Abstract

BACKGROUND Human albumin infusion is effective for controlling systemic inflammation, thereby probably managing some liver cirrhosis-related complications, such as spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP), hepatic encephalopathy (HE), and hepatorenal syndrome. However, its clinical benefits remain controversial. METHODS EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases were searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding use of human albumin infusion in cirrhotic patients were eligible. Mortality and incidence of liver cirrhosis-related complications were pooled. Effect of human albumin infusion on mortality was also evaluated by subgroup analyses primarily according to target population and duration of human albumin infusion treatment. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. RESULTS Forty-two RCTs were finally included. Meta-analysis showed that human albumin infusion could significantly decrease the mortality of cirrhotic patients (OR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.67-0.98, p = 0.03). Subgroup analyses showed that human albumin infusion could significantly decrease the mortality of cirrhotic patients with SBP (OR = 0.36, 95% CI = 0.20-0.64, p = 0.0005) and HE (OR = 0.43, 95% CI = 0.22-0.85, p = 0.02), but not those with ascites or non-SBP infections or undergoing large-volume paracentesis. Short-term human albumin infusion treatment could significantly decrease short-term mortality (OR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.50-0.89, p = 0.005), but not long-term mortality. Long-term human albumin infusion treatment could not significantly decrease long-term mortality (OR = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.48-1.08, p = 0.11). In addition, human albumin infusion could significantly decrease the incidence of renal impairment (OR = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.45-0.88, p = 0.007) and ascites (OR = 0.45, 95% CI = 0.25-0.81, p = 0.007), but not infections or gastrointestinal bleeding. CONCLUSIONS Human albumin infusion may improve the outcomes of cirrhotic patients. However, its indications for different complications and infusion strategy in liver cirrhosis should be further explored.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Hyponatremia is a common complication of liver cirrhosis and aggravates patients' outcomes. It may be corrected by human albumin (HA) infusion. Herein, we have conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of intravenous HA administration for the prevention and treatment of hyponatremia in liver cirrhosis. METHODS Literature was searched in the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. If possible, a meta-analysis would be conducted. Incidence of hyponatremia, rate of resolution of hyponatremia, and serum sodium level were compared between cirrhotic patients who received and did not receive HA infusion. Odds ratios (ORs) or mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. The quality of evidence was assessed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. RESULTS Initially, 3231 papers were identified. Among them, 30 studies, including 25 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 5 cohort studies, were eligible. Among cirrhotic patients without hyponatremia, the HA infusion group had significantly lower incidence of hyponatremia (OR = 0.55, 95%CI = 0.38-0.80, p = 0.001) and higher serum sodium level (MD = 0.95, 95%CI = 0.47-1.43, p = 0.0001) as compared to the control group. Among cirrhotic patients with hyponatremia, the HA infusion group had a significantly higher rate of resolution of hyponatremia (OR = 1.50, 95%CI = 1.17-1.92, p = 0.001) as compared to the control group. Generally, the quality of available evidence is low. CONCLUSIONS Based on the current evidence, HA may be considered for preventing the development of hyponatremia in liver cirrhosis, especially in those undergoing LVP, and treating hyponatremia. Well-designed studies are required to clarify the effects of HA infusion on hyponatremia in liver cirrhosis.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION Albumin is used in multiple situations in patients with cirrhosis, but the evidence of its benefit is not always clear. The aim was to synthesise the evidence on the efficacy and safety of albumin compared to other treatments or no active intervention in cirrhotic patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS We conducted a systematic review including randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL up to May 2022. We assessed all-cause mortality, liver transplant, cirrhosis complications of any type and serious adverse events (SAEs). Second, AEs, hospital readmission, length of hospital stay, need for paracentesis and quality of life (QoL) were evaluated. Meta-analyses with Mantel-Haenszel method and random-effects model were performed. RESULTS Fifty studies (5118 participants) were included. Albumin was associated with a reduction in mortality in cirrhotic patients with spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.32-0.75; low certainty) and hepatic encephalopathy (HE) (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.34-0.83; low certainty) when compared to no administration of albumin, but not in other scenarios. In general, no additional benefit of albumin was found in liver transplants, SAEs or cirrhosis complications (low/very low certainty). Long-term administration (>3 months) of albumin led to a reduction in cirrhosis complications (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.57-0.97; low certainty), hospital readmissions, length of hospital stay, need for paracentesis and improvement of QoL. CONCLUSION Albumin may reduce mortality risk in cirrhotic patients with SBP or HE. No benefit was identified in reducing liver transplants or SAEs. Long-term administration may be associated with a lower risk of cirrhosis complications and need for paracentesis.