Corresponding author:
Dr G. DAmico, Gastroenterology Unit,
A.O. Ospedali Riuniti Villa Soa
Cervello P.O. Vincenzo Cervello, via
Trabucco 180, 90146 Palermo, Italy.
E-mail: gedamico@libero.it
These authors equally shared the rst
authorship.
1
Publication data
Submitted 23 November 2013
First decision 9 December 2013
Resubmitted 3 January 2014
Accepted 6 January 2014
EV Pub Online 26 January 2014
As part of AP&Ts peer-review process, a
technical check of this meta-analysis was
performed by Mr M. Siddiqui.
SUMMARY
Background
Propranolol is recommended for prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in cirrhosis. Carvedilol is a nonselective beta-blocker with a mild anti-alfa-1-adrenergic activity. Several studies have compared carvedilol and propranolol,
yielding inconsistent results.
Aim
To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the randomised clinical trials comparing carvedilol with propranolol for hepatic vein pressure
gradient reduction.
Methods
Studies were searched on the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane library
databases up to November 2013. The weighted mean difference in percent
hepatic vein pressure gradient reduction and the relative risk of failure to
achieve a hemodynamic response (reduction 20% of baseline or to
12 mmHg) with each drug were used as measures of treatment efcacy.
Results
Five studies (175 patients) were included. Indication to treatment was primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in 76% of patients. There were overall
three acute (6090 min after drug administration) and three long-term
(after 790 days of therapy) comparisons. The summary mean weighted
difference in % of reduction in hepatic vein pressure gradient was: acute
7.70 (CI 12.40, 3.00), long-term 6.81 (CI 11.35, 2.26), overall
7.24 (CI 10.50, 3.97), favouring carvedilol. The summary relative risk
of failure to achieve a hemodynamic response with carvedilol was 0.66 (CI
0.44, 1.00). Adverse events were nonsignicantly more frequent and serious
with carvedilol. However, quality of trials was mostly unsatisfactory.
Conclusions
Carvedilol reduces portal hypertension signicantly more than propranolol.
However, available data do not allow a satisfactory comparison of adverse
events. These results suggest a potential for a cautious clinical use.
Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2014; 39: 557568
557
E. Sinagra et al.
INTRODUCTION
Portal hypertension is an almost unavoidable complication of cirrhosis1 and variceal haemorrhage is its most
dramatic consequence, bearing a mortality of 1015%
per episode.2 The hepatic venous pressure gradient
(HVPG) is signicantly associated with the risk of variceal bleeding, liver decompensation and hepatocellular
carcinoma (HCC).35 A reduction in HVPG by 20% of
baseline results in a signicant reduction in the bleeding
risk and a reduction to less than 12 mmHg virtually
abolishes the risk.3, 6 Propranolol, a nonselective betablocker (NSBB), signicantly reduces HVPG and is currently recommended for the prevention of primary and
secondary variceal bleeding. However, it achieves the target HVPG reduction only in approximately one-third of
patients, possibly because the increase in porto-collateral
resistance impairs the reduction in portal pressure.79
This effect may be reduced by adding a vasodilator such
as isosorbide mononitrate, which in fact rescues most of
nonresponders to propranolol, although at the expense
of increasing side effects.10
Carvedilol is a potent NSBB with a mild anti-alfa1
adrenergic activity, which confers to the drug a potential
for a higher portal pressure reduction compared with
other NSBB. Several studies have compared the acute or
long-term hemodynamic response of carvedilol and propranolol yielding inconsistent results.11
The aim of the present study was to assess the hemodynamic effects of carvedilol compared with propranolol
for portal hypertension. With this aim, we performed a
systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs)
comparing the two drugs for their effect on hepatic vein
pressure gradient in cirrhosis.
