{"title":"卡维地洛治疗肝硬化门静脉高压症是否优于心得安:一项系统荟萃分析。","authors":"Siddheesh Rajpurohit, Balaji Musunuri, Pooja Basthi Mohan, Ganesh Bhat, Shiran Shetty","doi":"10.7573/dic.2024-11-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Carvedilol has shown greater potency than propranolol as a β-blocker in managing cardiac conditions. However, its efficacy in reducing portal hypertension (PHTN) in patients with cirrhosis remains unclear. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of carvedilol compared with propranolol in managing PHTN.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using PubMed, Scopus and Embase databases. Randomized controlled trials comparing carvedilol and propranolol were included. Primary outcomes were changes in hepatic venous pressure gradient, wedge hepatic venous pressure and free hepatic venous pressure. Secondary outcomes included heart rate, cardiac output and mean arterial pressure. Tertiary outcomes assessed adverse event incidences.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Six randomized controlled trials involving 336 patients (171 carvedilol, 165 propranolol) were analysed. Carvedilol significantly reduced hepatic venous pressure gradient (mean difference (MD): 2.22 (95% CI 1.82-2.62); <i>p</i><0.00001) and wedge hepatic venous pressure (MD: 2.38 (95% CI 1.92-2.84); <i>p</i><0.00001). Propranolol significantly reduced cardiac output (MD: -0.60 (95% CI -0.74 to -0.45); <i>p</i><0.00001). Mean arterial pressure was significantly lower in the carvedilol group (MD: 1.79 (95% CI 0.38-3.20); <i>p</i>=0.01). Adverse events, such as orthostatic hypotension and increased diuretic use, were more frequent in the carvedilol group but were manageable.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Carvedilol demonstrates superior efficacy in reducing PHTN compared with propranolol, with a slightly higher but tolerable adverse event profile. It may be considered the first-line treatment for PHTN. Further research is needed to validate long-term benefits and safety.</p>","PeriodicalId":11362,"journal":{"name":"Drugs in Context","volume":"14 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11867166/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is carvedilol superior to propranolol in patients with cirrhosis with portal hypertension: a systematic and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Siddheesh Rajpurohit, Balaji Musunuri, Pooja Basthi Mohan, Ganesh Bhat, Shiran Shetty\",\"doi\":\"10.7573/dic.2024-11-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Carvedilol has shown greater potency than propranolol as a β-blocker in managing cardiac conditions. However, its efficacy in reducing portal hypertension (PHTN) in patients with cirrhosis remains unclear. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of carvedilol compared with propranolol in managing PHTN.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using PubMed, Scopus and Embase databases. Randomized controlled trials comparing carvedilol and propranolol were included. Primary outcomes were changes in hepatic venous pressure gradient, wedge hepatic venous pressure and free hepatic venous pressure. Secondary outcomes included heart rate, cardiac output and mean arterial pressure. Tertiary outcomes assessed adverse event incidences.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Six randomized controlled trials involving 336 patients (171 carvedilol, 165 propranolol) were analysed. Carvedilol significantly reduced hepatic venous pressure gradient (mean difference (MD): 2.22 (95% CI 1.82-2.62); <i>p</i><0.00001) and wedge hepatic venous pressure (MD: 2.38 (95% CI 1.92-2.84); <i>p</i><0.00001). Propranolol significantly reduced cardiac output (MD: -0.60 (95% CI -0.74 to -0.45); <i>p</i><0.00001). Mean arterial pressure was significantly lower in the carvedilol group (MD: 1.79 (95% CI 0.38-3.20); <i>p</i>=0.01). Adverse events, such as orthostatic hypotension and increased diuretic use, were more frequent in the carvedilol group but were manageable.