Should I continue nadolol in my patient with cirrhosis and refractory ascites?

Under certain circumstances, you may need to! Although nonselective beta blockers (NSBBs), such as nadolol and propranolol, have been the cornerstone of medical treatment of portal hypertension in preventing variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis for decades, recent reports of their association with worsening survival, increased risk of hepatorenal syndrome and acute kidney injury in patients with refractory ascites or spontaneous bacterial peritonitis [SBP]) 1,2 have added controversy to their routine use in end-stage cirrhosis.

This is because patients with end-stage cirrhosis may be highly dependent on their cardiac output (particularly the heart rate) in maintaining an adequate arterial blood pressure 3-5 and the negative inotropic and chronotropic effects of NSBBs blunt this compensatory mechanism. The result is a drop in the cardiac output that may be particularly significant in the presence of conditions already associated with hypotension, such as sepsis, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP), or hemorrhage, further increasing the risk of renal hypoperfusion and hepatorenal syndrome.3

Although 2 meta-analysis studies failed to find an association between NSBBs and increased mortality among patients with cirrhosis and ascites, 6,7 serious concerns over the adverse effects of these drugs in at least a subset of patients has not waned.  Some have recommended reducing NSBB dose or discontinuing treatment in patients with refractory ascites or SBP and any of the following parameters: 4

  • Systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg
  • Serum creatinine >1.5 mg/dL
  • Hyponatremia <130 mmol/L

Similar recommendations were made by a 2015 consensus conference on individualizing the care of patients with portal hypertension.

In the absence of randomized-controlled studies, it seems prudent to proceed with more caution when using NSBBs in patients with end-stage cirrhosis and watch closely for any signs of hypotension or renal function deterioration.

References

  1. Serste T, Njimi H, Degre D, et al. The use of beta-lackers is associated with the occurrence of acute kidney injury in severe hepatitis. Liver In 2015;35:1974-82. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25611961
  2. Mandorfer M, Bota S, Schwabl P, et al. Nonselective beta blockers increase risk of hepatorenal syndrome and death in patients with cirrhosis and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Gastroenterol 2014;146:1680-90. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016508514003060?via%3Dihub
  3. Garcia-Tsao G. The use of nonselective beta blockers for treatment of portal hypertension. Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017;13: 617-19. http://www.gastroenterologyandhepatology.net/archives/october-2017/the-use-of-nonselective-beta-blockers-for-treatment-of-portal-hypertension/
  4. Reiberger T, Mandorfer M. Beta adrenergic blockade and decompensated cirrhosis. J Hepatol 2017;66: 849-59. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27864004
  5. Giannelli V, Lattanzi, Thalheimer U, et al. Beta-blockers in liver cirrhosis. Ann Gastroenterol 2014;27:20-26. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24714633
  6. Facciorusso A, Roy S, Livadas S, et al. Nonselective beta-blockers do not affect survival in cirrhotic patients with ascites. Digest Dis Sci 2018;63:1737-46. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10620-018-5092-6
  7. Njei B, McCarty TR, Garcia-Tsao G. Beta-blockers in patients with cirrhosis and ascites: type of betablocker matters. Gut 206;65:1393-4. https://gut.bmj.com/content/gutjnl/65/8/1393.full.pdf
  8. De Franchis R. Expanding consensus in portal hypertension. Report of the Baveno VI Consensus Workshop: stratifying risk and individualizing care for portal hypertension.  J Hepatol 2015;63:743-52.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26047908  

If you like this post, sign up under MENU and get future pearls straight into your mailbox! 

Should I continue nadolol in my patient with cirrhosis and refractory ascites?

Should I be concerned about the umbilical hernia in my patient with cirrhosis and ascites?

Although umbilical hernia in patients with cirrhosis and ascites is common and often “expected” (a rate of 20% during the course of their disease), it can be associated with significant risk of complications such as incarceration, ascites drainage, peritonitis, and spontaneous rupture or evisceration from necrosis of overlying skin.1,2

A 2007 retrospective study involving patients with cirrhosis and umbilical hernia reported a complication rate of 77% and related mortality of 15% among those managed conservatively (mean period of observation ~ 5 years); MELD score could not predict failure of conservative management (median 22 in complicated vs 24 in uncomplicated).3

Because the risk of death with hernia repair in urgent settings is 7x higher than for elective hernia repair in cirrhotic patients, there has been increasing interest in elective repair in patients with well-compensated cirrhosis.3 Interestingly, the reported surgical complication rates among patients with well-compensated cirrhosis appear similar to those in noncirrhotic patients.3 If the patient is expected to undergo liver transplantation in the near future, elective hernia repair can be postponed and managed concomitantly.