METHODS
Study selection and participants
All the studies that met the following inclusion criteria
were included: (i) the study was an RCT comparing
carvedilol with propranolol for acute or long-term effect
on HVPG in cirrhotic patients; (ii) reduction in HVPG
under treatment was a measure of the treatment effect;
(iii) participants in the included studies were cirrhotic
patients with clinically signicant portal hypertension as
indicated by HVPG >10 mmHg and/or presence of
oesophageal varices, according to the Baveno III criteria.12 Randomised trials were included irrespective of
blinding, publication status or language. Trials using
quasi-randomisation, based on case record number, date
of birth, day of the week or similar, were excluded.
558
Compared treatments
Oral carvedilol was compared with either oral or i.v. propranolol for the acute hemodynamic effect, or oral carvedilol compared with oral propranolol for the long-term
effect. The assessment of the hemodynamic effect was
considered acute when performed during the same
hepatic veins catheterisation. When a second catheterisation was required (after days or months of treatment), it
was classied as assessment of long-term treatment
effect.
Treatment outcome
The primary measure of the treatment effect was the difference in % HVPG reduction achieved with each of the
two compared drugs. The proportion of patients failing
to achieve a hemodynamic response to the treatment
was considered a secondary outcome measure.
Hemodynamic responders were considered those
patients achieving a HVPG reduction 20% of baseline
value or in whom HVPG was lowered to
12 mmHg.3, 13, 14 The number and severity of adverse
events were also assessed as well as the difference in
mean arterial blood pressure reduction (MAP) with each
drug as an indicator of systemic treatment effect.
Search strategy
Medline, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Trial Registry
and The Cochrane Library were searched up to November 2013 to retrieve pertinent studies. Databases were
searched by the following search terms: carvedilol, propranolol, portal hypertension, randomised trial. A manual search of the reference lists of pertinent studies,
articles, reviews, editorials from the English language
medical literature was also performed. Proceedings of the
most relevant international congresses were handsearched.
Data collection and analysis
Decisions on which trials to include were taken independently by two of the authors (ES and GP), who were
unblinded with regard to the names of the authors,
investigators, institution, source, and results of the identied trials. Disagreements were resolved by discussion
with all the authors. Excluded trials were identied with
the reason for exclusion. Data were extracted by two
independent authors (ES and GP) and discrepancies
were solved by discussion. The following data were
extracted from each trial: (i) trial characteristics: time
interval between trial drug administration and hemodynamic effect assessment; denition of the outcome of
Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2014; 39: 557-568
2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Systematic review with meta-analysis: carvedilol vs. propranolol for portal hypertension
interest; (ii) patients characteristics: number of patients,
mean age, sex, aetiology of cirrhosis, Child-Pugh score,
proportion of patients with previous variceal bleeding;
(iii) outcome: mean HVPG change under trial treatment;
number of patients achieving a hemodynamic response;
adverse events observed during the treatment period.
Analyses were performed by STATA 10 (College Station, TX 77845 USA, 19842009) by a xed-effect
model if no statistically signicant heterogeneity was
found and by a random-effects model in case of signicant heterogeneity (P < 0.10). The treatment effect was
calculated as the weighted mean difference (WMD)
between the % HVPG reduction from baseline achieved
with propranolol and the % reduction achieved with
carvedilol. Data are expressed as % HVPG reduction
with propranolol minus % HVPG reduction with carvedilol. Therefore, negative values indicate a higher
HVPG reduction with carvedilol. The pooled WMD is
reported as the summary statistic of treatment effect
together with 95% condence interval (CI). The pooled
relative risk (RR) of failure to achieve a hemodynamic
response with either treatment was also assessed and
reported with 95% CI. Inter-trial heterogeneity was statistically assessed by a chi-square test and was expressed
using I2 values.17 If signicant heterogeneity was found,
potential reasons for heterogeneity were explored and
combinability of trials was reassessed accordingly. Analyses were performed using the intention-to-treat principle
including all patients randomised as they were reported
in each single study. Trials were rst combined independently of whether they assessed acute or long-term hemodynamic effect of the study treatment. However,
separate analyses according to the timing of assessment
were also performed.
To explore the robustness of estimates, the following
sensitivity analyses were performed: (i) random-effects
model; (ii) standardised mean difference (SMD) instead
of WMD to overcome potential measurement differences across trials; (iii) excluding trials with acute
assessment; (iv) excluding trials with long-term assessment; (v) excluding trials with inadequate control of
bias.