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Albumin therapy in patients with decompensated liver cirrhosis has always been a controversial issue. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of albumin in reducing mortality and controlling complications in patients with liver cirrhosis and provide a reference for relevant decision-making. METHODS Databases such as PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched to collect eligible articles published before January 2022, which were analyzed by Revman 5.3. RESULTS A total of 10 randomized controlled trials (2040 patients) were included. Based on the meta-analysis results, no significant difference in mortality was shown between the albumin administration group and the control group (HR = 1.01; 95% CI, 0.97-1.05; P = 0.62). Subgroup analysis showed that albumin administration had no significant short-term or long-term survival benefits in patients with decompensated liver cirrhosis and increased the risk of pulmonary edema adverse reactions (RR = 3.14; 95% CI, 1.48-6.65; P = 0.003). Subgroup analysis based on albumin administration time showed that short-term (HR = 0.93; 95% CI, 0.76-1.13; P = 0.47) or long-term (HR = 0.97; 95% CI: 0.87-1.08; P = 0.58) administration of albumin could not significantly reduce the mortality of patients with decompensated liver cirrhosis. In contrast, albumin administration could significantly reduce the recurrence rate of ascites (RR = 0.56; 95% CI, 0.46-0.68; P = 0.000). CONCLUSION Short-term(<1 month) or long-term (>1 month) administration of albumin can not significantly reduce the mortality of patients with decompensated liver cirrhosis, and a large amount of albumin infusion will increase the risk of pulmonary edema.

Abstract

BACKGROUND There is no clear consensus regarding the optimal approach for secondary prophylaxis of gastric variceal bleeding (GVB) in patients with cirrhosis. We conducted a systematic review and network metanalysis (NMA) to compare the efficacy of available treatments. METHODS A comprehensive search of several databases from each database's inception to March 23rd, 2021 was conducted to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Outcomes of interest were rebleeding and mortality. Results were expressed as relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to rate the certainty of evidence. RESULTS We included 9 RCTs with 579 patients, who had history of GVB and follow-up > 6 weeks. Nine interventions were included in the NMA. Balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) was associated with a lower risk of rebleeding when compared to beta-blockers (RR 0.04, 95%CI 0.01-0.26; low certainty), endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS-CYA) (RR 0.18, 95%CI 0.04-0.77; low certainty). Beta-blockers were associated with a higher risk of rebleeding compared to most interventions and with increased mortality compared to EIS-CYA (RR 4.85, 95%CI 1.04-22.67; low certainty) and EIS-CYA+BB (RR 5.47, 95% CI 1.07-28.01; low certainty). CONCLUSION Analysis based on indirect comparisons suggests that BRTO may be the best intervention in preventing rebleeding whereas beta-blocker monotherapy is likely the worst in preventing rebleeding and mortality. Head-to-head RCTs are needed to validate these results.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIM Hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) is a fatal complication of liver cirrhosis with a limited pharmacological option. Terlipressin is a vasoconstrictor that is approved in many countries but not yet in the United States. This is a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to review terlipressin effect on HRS and the safety profile. METHODS We searched electronic databases for RCTs comparing terlipressin versus placebo in addition to albumin in patients with type 1 or 2 HRS. Primary outcome was HRS reversal. Secondary outcomes were change in serum creatinine (Cr), requirement for renal replacement therapy (RRT) at 30 days of randomization, and 90-day survival. Risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MD) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effects model. RESULTS We identified eight RCTs with a total of 974 patients, and median follow up of 100 days. Mean age was 55 ± 10 years, 61% were males. Alcoholic liver disease represented 56%. Compared with placebo, terlipressin was associated with a significantly higher likelihood of HRS reversal (RR 2.08; 95% CI [1.51, 2.86], P < 0.001), significantly lower serum Cr (MD -0.64; 95% CI (-1.02, -0.27), P < 0.001], and a trend toward less RRT requirements (RR 0.61; 95% CI [0.36, 1.02], P = 0.06). There was no difference in survival at 90 days between groups (RR 1.09; 95% CI (0.84, 1.43), P = 0.52). Major adverse effects (AEs) were gastrointestinal cramps, discomfort, and respiratory distress. CONCLUSION In patients with liver cirrhosis complicated by HRS, terlipressin was associated with significant HRS reversal and decrease in serum Cr. No survival benefit was detected at 90 days.