Diastolic dysfunction is a predictor of poor outcomes in patients with cirrhosis, portal hypertension, and a normal creatinine.

UNLABELLED: We investigated left ventricular diastolic dysfunction (LVDD) and its relationship with circulatory function and prognosis in cirrhosis with portal hypertension and normal creatinine. Conventional and tissue Doppler (TDI) echocardiography, systemic and hepatic hemodynamics, and the activity of endogenous vasoactive systems (AEVS) were measured prospectively in 80 patients. Plasma renin activity (PRA; >4 ng/mL/hour) was used as a surrogate of effective arterial blood volume. Patients were followed up for 12 months. Thirty-seven patients had LVDD (19 with grade 1 and 18 with grade 2). Left ventricular hypertrophy, left atrial volume, AEVS, and natriuretic peptide levels were significantly greater in patients with LVDD than without LVDD. Patients with grade 2 LVDD, compared to grade 1 LVDD and without LVDD, had significantly lower mean arterial pressure and higher Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score, E-wave transmitral/early diastolic mitral annular velocity (E/e' ratio), cardiopulmonary pressures, PRA, and natriuretic peptide levels. Systolic and cardiac chronotropic function were significantly lower in patients with grade 2 LVDD than without LVDD. LVDD was more frequent in patients with ascites and increased PRA than patients without ascites or with ascites but normal PRA. Fourteen patients with LVDD developed hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) type 1 on follow-up. Survival was different according to degree of LVDD (without LVDD: 95%; grade 1 LVDD: 79%; grade 2 LVDD: 39%; P < 0.001). Independent predictive factors of mortality were MELD score and E/e' ratio. CONCLUSION: LVDD occurs simultaneously with other changes in cardiac structure and function and is associated with an impairment of effective arterial blood volume. LVDD is a sensitive marker of advanced cirrhosis, type 1 HRS development, and mortality.

Cirrhotic cardiomyopathy.

During the course of cirrhosis, there is a progressive deterioration of cardiac function manifested by the disappearance of the hyperdynamic circulation due to a failure in heart function with decreased cardiac output. This is due to a deterioration in inotropic and chronotropic function which takes place in parallel with a diastolic dysfunction and cardiac hypertrophy in the absence of other known cardiac disease. Other findings of this specific cardiomyopathy include impaired contractile responsiveness to stress stimuli and electrophysiological abnormalities with prolonged QT interval. The pathogenic mechanisms of cirrhotic cardiomyopathy include impairment of the b-adrenergic receptor signalling, abnormal cardiomyocyte membrane lipid composition and biophysical properties, ion channel defects and overactivity of humoral cardiodepressant factors. Cirrhotic cardiomyopathy may be difficult to determine due to the lack of a specific diagnosis test. However, an echocardiogram allows the detection of the diastolic dysfunction and the E/e' ratio may be used in the follow-up progression of the illness. Cirrhotic cardiomyopathy plays an important role in the pathogenesis of the impairment of effective arterial blood volume and correlates with the degree of liver failure. A clinical consequence of cardiac dysfunction is an inadequate cardiac response in the setting of vascular stress that may result in renal hypoperfusion leading to renal failure. The prognosis is difficult to establish but the severity of diastolic dysfunction may be a marker of mortality risk. Treatment is non-specific and liver transplantation may normalize the cardiac function.

Norfloxacin vs ceftriaxone in the prophylaxis of infections in patients with advanced cirrhosis and hemorrhage.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Oral norfloxacin is the standard of therapy in the prophylaxis of bacterial infections in cirrhotic patients with gastrointestinal hemorrhage. However, during the last years, the epidemiology of bacterial infections in cirrhosis has changed, with a higher incidence of infections caused by quinolone-resistant bacteria. This randomized controlled trial was aimed to compare oral norfloxacin vs intravenous ceftriaxone in the prophylaxis of bacterial infection in cirrhotic patients with gastrointestinal bleeding. METHODS: One hundred eleven patients with advanced cirrhosis (at least 2 of the following: ascites, severe malnutrition, encephalopathy, or bilirubin >3 mg/dL) and gastrointestinal hemorrhage were randomly treated with oral norfloxacin (400 mg twice daily; n = 57) or intravenous ceftriaxone (1 g/day; n = 54) for 7 days. The end point of the trial was the prevention of bacterial infections within 10 days after inclusion. RESULTS: Clinical data were comparable between groups. The probability of developing proved or possible infections, proved infections, and spontaneous bacteremia or spontaneous bacterial peritonitis was significantly higher in patients receiving norfloxacin (33% vs 11%, P = .003; 26% vs 11%, P = .03; and 12% vs 2%, P = .03, respectively). The type of antibiotic used (norfloxacin), transfusion requirements at inclusion, and failure to control bleeding were independent predictors of infection. Seven gram-negative bacilli were isolated in the norfloxacin group, and 6 were quinolone resistant. Non-enterococcal streptococci were only isolated in the norfloxacin group. No difference in hospital mortality was observed between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous ceftriaxone is more effective than oral norfloxacin in the prophylaxis of bacterial infections in patients with advanced cirrhosis and hemorrhage.