The weighted mean difference in arterial blood pressure with the two drugs was also assessed as a measure
of a major treatment side effect.
Study protocol
The full study protocol is available by contacting the corresponding author of this article.
RESULTS
Trial retrieval
Overall, 39 potentially eligible references were retrieved
in the literature search. Thirty references were excluded
by reading the title and abstract, because they did not
559
E. Sinagra et al.
38 references
identified through
database serching
One additional
reference identified
by handsearch
39 references
screened
30 excluded
9 references
assessed
for eligibility
7 references to 5
pertinent trials
5 RCTs included
In quantitative synthesis
(meta-analysis)
Systematic review with meta-analysis: carvedilol vs. propranolol for portal hypertension
Table 1 | Characteristics of included trials
Author,
year
Participants
N of randomised
patients C/P
Interventions
C; P*
C: Carvedilol
25 mg p.o.
P: Propranolol
(0.15 mg/kg
i.v. followed by
a continuous
infusion of
0.2 mg/kg/h)
C: Carvedilol
31 4 mg/day
p.o.(range, 12.550)*
P: Propranolol
73 10 mg/day
p.o. (range, 10160)*
Acute:
C: Carvedilol
25 mg p.o.;
P: Propranolol
80 mg p.o.
Maintenance:
C: carvedilol
6.25 mg p.o.
twice daily
P: propranolol
40 mg p.o.
twice daily
C: Carvedilol
25 mg p.o.
P: propranolol
40 mg p.o +
isosorbide
5-mononitrate
20 mg p.o.
C: Carvedilol
14 7 mg*
P: Propranolol
122 64 mg*
Banares, 1999
Cirrhotic patients
with oesophageal
varices, with or
without previous
variceal bleeding
14/14
7 more patients
were randomised
to placebo
Banares,2002
Cirrhotic patients
with oesophageal
varices, no previous
bleeding, and
HVPG >12 mmHg
26/25
De, 2002
Cirrhotic patients
with oesophageal
varices, with or
without previous
variceal bleeding
18/18
Lin, 2004
Cirrhotic patients
with HVPG 12 with
or without previous
variceal bleeding
11/11
Hobolth, 2012
21/17
Time of
outcome
assessment
Propranolol
60 min
14/14
14/14
11 4.1 weeks
26/24
25/22
Acute: 90 min
Long-term: 1 week
Acute: 18/18
Long-term 18/17
Acute: 18/18
Long-term 18/16
90 min
11/11
11/11
21/21
17/17
Outcome evaluation
HVPG reduction. Mean baseline HVPG was 18.3 mmHg
(median 18, range 16.620.4) in propranolol-treated
patients and 18.8 mmHg (median 19, range 17.619.5)
Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2014; 39: 557-568
2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
E. Sinagra et al.
Table 2 | Methodological quality assessment of included trials*
Author, year
Generation
of the allocation
sequence
Allocation
concealment
Blinding
Dropouts
and withdrawals
Intention-totreat analysis
Overall risk
of bias
Banares, 1999
Banares, 2002
De, 2002
Lin, 2004
Hobolth, 2012
Unclear
Adequate
Unclear
Adequate
Unclear
Unclear
Adequate
Inadequate
Unclear
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Unclear
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Unclear
Adequate
Inadequate
Unclear
Unclear
* Denition used for rating of each quality item are reported in the method section.
Blinded reading of HVPG measurements.
Double-blind.
Banares, 1999
Banares, 2002
De, 2002
Lin, 2004
Hobolth, 2012
Treatment
group
Patients
N
Age,
mean s.d.
