4.3 Article

Carvedilol or propranolol in portal hypertension? A randomized comparison

期刊

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 47, 期 4, 页码 467-474

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/00365521.2012.666673

关键词

acute HVPG response; carvedilol; portal pressure; propranolol; randomized trial

资金

  1. Jacob & OlgaMadsen's Foundation
  2. Roche
  3. Research Foundation of Copenhagen Council
  4. Hvidovre Hospital Foundation for Liver Disease
  5. L.F. Foghts Foundation
  6. DPHG
  7. Novo Nordisk Foundation
  8. Novo Nordisk Fonden [NNF11OC1014467, NNF11OC1015075, NNF10OC1013267] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. Carvedilol is a non-selective beta-blocker with intrinsic anti-alpha(1)-adrenergic activity, potentially more effective than propranolol in reducing hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG). We compared the long-term effect of carvedilol and propranolol on HVPG and assessed whether the acute response to oral propranolol predicted the long-term HVPG response on either drug. Material and methods. HVPG was measured in 38 patients with cirrhosis and HVPG >= 12 mm Hg at baseline and then again 90 min after an oral dose of 80 mg propranolol. Patients were double-blinded randomized to either carvedilol (21 patients) or propranolol (17 patients) and after 90 days of treatment HVPG measurements were repeated. Results. HVPG decreased by 19.3 +/- 16.1% (p < 0.01) and by 12.5 +/- 16.7% (p < 0.01) in the carvedilol and propranolol groups, respectively, with no significant difference between treatment regimens (p = 0.21). Although insignificant, an acute decrease in HVPG of >= 12% was the best cut-off value to predict long-term HVPG response to propranolol when using ROC curve analysis. Conclusions. This randomized study showed that carvedilol is at least as effective as propranolol on HVPG after long-term administration. Furthermore, a predictive value of an acute propranolol test on HVPG could not be confirmed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据