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES It has been suggested that albumin administration could alter the natural history of cirrhosis, and also, that long-term treatment with albumin might be associated with improvement in survival, control of ascites, reduction in the incidence bacterial infections, renal dysfunction, hepatic encephalopathy (HE) and hyponatremia, as well as reduction in length of hospitalization in patients with cirrhosis and ascites. The objective of the present study is to evaluate the role of albumin in the management of HE. MATERIALS AND METHODS This is a systematic review of randomized controlled trials that evaluated the use of albumin in adult patients with cirrhosis and HE. The search for eligible studies was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases until June 2020. The outcomes of interest were the complete reversal of HE and mortality. Meta-analysis was performed using the random effects model, through the Mantel-Haenszel method. RESULTS This systematic review was registered at the PROSPERO platform (CRD42020194181). The search strategy retrieved 1,118 articles. After reviewing titles and abstracts, 24 studies were considered potentially eligible, but 22 were excluded after full-text analysis. Finally, 2 studies were included. In the meta-analysis, albumin was associated to significant lower risks of persistent HE (risk ratio - RR=0.60; 95% confidence interval - CI=0.38-0.95, p=0.03) and mortality (RR=0.54; 95% CI=0.33-0.90, p=0.02). CONCLUSION Albumin administration improves HE and reduces mortality in patients with cirrhosis and HE.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS Vasoactive agents with endoscopic therapy are used to treat acute variceal bleeding (AVB). There are two main groups of vasoactive agents: terlipressin and vasopressin (T-V), and octreotide and somatostatin (O-S). However, the benefit/harm balance is unclear. Our aim was to assess the efficacy and safety of T-V versus O-S for the management of AVB. METHODS We performed a systematic search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in PubMed, Scopus, and CENTRAL. Our main outcomes were mortality and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were bleeding control, rebleeding, blood transfusion, hospital stay. We evaluated the certainty of evidence using GRADE methodology. RESULTS We included 21 RCTs. The risk of mortality (RR: 1.01; 95%CI: 0.83-1.22), bleeding control (RR: 0.96; 95%CI: 0.91-1.02; I 2 =53%), early rebleeding (RR: 0.91; 95%CI: 0.66-1.24: I 2 =0%), late rebleeding (RR: 0.94; 95 CI: 0.56-1.60; I 2 =0%), blood transfusion (MD: 0.04; 95%CI: -0.31-0.39; I 2 =68%) and hospital stay (MD: -1.06; 95%CI: -2.80-0.69; I 2 =0%) were similar between T-V and O-S groups. Only 15 studies reported adverse events, which were significantly higher in the T-V compared to the O-S group (RR 2.39; 95%CI: 1.58-3.63; I 2 =57%). The certainty of evidence was moderate for the main outcomes, and low or very low for others. CONCLUSIONS In cirrhotic patients with AVB, those treated with T-V had similar mortality risk compared to O-S. However, the use of T-V showed an increased risk of adverse events compared to O-S.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Approximately 40% to 95% of people with cirrhosis have oesophageal varices. About 15% to 20% of oesophageal varices bleed in about one to three years. There are several different treatments to prevent bleeding, including: beta-blockers, endoscopic sclerotherapy, and variceal band ligation. However, there is uncertainty surrounding their individual and relative benefits and harms. OBJECTIVES To compare the benefits and harms of different treatments for prevention of first variceal bleeding from oesophageal varices in adults with liver cirrhosis through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the different treatments for prevention of first variceal bleeding from oesophageal varices according to their safety and efficacy. SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers to December 2019 to identify randomised clinical trials in people with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices with no history of bleeding. SELECTION CRITERIA We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices with no history of bleeding. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had previous bleeding from oesophageal varices and those who had previously undergone liver transplantation or previously received prophylactic treatment for oesophageal varices. