OBJECTIVE: 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.
METHODS: 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).
RESULTS: 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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.

BACKGROUND: Propranolol, a non-selective beta-blocker, commonly used to prevent variceal bleed, but might precipitate circulatory dysfunction in severe ascites. Midodrine, an alpha-1 adrenergic agonist improves renal perfusion and systemic hemodynamics. Addition of midodrine might facilitate higher maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of propranolol, thereby less risk of variceal bleed in cirrhosis patients with severe ascites.
METHODS: 140 patients with cirrhosis and severe/refractory ascites were randomized- propranolol and midodrine (Gr.A,n = 70) or propranolol alone (Gr.B,n = 70). Primary outcome was incidence of bleed at 1 year. Secondary outcomes included ascites control, achievement of target heart rate (THR), HVPG response and adverse effects.
RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were comparable between two groups. Cumulative incidence of bleed at 1 year was lower in Gr.A than B (8.5%vs.27.1%,p-0.043). The MTD of propranolol was higher in Gr.A (96.67 ± 36.6 mg vs. 76.52 ± 24.4 mg; p-0.01) and more patients achieved THR (84.2%vs.55.7%,p-0.034). Significantly higher proportion of patients in Gr.A had complete resolution of ascites [17.1%vs.11.4%,p-0.014), diuretic tolerance (80%vs.60%,p-0.047) at higher doses(p-0.02) and lesser need for paracentesis. Patients in Gr.A also had greater reduction in variceal grade (75.7%vs.55.7%;p-0.01), plasma renin activity (54.4% from baseline) (p = 0.02). Mean HVPG reduction was greater in Gr.A than B [4.38 ± 2.81 mmHg(23.5%) vs. 2.61 ± 2.87 mmHg(14.5%),p-0.045]. Complications like post-paracentesis circulatory dysfunction and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis on follow-up were higher in Gr.B than A (22.8%vs.51.4%,p = 0.013 and 10%vs.15.7%, p = 0.03, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Addition of midodrine facilitates effective use of propranolol in higher doses and greater HVPG reduction, thereby preventing first variceal bleed, reduced paracentesis requirements with fewer ascites- related complications in patients with cirrhosis with severe/refractory ascites.

Emricasan, an oral pan-caspase inhibitor, decreased portal pressure in experimental cirrhosis and in an open-label study in patients with cirrhosis and severe portal hypertension, defined as a hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) ≥12 mmHg. We aimed to confirm these results in a placebo-controlled study in patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH)-related cirrhosis.
We performed a multicenter double-blinded study, randomizing 263 patients with NASH-related cirrhosis and baseline HVPG ≥12 mmHg to twice daily oral emricasan 5 mg, 25 mg, 50 mg or placebo in a 1:1:1:1 ratio for up to 48 weeks. The primary endpoint was change in HVPG (ΔHVPG) at week 24. Secondary endpoints were changes in biomarkers (aminotransferases, caspases, cytokeratins) and development of liver-related outcomes.
There were no significant differences in ΔHVPG for any emricasan dose vs. placebo (-0.21, -0.45, -0.58 mmHg, respectively) adjusted for baseline HVPG, compensation status, and non-selective beta-blocker use. Compensated patients (n = 201 [76%]) tended to have a greater decrease in HVPG (emricasan all vs. placebo, p = 0.06), the decrease being greater in those with higher baseline HVPG (p = 0.018), with a significant interaction between baseline HVPG (continuous, p = 0.024; dichotomous at 16 mmHg [median], p = 0.013) and treatment. Biomarkers decreased significantly with emricasan at week 24 but returned to baseline levels by week 48. New or worsening decompensating events (∼10% over median exposure of 337 days), progression in model for end-stage liver disease and Child-Pugh scores, and treatment-emergent adverse events were similar among treatment groups.
Despite a reduction in biomarkers indicating target engagement, emricasan was not associated with improvement in HVPG or clinical outcomes in patients with NASH-related cirrhosis and severe portal hypertension. Compensated patients with higher baseline HVPG had evidence of a small treatment effect. Emricasan treatment appeared safe and well-tolerated.
Cirrhosis (scarring of the liver) is the main consequence of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). Cirrhosis leads to high pressure in the portal vein which accounts for most of the complications of cirrhosis. Reducing portal pressure is beneficial in patients with cirrhosis. We studied the possibility that emricasan, a drug that improves inflammation and scarring in the liver, would reduce portal pressure in patients with NASH-related cirrhosis and severe portal hypertension. Our results in a large, prospective, double-blind study could not demonstrate a beneficial effect of emricasan in these patients.
Clinical Trials.gov #NCT02960204.

