ABSTRACT
Hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) is a serious complication of decompensated liver cirrhosis that results in acute kidney injury (AKI). The mortality rate is high. Endothelial dysfunction secondary to liver cirrhosis is a key driver of the development of portal hypertension, which is eventually complicated by ascites and HRS. Ultimately, splanchnic vasodilation and excess gut lymph production result in ascites, low effective arterial blood volume, and maladaptive compensatory mechanisms that contribute to renal hypoperfusion and injury. While the only curative treatment is liver transplantation, vasoconstrictors and albumin have been the mainstay of treatment for candidates who are ineligible or waiting for transplantation. On September 14, 2022, terlipressin, a V1 vasopressin receptor agonist, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of HRS-AKI. In clinical trials, terlipressin plus albumin have been superior to albumin alone and equivocal to noradrenaline plus albumin in renal function improvement. Terlipressin, however, does not improve survival, is costly, and is associated with severe adverse events-including severe cardiac and vascular complications. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of terlipressin pharmacology, adverse events-with a focus on cardiovascular complications-and comparative randomized controlled trials that resulted in the Food and Drug Administration's approval of terlipressin. New literature since its approval and ongoing clinical trials will also be highlighted.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To explore how permanent compared with absorbable suture affects anatomic success in native tissue vaginal suspension (uterosacral ligament suspension and sacrospinous ligament suspension) and sacrocolpopexy with mesh. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched through March 29, 2022. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: Our population included women undergoing apical prolapse surgery (uterosacral ligament suspension and sacrospinous ligament suspension and abdominal sacrocolpopexy). Our intervention was permanent suture for apical prolapse surgery, and our comparator was absorbable suture. We determined a single anatomic success proportion per study. Adverse events collected included suture and mesh exposure, surgery for suture and mesh complication, dyspareunia, and granulation tissue. Abstracts were doubly screened, full-text articles were doubly screened, and accepted articles were doubly extracted. Quality of studies was assessed using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria. In single-arm studies using either permanent or absorbable suture, random effects meta-analyses of pooled proportions were used to assess anatomic success. In comparative studies investigating both suture types, random effects meta-analyses of pooled risk ratios were used. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Of 4,658 abstracts screened, 398 full-text articles were assessed and 63 studies were included (24 vaginal suspension [13 uterosacral ligament suspension and 11 sacrospinous ligament suspension] and 39 sacrocolpopexy). At 2-year follow-up, there was no difference in permanent compared with absorbable suture in uterosacral ligament suspension and sacrospinous ligament suspension (proportional anatomic success rate 88% [95% CI 0.81-0.93] vs 88% [95% CI 0.82-0.92]). Similarly, at 18-month follow-up, there was no difference in permanent compared with absorbable suture in sacrocolpopexy (proportional anatomic success rate 92% [95% CI 0.88-0.95] vs 96% [95% CI 0.92-0.99]). On meta-analysis, there was no difference in relative risk (RR) of success for permanent compared with absorbable suture for uterosacral ligament suspension and sacrospinous ligament suspension (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.93-1.33) or sacrocolpopexy (RR 1.00, 95% CI0.98-1.03). CONCLUSION: Success rates were similarly high for absorbable and permanent suture after uterosacral ligament suspension, sacrospinous ligament suspension, and sacrocolpopexy, with medium-term follow-up. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42021265848.