ELIMINATE: a PCR record-based macroelimination project for systematic recall of HCV-RNA-positive persons in Austria.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Micro-elimination projects targeted to specific hepatitis C virus (HCV) risk populations have been successful. Systematic identification of persons with HCV viremia, regardless of risk group, based on already available laboratory records may represent an effective macroelimination approach to achieve global HCV elimination. METHODS: Persons with a last positive HCV-RNA PCR result between 2008-2020 in the reference virology laboratories in eastern Austria were identified. First, (i) we described their demographic characteristics, (ii) we systematically recalled persons to the respective centers and (iii) started antiviral treatment if HCV-RNA viremia was confirmed, and (iv) recorded sustained virologic response (SVR). This interim report includes the preliminary results from 8 participating centers. RESULTS: During the study period 22,682 persons underwent HCV-RNA PCR testing, 11,216 (49.4%) were positive at any point in time, and 6006 (26.5%) showed detectable HCV-RNA at the last PCR test, suggesting ongoing HCV viremia. At the time of this interim report, 2546/6006 HCV-RNA PCR(+) persons were evaluated: 443/2546 (17.4%) had died, 852/2546 (33.5%) had invalid contact data, and 547/2546 (21.5%) had achieved SVR between data retrieval and recall. Contact could be established in 236/704 (33.5%) of the remaining target population with 97/236 (41.1%) presenting at the clinic for treatment evaluation. Ultimately, 71/236 (30.1%) started antiviral treatment and SVR was documented in 47/71 (66.2%). CONCLUSION: This ELIMINATE project based on systematic assessment of HCV-RNA PCR-records, identified 6006 persons with potential persisting HCV viremia. Invalid contact data and missed visits for treatment evaluation were the main barriers towards HCV elimination within this project. Importantly, many subjects with HCV viremia lost to follow-up were successfully linked to care and started antiviral treatment.

Late-stage presentation with decompensated cirrhosis is alarmingly common but successful etiologic therapy allows for favorable clinical outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Liver cirrhosis accounts for considerable morbidity and mortality worldwide and late presentation limits therapeutic options. We aimed to assess characteristics of patients with liver cirrhosis at the time of first presentation and during their clinical course. METHODS: Patients with cirrhosis as evident by presence of varices at endoscopy, liver stiffness ≥15kPa at elastography, or ascites requiring paracentesis between Q1/2015-Q2/2020 were retrospectively included. Clinical, laboratory, and imaging data were collected from medical records at presentation and last follow-up. RESULTS: 476 patients were included (alcohol-related liver disease, ALD: 211, 44.3%; viral hepatitis: 163, 34.2%). Of these, 106 patients (22.3%) and 160 patients (33.6%) presented already with Child-Pugh C and MELD >15, respectively, and decompensation events were registered in 50% (238 patients) at baseline, and even in 75.4% of ALD patients. During a median follow-up of 11.0 (IQR 4-24) months, 116 patients died. Two-year survival was worse for patients with ALD than for viral hepatitis (71.1% vs. 90.2%, log rank p<0.001). We observed the highest percentage of portal-vein thrombosis (30.0%), hepatocellular carcinoma (15.0%), and death (45.0%) in the MAFLD group (n = 20). Patients cured from hepatitis C showed significant improvements in platelet count (147 to 169 G/L, p<0.001) and liver stiffness (26.2 to 17.7 kPa, p<0.001), while ALD patients improved in Child-Pugh score (8.6 to 7.6, p<0.001) during follow-up. With increasing Child Pugh score and MELD, we found increasing serum concentrations of CRP (p<0.001) and an inverse correlation with serum HDL (Spearman's ρ = -0.573 and -0.529, respectively, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Half of the patients with cirrhosis had decompensated cirrhosis at presentation. This calls for increased awareness and strategies for earlier diagnosis of chronic liver disease and cirrhosis.

Endoscopic band ligation is safe despite low platelet count and high INR.

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic endoscopic band ligation (EBL) is used to prevent variceal bleeding in patients with liver cirrhosis. The association of thrombocytopenia, high INR (international normalized ratio) and liver dysfunction with the risk of procedure-related bleeding (PRB) remains debated and recommendations are controversial. METHODS: We analyzed real-life data of cirrhotic patients undergoing elective EBL at two large Viennese centers between Q1/2000-Q1/2018. PRB was defined as bleeding occurring within 30 days after EBL. RESULTS: We included 617 patients undergoing a total of 1178 prophylactic EBL procedures (median 2 per patient). Sixteen (2.6%) of 617 patients experienced PRB after a median of 12.5 (IQR 17.3) days with no difference in characteristics and laboratory values between the two groups. The proportion of patients with platelets (PLT) < 50 G/L or INR ≥ 1.5 was similar in patients with vs. without PRB. A higher MELD showed a non-significant association with EBL-related bleeding risk (odds ratio, OR 1.07; 95% confidence interval 95% CI 1.00-1.16, p = 0.058). While serum bilirubin was a significant predictor for PRB (OR: 1.10; 95% CI 1.03-1.18), the presence of large varices (OR 0.85 vs. small varices; 95% CI 0.20-3.84), INR (OR 0.50; 95% CI 0.10-3.14), PLT (OR 1.00; 95% CI 1.00-1.01) and the use of non-selective betablockers (OR 1.20; CI 95% 0.38-3.76) were not associated with PRB. CONCLUSION: EBL is safe and procedure-related bleedings are rare (2.6%) including in patients with thrombocytopenia < 50 G/L or high INR ≥ 1.5. Only high MELD, and especially high bilirubin seem to be linked to an increased risk of EBL-related bleeding.