BACKGROUND: Non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs), e.g. propranolol, are recommended for prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in cirrhosis. Carvedilol, a newer NSBB with additional anti-α1-adrenergic activity, is superior to propranolol in reducing portal pressure. Repeated HVPG measurements are required to identify responders to NSBB. We aimed to determine whether a single-time HVPG measurement, using acute-hemodynamic-response-testing, is sufficient to predict long-term response to carvedilol, and whether these responders have better clinical outcome.
METHODS: Consecutive patients with cirrhosis, aged 18-70 years, in whom NSBB was indicated for primary/secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding, and who underwent HVPG were included. Acute-hemodynamic-response was defined as a decrease in HVPG ≥10% from baseline or absolute HVPG value declining to <12 mm Hg, 1 h after 25 mg oral carvedilol. The aims of the study were to determine: the proportion of patients who achieved acute-hemodynamic-response to carvedilol; whether HVPG-response is maintained for 6 months; and clinical outcome of acute-responders to carvedilol therapy for 6 months.
RESULTS: The study included 69 patients (median age 51, males 93%). Alcohol was the most common etiology; 59% patients belonged to Child-Pugh class B. NSBB was indicated for primary prophylaxis in 36% and secondary prophylaxis in 64% patients. According to the response criteria, 67% patients were found to be acute-hemodynamic-responders. At 6 months, 92% patients were found to be still maintaining their hemodynamic response to carvedilol. Using intention-to-treat analysis, 76% patients maintained their response. These acute responders, on chronic treatment with carvedilol during the 6-month period, had lesser episodes of variceal bleeding, better ascites control, and improved MELD and CTP scores, than non-carvedilol treated non-responders. However, survival remained similar in both the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: A single-time HVPG measurement with acute-hemodynamic-response-testing is simple and reliable method for identifying patients who are more likely to respond to carvedilol therapy. The HVPG-response is maintained over a long period in majority of these patients and carvedilol therapy leads to better clinical outcome in these patients.

BACKGROUND: Pleiotropic effects of statins decrease intrahepatic resistance and portal hypertension.
OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the effects of simvastatin on hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) and azygos vein blood flow in cirrhotic patients.
METHODS: A 3-month prospective, randomized, triple-blind trial with simvastatin (40 mg/day) vs. placebo was conducted in patients with cirrhotic portal hypertension. HVPG and azygos blood flow, measured by colour Doppler endoscopic ultrasound, were assessed before and after treatment. The primary endpoint was a decrease in the HVPG of at least 20% from baseline or to ≤12 mmHg after the treatment.
RESULTS: 34 patients were prospectively enrolled, and 24 completed the protocol. In the simvastatin group 6/11 patients (55%) presented a clinically relevant decrease in the HVPG; no decrease was observed in the placebo group (p=0.036). Patients with medium/large oesophageal varices and previous variceal bleeding had a higher response rate to simvastatin. HVPG and azygos blood flow values were not correlated. No significant adverse events occurred.
CONCLUSIONS: Simvastatin lowers portal pressure and may even improve liver function. The haemodynamic effect appears to be more evident in patients with severe portal hypertension.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of portal pressure reduction by beta-blockers and the utility of serial hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) measurements for the management of small (≤5 mm) esophageal varices in patients of cirrhosis are not clear.
OBJECTIVE: The study had the following aims: to study (1) the effect of propranolol on the growth of small varices and (2) whether single or serial HVPG measurements result in a better outcome compared to no measurement in patients with small varices.
METHODS: Consecutive cirrhosis patients with small varices, without any history of variceal bleed, were randomized to receive propranolol or placebo and to undergo no HVPG, only baseline HVPG, or serial HVPG measurements.
RESULTS: A total of 150 cirrhotics (cirrhosis predominantly viral or alcohol induced) were included (77 in the beta-blocker and 73 in the placebo group). Baseline characteristics were similar. The actuarial 2-year risk of growth of varices (primary endpoint) was 11 and 16% in the propranolol and placebo group, respectively (P = 0.786). Variceal bleeding and mortality were also comparable in the two groups. Similarly, the outcome was not influenced by HVPG measurements (whether serial, only baseline, or no HVPG). A bilirubin level of ≥1.5 mg/dl was found to be an independent predictor of variceal progression.
CONCLUSIONS: In cirrhotics with small esophageal varices, nonselective beta-blockers are unable to prevent the growth of varices, variceal bleed, or mortality. HVPG monitoring of these patients did not change the outcome; however, the role of HVPG-guided therapy modification needs to be studied.

BACKGROUND: Understanding patients\' attitudes to clinical experiences is essential for developing high-quality patient-centred healthcare, as a better knowledge of patients\' tolerance and satisfaction might allow implementing measures that ameliorate comfort, care and use of resources.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to describe patients\' tolerance and satisfaction to invasive hepatic haemodynamic procedures, and to investigate which factors might influence patients\' perspective in this field.
METHODS: Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) questionnaires regarding pain and duration (for tolerance), and comfort and general handling (for satisfaction) were prospectively administered to all consecutive patients (N = 327) submitted to hepatic haemodynamic procedures (N = 355) in a tertiary care setting during 2011. VAS scores ranged between 0 and 100 mm and items were defined as excellent if <10 mm; good if 10-20 mm and inadequate if >20 mm. Clinical and laboratory data were also collected.
RESULTS: Satisfaction was excellent in >95% of cases (mean 2 ± 5 mm, median 0 mm) and average tolerance was good (15 ± 18 mm; median 6 mm). A percentage of 59% of patients had excellent tolerance, 9% good and 32% had inadequate tolerance. Duration and complexity of the procedure and limited operator\'s experience were associated with inadequate tolerance on univariate analysis; duration of the procedure remained the only independent factor associated with inadequate tolerance on multivariate analysis. Procedures lasting <35 min had a >80% probability of being well tolerated.
CONCLUSIONS: Satisfaction and tolerance to hepatic haemodynamic procedures are excellent and good respectively. Tolerance was decreased in long procedures; hence reducing as much as possible the duration of the procedures might further improve tolerance.