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Carvedilol demonstrates superior efficacy in reducing PHTN compared with propranolol, with a slightly higher but tolerable adverse event profile. It may be considered the first-line treatment for PHTN. Further research is needed to validate long-term benefits and safety.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11362,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Drugs in Context\",\"volume\":\"14 \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11867166/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Drugs in Context\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7573/dic.2024-11-3\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Drugs in Context","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7573/dic.2024-11-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:卡维地洛作为β受体阻滞剂在治疗心脏疾病方面已显示出比心得安更强的效力。然而,其降低肝硬化患者门静脉高压(PHTN)的疗效尚不清楚。本研究比较卡维地洛与心得安治疗PHTN的疗效和安全性。方法:采用PubMed、Scopus和Embase数据库进行系统综述和meta分析。纳入比较卡维地洛和心得安的随机对照试验。主要结局是肝静脉压梯度、楔形肝静脉压和游离肝静脉压的变化。次要结局包括心率、心输出量和平均动脉压。第三期结局评估不良事件发生率。结果:对6项随机对照试验336例患者(卡维地洛171例,心得安165例)进行分析。卡维地洛显著降低肝静脉压梯度(平均差(MD): 2.22 (95% CI 1.82-2.62);pppp = 0.01)。不良事件,如直立性低血压和利尿剂使用增加,在卡维地洛组更频繁,但是可控的。结论:卡维地洛在降低PHTN方面的疗效优于心得安,不良事件发生率略高,但可耐受。它可能被认为是PHTN的一线治疗方法。需要进一步的研究来验证长期的益处和安全性。
Is carvedilol superior to propranolol in patients with cirrhosis with portal hypertension: a systematic and meta-analysis.
Background: Carvedilol has shown greater potency than propranolol as a β-blocker in managing cardiac conditions. However, its efficacy in reducing portal hypertension (PHTN) in patients with cirrhosis remains unclear. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of carvedilol compared with propranolol in managing PHTN.
Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using PubMed, Scopus and Embase databases. Randomized controlled trials comparing carvedilol and propranolol were included. Primary outcomes were changes in hepatic venous pressure gradient, wedge hepatic venous pressure and free hepatic venous pressure. Secondary outcomes included heart rate, cardiac output and mean arterial pressure. Tertiary outcomes assessed adverse event incidences.
Results: Six randomized controlled trials involving 336 patients (171 carvedilol, 165 propranolol) were analysed. Carvedilol significantly reduced hepatic venous pressure gradient (mean difference (MD): 2.22 (95% CI 1.82-2.62); p<0.00001) and wedge hepatic venous pressure (MD: 2.38 (95% CI 1.92-2.84); p<0.00001). Propranolol significantly reduced cardiac output (MD: -0.60 (95% CI -0.74 to -0.45); p<0.00001). Mean arterial pressure was significantly lower in the carvedilol group (MD: 1.79 (95% CI 0.38-3.20); p=0.01). Adverse events, such as orthostatic hypotension and increased diuretic use, were more frequent in the carvedilol group but were manageable.
Conclusion: Carvedilol demonstrates superior efficacy in reducing PHTN compared with propranolol, with a slightly higher but tolerable adverse event profile. It may be considered the first-line treatment for PHTN. Further research is needed to validate long-term benefits and safety.
期刊介绍:
Covers all phases of original research: laboratory, animal and human/clinical studies, health economics and outcomes research, and postmarketing studies. Original research that shows positive or negative results are welcomed. Invited review articles may cover single-drug reviews, drug class reviews, latest advances in drug therapy, therapeutic-area reviews, place-in-therapy reviews, new pathways and classes of drugs. In addition, systematic reviews and meta-analyses are welcomed and may be published as original research if performed per accepted guidelines. Editorials of key topics and issues in drugs and therapeutics are welcomed. The Editor-in-Chief will also consider manuscripts of interest in areas such as technologies that support diagnosis, assessment and treatment. EQUATOR Network reporting guidelines should be followed for each article type. GPP3 Guidelines should be followed for any industry-sponsored manuscripts. Other Editorial sections may include Editorial, Case Report, Conference Report, Letter-to-the-Editor, Educational Section.