; I2=0%, P = 0.001).
Conclusions: Our meta-analysis indicated that compared with propranolol, carvedilol was better in lowering portal hypertensive and had higher response rate in patients with hepatic cirrhosis. There was no obvious difference in safety between the 2 medications.
简介与目的:肝硬化患者门静脉压高于10 mm Hg更易发生严重并发症和预后不良。非选择性受体阻滞剂(NSBBs)可降低门静脉压力;然而,不同的nsbb在降低门静脉压力方面的疗效和安全性并不一致。本研究对卡维地洛与心得安降低门静脉压力的有效性和安全性进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析。材料和方法:我们通过PubMed、Web of science、Embase和Cochrane图书馆对截至2024年1月的随机对照试验(RCTs)进行评估。使用RevMan软件,将符合条件的研究数据汇集到固定效应或随机效应的元分析模型中。两位研究者筛选文章,提取数据,并根据PRISMA指南独立评估研究质量。主要结果为肝静脉压梯度(HVPG)降低、血流动力学反应率和不良事件发生率。次要结局是平均动脉压(MAP)和心率(HR)。结果:我们的meta分析共纳入7项rct,共351例患者。结果表明,卡维地洛降低HVPG的幅度大于心得安(MD: 1.08;95% CI: 0.61 ~ 1.54;结论:我们的荟萃分析表明,与心得安相比,卡维地洛降低肝硬化患者门脉高压的效果更好,有效率更高。两种药物的安全性无明显差异。
期刊介绍:
Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology gathers the world''s latest, most relevant clinical studies and reviews, case reports, and technical expertise in a single source. Regular features include cutting-edge, peer-reviewed articles and clinical reviews that put the latest research and development into the context of your practice. Also included are biographies, focused organ reviews, practice management, and therapeutic recommendations.