OBJECTIVE: Hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) measurement represents the best predictor of clinical decompensation (CD) in cirrhotic patients. Recently data show that measurement of spleen stiffness (SS) has an excellent correlation with HVPG levels. Aim of the present prospective study was to assess SS predictive value for CD compared to HVPG, liver stiffness (LS), and other non-invasive tests for portal hypertension in a cohort of patients with HCV-related compensated cirrhosis.
METHODS: From an initial cohort of 124 patients, 92 underwent baseline LS, SS, HVPG measurements and upper gastrointestinal endoscopy at enrolment and then followed-up for 2 years or until the occurrence of the first CD. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used for determining judgement criteria associated parameters. Accuracy of predictive factors was evaluated using c statistic. The final model was internally validated using the bootstrap method.
RESULTS: During follow-up, 30 out 92 (32.6%) patients developed CD. At univariate analysis varices at enrolment, all non-invasive parameters, HVPG, and model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) resulted clinical predictors of CD. At multivariate analysis only SS (p=0.0001) and MELD (p=0.014) resulted as predictive factors. A decision algorithm based on the results of a predictive model was proposed to detect patients with low risk of decompensation.
CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that in compensated cirrhotic patients a SS and MELD predictive model represents an accurate predictor of CD with accuracy at least equivalent to that of HVPG. If confirmed by further studies, SS and MELD could represent valid alternatives to HVPG as prognostic indicator of CD in HCV-related cirrhosis.

OBJECTIVE: Detecting portal hypertension (PH) before the development of varices is important for prognosis and for designing interventional studies. None of the available strategies is used in practice. We evaluated a sequential screening-diagnostic strategy based on clinical data and transient elastography (TE) to detect PH in asymptomatic outpatients with liver disease.
METHODS: Consecutive patients with chronic liver disease and no previous diagnosis of PH were screened by TE. Patients with liver stiffness (LS) ⩾ 13.6 kPa were further evaluated by endoscopy and hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG). For analysis, patients were classified in 3 groups: group A, platelets ⩾ 150,000/mm(3), normal abdominal ultrasound; group B, platelets <150,000/mm(3), normal ultrasound; group C, platelets <150,000/mm(3), abnormal ultrasound (splenomegaly, nodular liver surface).
RESULTS: 250 patients were evaluated (69% group A, 20% group B, 11% group C). In 9% elastography was non-valid. LS ⩾ 13.6 was found in 54 patients (8% A, 43% B, and 81% C, p<0.001). Endoscopy was performed in 49 of these: 20% had small varices, 0% high-risk varices. No patients from group A had varices, and 90% with varices belonged to group C. HVPG was obtained in 40 patients: 93% had PH (HVPG >5 mmHg) and 65% clinically significant PH (CSPH, HVPG ⩾ 10). Only 3 patients, all from group A, had HVPG <5. All patients from groups B and C with LS ⩾ 13.6 had PH. The LS 25 cut-off was excellent at ruling-in CSPH.
CONCLUSIONS: A simple strategy based on routine clinical data and TE could be useful to detect early PH among asymptomatic patients with chronic liver disease.

BACKGROUND: Probiotics, by altering gut flora, may favourably alter portal haemodynamics in patients with cirrhosis.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of probiotics on portal pressure in patients with cirrhosis.
METHODS: Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial conducted in G.B. Pant Hospital, New Delhi. A total of 94 cirrhotic patients having large oesophageal varices without history of variceal bleeding were randomized to three treatment groups and given 2 months\' treatment with propranolol plus placebo, propranolol plus antibiotics (norfloxacin 400 mg BD) or propranolol plus probiotic (VSL#3, 900 billion/day) randomly assigned in 1:1:1 ratio. Outcome measures were change in Hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG): Response rate (Percentage of patients having a decrease from baseline of ≥20% or to ≤12 mm Hg) and changes from baseline; biochemical markers of inflammation: changes from baseline.
RESULTS: Adjunctive probiotics increased the response rate compared with propranolol alone (58% vs. 31%, P = 0.046), similar to adjunctive antibiotics (54%). The mean fall in HVPG was greater with either adjunctive probiotics (3.7 mm Hg vs. 2.1 mm Hg, P = 0.061) or adjunctive antibiotics (3.4 mm Hg) than with propranolol alone. Both adjunctive therapies were associated with greater decreases in TNF-α levels (in both peripheral and hepatic venous blood) that resulted from propranolol-only treatment. No clinically relevant between-group differences were observed in the type or frequency of adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive probiotic (VSL#3) improved the response rate to propranolol therapy and was safe and well tolerated in patients with cirrhosis. Adjunctive probiotic therapy merits further study for reduction in portal pressure.