C
P
C
P
C
P
C
P
C
P
14
14
26
25
18
18
11
11
21
17
54.6
51.4
57.9
58.4
42.3
47.3
59
61
58.2
56.2
8.8
8.5
7.6
11
11.9
12.9
13.3
13.3
6.8
6.1
Males
N
Alcoholic/
viral
aetiology N
Child-Pugh
class A/B/
C, N
Oesophageal
varices large/
small, N
Ascites
N
Previous
variceal
bleeding, N
NR
NR
19
15
15
17
8
9
12
12
8/NR
8/NR
6/18
9/16
5/9
10/5
0/11
0/11
18/2
12/1
8/4/2
5/6/3
13/10/3
15/6/4
5/9/4
0/13/5
8.7 3.0
7.3 2.7
8/7/6
6/6/4
NR
NR
10/16
14/11
NR
NR
NR
NR
4/10
1/11
7*
7*
10
6
12
16
NR
NR
NR
NR
9
9
0
0
7
7
NR
NR
5
5
C, Carvedilol; P, Propranolol.
* Previous ascites.
Child-Pugh score, mean standard deviation (derived from the standard error reported in the article).
The pooled relative risk of failure to achieve a hemodynamic response with carvedilol was 0.66 (CI 0.441.00)
(Figure 3).
Systematic review with meta-analysis: carvedilol vs. propranolol for portal hypertension
Acute assessment
Banares (1999)
34.70
De (2002)
2.88
Lin (2004)
10.71
Subtotal
(I 2 = 0.0%, P = 0.942)
48.29
Banares (2002)
38.48
De(2002)
3.58
Hobolth (2012)
9.66
Subtotal
(I 2 = 0.0%, P = 0.970)
51.71
100.00
Long-term assessment
Overall
(I 2 = 0.0%, P = 0.998)
20
10
Better carvedilol
10
20
Better propranolol
Figure 2 | Weighted mean difference (WMD) (xed-effect model) of the % hepatic vein pressure gradient (HVPG)
reduction between propranolol and carvedilol in the subsets of RCTs assessing the acute and, respectively, the longterm treatment effect together with the overall estimation of the whole set of studies. Each study is identied by the
name of the rst author and year of publication (references in the text). Squares indicate the WMD per each trial and
the size of the squares is proportional to the weight of trials. The horizontal bars denote the 95% condence intervals
of WMD. The vertical solid line is the equivalence line, where WMD is equal to 0. Differences are given as values in
the propranolol group minus values in the carvedilol group. Therefore, negative values (WMDs on the left of the
equivalence line) denote superiority, whereas those on the right denote inferiority of carvedilol. The diamonds
represent 95% CI of the WMDs per each subset and in whole set of RCTs. The vertical dashed line represents the
pooled WMD of the whole set of trials. The study by De (2002) provided estimation of either acute or long-term
treatment effect.
DISCUSSION
The present meta-analysis shows that, in the available
RCTs comparing propranolol and carvedilol for portal
hypertension, carvedilol reduces HVPG signicantly
more than propranolol. Superiority of carvedilol is consistent across all the trials, regardless of acute or longterm assessment. The summary weighed mean difference
between the percent HVPG reduction achieved with propranolol and carvedilol is 7.24 (CI 10.50 to 3.97) in
favour of carvedilol. No heterogeneity was found and all
the sensitivity analyses conrmed the principal result.
Patients in the two treatment groups were fairly comparable across the included studies, regarding demography, aetiology, indicators of disease severity, baseline
563
E. Sinagra et al.
Table 4 | Main results of the included studies
Carvedilol
Author, year
Baseline
HVPG, mmHg
mean s.d.*
Acute assessment
Banares, 1999
19.5
De, 2002
19.0
Lin, 2004
18.9
Subtotal
Long-term assessment
Banares, 2002
19.1
De, 2002
19.0
Hobolth, 2012
17.6
Subtotal
Total
4.9
3.8
6.0
Propranolol
% HVPG
reduction,
mean s.d.*
Hemo-dynamic
responders
n/N (%)
20.4 7.5
27.7 31.5
18.6 11.9
9/14 (64)
11/18 (61)
NR
20.4 4.1
16.60 3.9
17.6 4.0
19 9.8
27.7 31.5
19.3 16.1
13/24 (54)
11/17 (65)
13/21 (62)
20.3 4.2
16.6 4.0
18.4 3.6
12 9.4
22.98 20.1
12.5 16.7
5.4
3.8
4.2
Baseline HVPG,
mean s.d.*
Weighed
Mean Difference
in % HVPG
reduction (CI)
% HVPG
reduction,
mean s.d.*
Hemo-dynamic
responders
n/N (%)
12.7 7.48
22.9 27.4
10.1 11.9
2/14 (14)
9/18 (50)
7.70
4.69
8.50
7.70
5/22 (23)
10/16 (62)
7/17 (41)
7.00 (
4.72 (
6.80 (
6.81
( 11.35,
7.24 (
NR
(
(
(
(
13.24, 2.16)
23.94, 14.56)
18.48, 1.48)
12.4, 3.00)
12.26, 1.74)
21.99, 12.55)
17.31, 3.71)
2.26)
10.50,
3.97)
* s.d., standard deviation of mean. In the studies by Banares 1999 and 2002 and by Lin 2004, the standard deviation of the mean
was calculated from the standard error of the mean reported in the original articles.
