4.7 Article

Non-selective beta-blockers are not associated with serious infections in veterans with cirrhosis

期刊

ALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
卷 38, 期 4, 页码 407-414

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/apt.12382

关键词

-

资金

  1. McGuire Research Institute at the Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center, Richmond
  2. NIDDK, NIH [RO1DK087913]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundStudies evaluating outcomes associated with non-selective beta-blockers (NSBB) in cirrhosis have yielded mixed results. A major cause of death in decompensated cirrhosis is infection. AimTo determine the effect of NSBB use on serious infections (requiring hospitalisation) in compensated and decompensated cirrhosis. MethodsUsing data from the US Veterans Health Administration from 2001-2009, we identified two cohorts: compensated cirrhotics (n=12656) and decompensated cirrhotics (n=4834). From each cohort, we identified new NSBB users and propensity-matched them 1:1 to non-users (n=1836 each in compensated users/non-users and n=1462 each in decompensated users/non-users). They were followed up for serious infections (median time: 3.1years), death and transplant. We estimated adjusted hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) from Cox regression models. ResultsDeath or transplantation occurred in 0.7% compensated and 2.7% of decompensated patients. Among decompensated cirrhotics, death (P=0.0061) and transplantation (P=0.0086) occurred earlier in NSBB users compared with non-users. Serious infections were observed in 4.8% of compensated cirrhotics and in 13.7% of decompensated cirrhotics. There was no difference in the rate of serious infection development in new NSBB users compared with non-users in the compensated (adjusted HR: 0.90, CI: 0.59-1.36) or in the decompensated group (adjusted HR: 1.10, CI: 0.96-1.25). ConclusionThe use of non-selective beta-blockers in U.S. veterans is not associated with an increased rate of serious infections in compensated or decompensated cirrhosis.

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

4.7
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