Bonus pearl: Did you know that spontaneous umbilical hernia rupture is also known as “Flood syndrome” (should be easy to remember!), first described by Frank B Flood, a surgical resident back in 1961? 4

References

  1. Marsman HA, Heisterkamp J, Halm JA, et al. Management in patients with liver cirrhosis and an umbilical hernia. Surgery 2007;142:372-5. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17723889
  2. Coelho, JCU, Claus CMP, Campos ACL, et al. Umbilical hernia in patients with liver cirrhosis: a surgical challenge. World J Gastrointest Surg 2016;8:476-82. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4942747/
  3. Martens P, Laleman W. Umbilical hernia in a patient with cirrhosis. Cleveland Clin J Med 2015;82: 404-5. https://www.mdedge.com/ccjm/article/100682/hepatology/umbilical-hernia-patient-cirrhosis
  4. Nguyen ET, Tudtud-Hans LA. Flood syndrome: spontaneous umbilical hernia rupture leaking ascitic fluid-a case report. Perm J 2017;21:16-152. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5499604/ 

If you liked this pearl, subscribe to P4P and have future pearls delivered right into your mailbox!

Should I be concerned about the umbilical hernia in my patient with cirrhosis and ascites?

When evaluating for an esophageal perforation, is a water-soluble contrast agent such as Gastrografin a better and safer alternative to barium swallow study?

Water-soluble contrast agents (WCAs) (eg, meglumine diatrizoate or Gastrografin) are often ordered as the initial radiographic test for evaluation of esophageal perforation or leaks, followed by barium swallow if the test is negative because small leaks are better detected with the more radiopaque barium1.  Such practice, however, is based on extrapolation of data on the deleterious effect of barium when extravasated into the peritoneal cavity, not the mediastinum1.   In fact, clinical evidence linking mediastinitis to extravasated barium is lacking, and even in experimental studies, injection of barium into the mediastinum of cats have failed to cause clinically significant mediastinitis2.

When ordering a contrast swallow study, no medium should be considered totally safe or effective in detecting esophageal perforations or leaks and WCAs are no different. Potential disadvantages of WCAs include: 1. Inferior sensitivity (as low as 50%)—due to decreased radio-opacity—when compared to barium3; 2. Risk of pulmonary edema—occasionally lethal— when aspirated into the lung due to high osmolality (analogous to salt water drowning) and intense inflammatory reaction4,5; 3. Contraindication in the setting of tracheoesophageal fistula,6; 4. Risk of serious allergic reaction due to reabsorption of iodinated compounds1; and 5. Added exposure to radiation and cost of testing when the swallow study is repeated with barium.  For these reasons, the standard practice of an initial WCA followed by a barium swallow`study if the former is negative, has been questioned, with some centers foregoing the WCA study altogether in favor of barium swallow in certain patients 1,6.

In short, when evaluating for esophageal perforation, WCAs should not categorically be considered a “better” or “safer” alternative to barium; in certain situations, barium may be the preferred agent. When in doubt, input from a thoracic surgeon is recommended.  

 

References

  1. Gollub MJ, Bains MS. Barium sulfate: a new (old) contrast agent for diagnosis of postoperative esophageal leaks. Radiology 1997;202:360-62. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9015057
  2. James AE, Montali RJ, Chaffee V, et al. Barium or gastrografin: which contrast media for diagnosis of esophageal tears? Gastroenterology 1975;68:1103-1113. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1126592
  3. Berry BE, Ochsner JL. Perforation of the esophagus: a 30 year review. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1973;65:1-7. http://www.jpedsurg.org/article/0022-3468(73)90248-0/abstract
  4. Trulzsch DV, PenmetsaA, Karim A, et al. Gastrografin-induced aspiration pneumonia: A lethal complication of computed tomography. South Med J 1992;85:1255-56. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1470976
  5. Tuladhar R, Patole S, Whitehall J. Gastrografin aspiration in a neonate with tracheoesophageal fistula. J Paediatr Child Health 2000; 36:94-6. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10723703
  6. FDA https://www.drugs.com/pro/gastrografin.html.
  7. Roh S, Iannettoni MD, Keech JC, et al. Role of barium swallow in diagnosing clinically significant anastomotic leak following esophagectomy. Korean J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2016;49:99-109. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4825910/pdf/kjtcv-49-099.pdf

 

When evaluating for an esophageal perforation, is a water-soluble contrast agent such as Gastrografin a better and safer alternative to barium swallow study?