Patients achieving a HVPG reduction 20% or HVPG 12 mmHg.
Hemodynamic response was dened as a reduction in HVPG of 20% of baseline in the Des study.
n, number of responders; N, total number of evaluable patients.
The difference is calculated as % HVPG reduction with propranolol
carvedilol.
HVPG and history of previous bleeding. A second measurement of HVPG was available in all the included
patients, but three in the Des study23 and ve in the
long-term study by Banares.22 Only two of the missing
second HVPG measurements were due to bleeding (both
in proporanolol-treated patients), while the others were
caused by adverse events requiring treatment withdrawal.
Control of bias was considered inadequate in only one
trial and the benecial effect of carvedilol over propranolol was conrmed also when excluding this study. On
the other hand, control of bias was adequate in only one
study: this nding calls for caution when interpreting the
present results.
The number of patients achieving a reduction in
HVPG to 20% or to 12 mmHg was reported in 4 of
the 5 studies and was also markedly higher with carvedilol (57/94 vs. 33/87). However, the reduction in the
pooled relative risk of failure to achieve a hemodynamic
response failed to reach statistical signicance with carvedilol (0.67, CI 0.441.01), conceivably because of a type
II error. It may also be worth noting that in the only
study assessing both acute and long-term effects,23 the
number of patients with acute hemodynamic response
was almost identical to the number of patients with
response after 7 days: respectively 11/18 and 11/17 with
564
Systematic review with meta-analysis: carvedilol vs. propranolol for portal hypertension
RR (95% CI)
%Weight
Banares (1999)
8.00
De (2002)
25.10
Subtotal
(I 2 = 71.3%, P = 0.062)
33.10
Banares (2002)
16.09
De (2002)
28.55
Hobolth (2012)
22.27
Subtotal
(I 2 = 35.1%, P = 0.214)
66.90
100.00
Acute assessment
Long-term assessment
.2
.5
1
5
10
Better carvedilol
Better propranolol
Relative risk: random effects
Figure 3 | Summary relative risk (RR) of treatment nonresponse (reduction in HVPG of 20% of baseline or to
<12 mmHg not achieved) with carvedilol compared with propranolol (random-effects model) in the subsets of RCTs
assessing the acute and, respectively, the long-term treatment effect together with the overall estimation of the whole
set of studies. Each study is identied by the name of the rst author and year of publication (references in the text).
Squares indicate the RR per each trial and the size of the squares is proportional to the weight of trials. The
horizontal bars denote the 95% condence intervals of RR. The vertical solid line is the equivalence line, where RR is
equal to 1. RRs on the left of the equivalence line denote superiority, whereas those on the right denote inferiority of
Carvedilol. The diamonds represent 95% CI of the RRs per each subset and in whole set of RCTs. The vertical dashed
line represents the summary RR of the whole set of trials. The study by De (2002) provided estimation of either
acute or long-term treatment effect.