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and calculated the differences in treatments using hazard ratios (HR), odds ratios (OR), and rate ratios with 95% credible intervals (CrI) based on an available-case analysis, according to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance. We performed the direct comparisons from randomised clinical trials using the same codes and the same technical details. MAIN RESULTS We included 66 randomised clinical trials (6653 participants) in the review. Sixty trials (6212 participants) provided data for one or more comparisons in the review. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies and those at high risk of bleeding from oesophageal varices. The follow-up in the trials that reported outcomes ranged from 6 months to 60 months. All but one of the trials were at high risk of bias. The interventions compared included beta-blockers, no active intervention, variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy, beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus nitrates, nitrates, beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy, and portocaval shunt. Overall, 21.2% of participants who received non-selective beta-blockers ('beta-blockers') - the reference treatment (chosen because this was the most common treatment compared in the trials) - died during 8-month to 60-month follow-up. Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers, variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy, and beta-blockers plus nitrates all had lower mortality versus no active intervention (beta-blockers: HR 0.49, 95% CrI 0.36 to 0.67; direct comparison HR: 0.59, 95% CrI 0.42 to 0.83; 10 trials, 1200 participants; variceal band ligation: HR 0.51, 95% CrI 0.35 to 0.74; direct comparison HR 0.49, 95% CrI 0.12 to 2.14; 3 trials, 355 participants; sclerotherapy: HR 0.66, 95% CrI 0.51 to 0.85; direct comparison HR 0.61, 95% CrI 0.41 to 0.90; 18 trials, 1666 participants; beta-blockers plus nitrates: HR 0.41, 95% CrI 0.20 to 0.85; no direct comparison). No trials reported health-related quality of life. Based on low-certainty evidence, variceal band ligation had a higher number of serious adverse events (number of events) than beta-blockers (rate ratio 10.49, 95% CrI 2.83 to 60.64; 1 trial, 168 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers plus nitrates had a higher number of 'any adverse events (number of participants)' than beta-blockers alone (OR 3.41, 95% CrI 1.11 to 11.28; 1 trial, 57 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, adverse events (number of events) were higher in sclerotherapy than in beta-blockers (rate ratio 2.49, 95% CrI 1.53 to 4.22; direct comparison rate ratio 2.47, 95% CrI 1.27 to 5.06; 2 trials, 90 participants), and in beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation than in beta-blockers (direct comparison rate ratio 1.72, 95% CrI 1.08 to 2.76; 1 trial, 140 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, any variceal bleed was lower in beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation than in beta-blockers (direct comparison HR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.04 to 0.71; 1 trial, 173 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, any variceal bleed was higher in nitrates than beta-blockers (direct comparison HR 6.40, 95% CrI 1.58 to 47.42; 1 trial, 52 participants). The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in the remaining comparisons. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers, variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy, and beta-blockers plus nitrates may decrease mortality compared to no intervention in people with high-risk oesophageal varices in people with cirrhosis and no previous history of bleeding. Based on low-certainty evidence, variceal band ligation may result in a higher number of serious adverse events than beta-blockers. The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of beta-blockers versus variceal band ligation on variceal bleeding. The evidence also indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in most of the remaining comparisons.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Approximately 40% to 95% of people with liver cirrhosis have oesophageal varices. About 15% to 20% of oesophageal varices bleed within about one to three years after diagnosis. Several different treatments are available, including, among others, endoscopic sclerotherapy, variceal band ligation, somatostatin analogues, vasopressin analogues, and balloon tamponade. However, there is uncertainty surrounding the individual and relative benefits and harms of these treatments. OBJECTIVES To compare the benefits and harms of different initial treatments for variceal bleeding from oesophageal varices in adults with decompensated liver cirrhosis, through a network meta-analysis; and to generate rankings of the different treatments for acute bleeding oesophageal varices, according to their benefits and harms. SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers until 17 December 2019, to identify randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in people with cirrhosis and acute bleeding from oesophageal varices. SELECTION CRITERIA We included only RCTs (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and acutely bleeding oesophageal varices. We excluded RCTs in which participants had bleeding only from gastric varices, those who failed previous treatment (refractory bleeding), those in whom initial haemostasis was achieved before inclusion into the trial, and those who had previously undergone liver transplantation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS software, using Bayesian methods, and calculated the differences in treatments using odds ratios (OR) and rate ratios with 95% credible intervals (CrI) based on an available-case analysis, according to National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance. We performed also the direct comparisons from RCTs using the same codes and the same technical details. MAIN RESULTS We included a total of 52 RCTs (4580 participants) in the review. Forty-eight trials (4042 participants) were included in one or more comparisons in the review. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies and those with and without a previous history of bleeding. We included outcomes assessed up to six weeks. All trials were at high risk of bias. A total of 19 interventions were compared in the trials (sclerotherapy, somatostatin analogues, vasopressin analogues, sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues, variceal band ligation, balloon tamponade, somatostatin analogues plus variceal band ligation, nitrates plus vasopressin analogues, no active intervention, sclerotherapy plus variceal band ligation, balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy, balloon tamponade plus somatostatin analogues, balloon tamponade plus vasopressin analogues, variceal band ligation plus vasopressin analogues, balloon tamponade plus nitrates plus vasopressin analogues, balloon tamponade plus variceal band ligation, portocaval shunt, sclerotherapy plus transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), and sclerotherapy plus vasopressin analogues). We have reported the effect estimates for the primary and secondary outcomes when there was evidence of differences between the interventions against the reference treatment of sclerotherapy, but reported the other results of the primary and secondary outcomes versus the reference treatment of sclerotherapy without the effect estimates when there was no evidence of differences in order to provide a concise summary of the results. Overall, 15.8% of the trial participants who received the reference treatment of sclerotherapy (chosen because this was the commonest treatment compared in the trials) died during the follow-up periods, which ranged from three days to six weeks. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, somatostatin analogues alone had higher mortality than sclerotherapy (OR 1.57, 95% CrI 1.04 to 2.41; network estimate; direct comparison: 4 trials; 353 participants) and vasopressin analogues alone had higher mortality than sclerotherapy (OR 1.70, 95% CrI 1.13 to 2.62; network estimate; direct comparison: 2 trials; 438 participants). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. Based on low-certainty evidence, a higher proportion of people receiving balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy had more serious adverse events than those receiving only sclerotherapy (OR 4.23, 95% CrI 1.22 to 17.80; direct estimate; 1 RCT; 60 participants). Based on moderate-certainty evidence, people receiving vasopressin analogues alone and those receiving variceal band ligation had fewer adverse events than those receiving only sclerotherapy (rate ratio 0.59, 95% CrI 0.35 to 0.96; network estimate; direct comparison: 1 RCT; 219 participants; and rate ratio 0.40, 95% CrI 0.21 to 0.74; network estimate; direct comparison: 1 RCT; 77 participants; respectively). Based on low-certainty evidence, the proportion of people who developed symptomatic rebleed was smaller in people who received sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues than those receiving only sclerotherapy (OR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.03 to 0.94; direct estimate; 1 RCT; 105 participants). The evidence suggests considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in the remaining comparisons where sclerotherapy was the control intervention. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Based on moderate-certainty evidence, somatostatin analogues alone and vasopressin analogues alone (with supportive therapy) probably result in increased mortality, compared to endoscopic sclerotherapy. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, vasopressin analogues alone and band ligation alone probably result in fewer adverse events compared to endoscopic sclerotherapy. Based on low-certainty evidence, balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy may result in large increases in serious adverse events compared to sclerotherapy. Based on low-certainty evidence, sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues may result in large decreases in symptomatic rebleed compared to sclerotherapy. In the remaining comparisons, the evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effects of the interventions, compared to sclerotherapy.