My patient with spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) is requiring IV albumin. Does IV albumin do anything other than expand the plasma volume?

Yes! Besides expanding the circulatory plasma volume by raising the oncotic pressure, albumin appears to have a vasoconstricting effects by binding to endotoxins, nitric oxide (NO), bilirubin and fatty acids1,2.

Splanchnic vasodilatation, a feature of decompensated cirrhosis (eg ascites, bleeding varices, hepatorenal syndrome, and hepatic encephalopathy), is accentuated by superimposed infections through cytokine-mediated release of endothelial vasodilators3.  By binding to potential vasodilators such as bile acids, endotoxins and NO, albumin may also help restore endothelial function and act as a vasoconstrictor.  

In a cool study involving patients with SBP randomized to either albumin or hydroxyethyl starch (HS, a synthetic volume expander), the albumin (not HS) group had a significant increase in mean arterial pressure, right atrial pressure, pulmonary artery pressure,  systolic volume, left ventricular stroke work, and systemic vascular resistance3.

Albumin may also have an immune-modulating activity in patients with cirrhosis or acute liver decompensation by binding to prostaglandin E-2 (PGE-2), generated as a result of inflammatory reaction in the liver and bacterial translocation4.  PGE-2 is a suppressor of macrophage cytokine secretion and bacterial killing.  By binding to PGE-2, albumin can reverse this immunosuppression by reducing the availability of serum PGE-2.

References

  1. Baraldi O, Valenini C, Donati G, et al. Hepatorenal syndrome: update on diagnosis and treatment 2015;4:511-20. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26558188
  2. Angeli P, Volpin R, Piovan D, et al. Acute effects of the oral administration of midodrine, an α-adrenergic agonist, on renal hemodynamics and renal function in cirrhotic patients with ascites. Hepatology 1998;28:937-43. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9755229
  3. Fernandez J, Monteagudo J, Bargallo X, et al. A randomized unblended pilot study comparing albumin versus hydroxyethyl starch in spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Hepatology 2005;42:627-634. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16108036
  4. Gleeson, MW, Dickson RC. Albumin gains immune boosting credibility. Clin Transl 2015;6:e86;doi:10.1038/ctg.2015.11. http://www.nature.com/ctg/journal/v6/n4/full/ctg201511a.html
My patient with spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) is requiring IV albumin. Does IV albumin do anything other than expand the plasma volume?

Is ascitic fluid adenosine deaminase (ADA) useful in diagnosing tuberculous (TB) peritonitis?

ADA is an enzyme found in a variety tissues and blood cells including erythrocytes and lymphocytes. Its activity in body fluids is primarily related to the number, maturation and level of stimulation of lymphocytes (1).  Although ADA has been used as a diagnostic test for tuberculous meningitis, pericarditis and pleural effusions, caution should be exercised when interpreting its activity in ascitic fluid, particularly in low endemic countries where cirrhosis may not be uncommon.  In a study of patients with ascites in the U.S., the overall sensitivity of the ADA for TB peritonitis was 59 % with a specificity of 95% (1).  Among cirrhotic patients, however, the sensitivity of ADA was only 30%!   False-positive results are occasionally observed in bacterial peritonitis and malignancy-associated ascites (1).  Parenthetically, the sensitivity of serum ascites-albumin gradient (SAAG) <1.1 for TB peritonitis is also low (50%) in the setting of chronic liver disease (2).

  1. Hillebrand DJ, Runyon BA, Yasmineh WG, Rynders GP. Ascitic fluid adenosine deaminase insensitivity in detecting tuberculous peritonitis in the United States. Hepatology 1996;24:1408-1412.
  2. Shakil AO, Korula J, Kanel GC, Murray NG, Reynolds TB. Diagnostic features of tuberculous peritonitis in the absence and presence of chronic liver disease: a case-control study. Am J Med 1996;100:179-185.

 

Is ascitic fluid adenosine deaminase (ADA) useful in diagnosing tuberculous (TB) peritonitis?