E. Sinagra et al.
Propranolol
Weight
Banares (1999)
17.87
10.57
Banares (2002)
10.77
13.35
Lin (2004)
17.87
Hobolth (2012)
29.56
Overall
100.00
(I 2 = 0.0%, P = 0.936)
20
10
10
Carvedilol
Banares (1999)
20
WMD (95% CI)
Weight
12.75
20.36
Banares (2002)
22.62
15.05
Lin (2004)
6.13
Hobolth (2012)
23.09
100.00
Overall
(I 2 = 0.0%, P = 0.477)
20
10
0
MABP reduction, mmHg
10
20
Figure 4 | Weighted mean difference (WMD) of arterial pressure from before to after treatment. Data are expressed
as baseline minus post-treatment value. The top section of the gure represents the arterial pressure changes with
propranolol and the bottom section changes with carvedilol. Each study is identied by the name of the rst author
and year of publication (references in the text). Squares indicate the WMD per each trial and the size of the squares
is proportional to the weight of trials. The horizontal bars denote the 95% condence intervals of WMD. The vertical
solid line is the equivalence line, where WMD is equal to 0. WMDs on the left of the equivalence line denote
reduction in arterial blood pressure after treatment, whereas those on the right denote increase. The vertical dashed
line represents the pooled WMD of the whole set of studies in the arms of propranolol (top) and, respectively,
carvedilol (bottom). The diamonds represent 95% CI of the WMDs.
Systematic review with meta-analysis: carvedilol vs. propranolol for portal hypertension
reliable estimation by Funnel plot asymmetry tests29,
which, in such a situation, have unsatisfactory power.
In conclusion, this meta-analysis shows that carvedilol
reduces HVPG signicantly more than propranolol either
after one single administration or in a more long-term up
to 1 week to 3 months. This effect is achieved at the
expense of marked reduction in arterial pressure, which
becomes symptomatic in an appreciable proportion of
patients. Yet, worsening of water retention is to be
expected in several patients, although the lack of randomised trials comparing the clinical effects of carvedilol
with propranolol hampers drawing conclusions for clinical
practice on this potentially harmful effect. Moreover, the
two recent RCTs showing that carvedilol is as effective as
banding ligation for primary prevention of variceal bleeding (and even superior in the intention-to-treat analysis)18
and as effective as nadolol plus isosorbide mononitrate for
secondary prevention19 support a potential for a clinical
benet from carvedilol. This consideration is much
strengthened by a recent study showing that carvedilol
may achieve a hemodynamic response in 56% of patients
failing to respond to propranolol,28 although further RCTs
should be encouraged.
Available data suggest that carvedilol may be considered for portal hypertension at least in patients failing to
reach a hemodynamic response to propranolol28 or for
AUTHORSHIP
Guarantor of the article: G.DAmico
Author contributions: E. Sinagra: study design, data collection, results interpretation, rst draft of the article. G.
Perricone: study design, data collection, results interpretation, correction of draft article and tables. M DAmico:
data checking, results interpretation, draft article correction. F Tine: checking statistical analysis, results interpretation. G DAmico: research idea, study design, statistical
analysis, results interpretation, nal article writing. All
authors approved the nal version of the manuscript.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Declaration of personal and funding interests: None.
REFERENCES
1. Bosch J, Berzigotti A, Garcia-pagan JC,
Abraldes JG. The management of
portal hypertension: rational basis,
available treatments and future
options. J Hepatol 2008; 48(Suppl. 1):
S6892.
2. DAmico G, Luca A. Natural history.
Clinical-haemodynamic correlations.
Prediction of the risk of bleeding.
Baillieres Clin Gastroenterol 1997; 11:
24356.
3. Groszmann RJ, Bosch J, Grace ND,
et al. Hemodynamic events in a
prospective randomized trial of
propanolol versus placebo in the
prevention of a rst variceal
hemorrhage. Gastroenterology 1990; 99:
14017.
4. Ripoll C, Groszmann R, Garcia-Tsao
G, et al; Portal Hypertension
Collaborative Group. Hepatic
venous pressure gradient predict
clinical decompensation in patients
with compensated cirrhosis.
Gastroenterology 2007; 133:
4818.
Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2014; 39: 557-568
2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
10.
11.
12.
13.
E. Sinagra et al.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
568
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.