Comparison of Carvedilol and Propranolol in Reducing the Portal Vein Pressure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

IF 2.8 4区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Window Hu, Shunyu Yao, Min Qiao
{"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.

卡维地洛和心得安降低门静脉压力的比较:系统回顾和meta分析。
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。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of clinical gastroenterology
Journal of clinical gastroenterology 医学-胃肠肝病学
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
3.40%
发文量
339
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信