Multiomics-empowered Deep Phenotyping of Ulcerative Colitis Identifies Biomarker Signatures Reporting Functional Remission States.

INTRODUCTION: Ulcerative colitis [UC] is a chronic disease with rising incidence and unclear aetiology. Deep molecular phenotyping by multiomics analyses may provide novel insights into disease processes and characteristic features of remission states. METHODS: UC pathomechanisms were assessed by proteome profiling of human tissue specimens, obtained from five distinct colon locations for each of the 12 patients included in the study. Systemic disease-associated alterations were evaluated thanks to a cross-sectional setting of mass spectrometry-based multiomics analyses comprising proteins, metabolites, and eicosanoids of plasma obtained from UC patients during acute episodes and upon remission, in comparison with healthy controls. RESULTS: Tissue proteome profiling indicated colitis-associated activation of neutrophils, macrophages, B and T cells, fibroblasts, endothelial cells and platelets, and hypoxic stress, and suggested a general downregulation of mitochondrial proteins accompanying the establishment of apparent wound healing-promoting activities including scar formation. Whereas pro-inflammatory proteins were apparently upregulated by immune cells, the colitis-associated epithelial cells, fibroblasts, endothelial cells, and platelets seemed to predominantly contribute anti-inflammatory and wound healing-promoting proteins. Blood plasma proteomics indicated chronic inflammation and platelet activation, whereas plasma metabolomics identified disease-associated deregulations of gut and gut microbiome-derived metabolites. Upon remission several, but not all, molecular candidate biomarker levels recovered back to normal. CONCLUSION: The findings may indicate that microvascular damage and platelet deregulation hardly resolve upon remission, but apparently persist as disease-associated molecular signatures. This study presents local and systemic molecular alterations integrated in a model for UC pathomechanisms, potentially supporting the assessment of disease and remission states in UC patients.

Carvedilol Achieves Higher Hemodynamic Response and Lower Rebleeding Rates Than Propranolol in Secondary Prophylaxis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Carvedilol induces stronger decreases in hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) than conventional nonselective ß-blockers (ie, propranolol). Limited data exist on the efficacy of carvedilol in secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding. METHODS: Patients undergoing paired HVPG measurements for guiding secondary prophylaxis with either carvedilol or propranolol were included in this retrospective analysis. All patients also underwent band ligation. Changes in HVPG and systemic hemodynamics were compared between the 2 groups. Long-term follow-up data on rebleeding, acute kidney injury, nonbleeding decompensation, and liver-related death were analyzed applying competing risk regression. RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients (carvedilol/propranolol, n = 45/42) were included in our study. The median baseline HVPG was 21 mm Hg (interquartile range, 18-24 mm Hg), and 39.1%/48.3%/12.6% had Child-Turcotte-Pugh A/B/C cirrhosis, respectively. Upon nonselective ß-blocker initiation, HVPG decreased more strongly in carvedilol users (median relative decrease, -20% [interquartile range: -29% to -10%] vs -11% [-22% to -5%] for propranolol; P = .027), who also achieved chronic HVPG response more often (53.3% vs 28.6%; P = .034). Cumulative incidences for rebleeding (Gray test, P = .027) and liver-related death (P = .036) were significantly lower in patients taking carvedilol compared with propranolol. Notably, ascites development/worsening also was observed less commonly in carvedilol patients (P = .012). Meanwhile, acute kidney injury rates did not differ between the 2 groups (P = .255). Stratifying patients by HVPG response status yielded similar results. The prognostic value of carvedilol intake was confirmed in competing risk regression models. CONCLUSIONS: Carvedilol induces more marked reductions in HVPG than propranolol in secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding, and thus is associated with lower rates of rebleeding, liver-related death, and further nonbleeding decompensation.

Clinical algorithms for the prevention of variceal bleeding and rebleeding in patients with liver cirrhosis.

Portal hypertension (PH), a common complication of liver cirrhosis, results in development of esophageal varices. When esophageal varices rupture, they cause significant upper gastrointestinal bleeding with mortality rates up to 20% despite state-of-the-art treatment. Thus, prophylactic measures are of utmost importance to improve outcomes of patients with PH. Several high-quality studies have demonstrated that non-selective beta blockers (NSBBs) or endoscopic band ligation (EBL) are effective for primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding. In secondary prophylaxis, a combination of NSBB + EBL should be routinely used. Once esophageal varices develop and variceal bleeding occurs, standardized treatment algorithms should be followed to minimize bleeding-associated mortality. Special attention should be paid to avoidance of overtransfusion, early initiation of vasoconstrictive therapy, prophylactic antibiotics and early endoscopic therapy. Pre-emptive transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt should be used in all Child C10-C13 patients experiencing variceal bleeding, and potentially in Child B patients with active bleeding at endoscopy. The use of carvedilol, safety of NSBBs in advanced cirrhosis (i.e. with refractory ascites) and assessment of hepatic venous pressure gradient response to NSBB is discussed. In the present review, we give an overview on the rationale behind the latest guidelines and summarize key papers that have led to significant advances in the field.

Perceptions on the management of varices and on the use of albumin in patients with cirrhosis among GI specialists in Austria.

BACKGROUND: Portal hypertension (PH) causes severe complications in patients with liver cirrhosis, such as variceal bleeding and ascites; however, data on the knowledge and perceptions on guideline recommendations for the management of varices and the use of albumin is scarce. METHODS: We designed two structured surveys on (i) the management of varices and (ii) the use of albumin for Austrian physicians of specialized Gastro-Intestinal (GI) centers. The interviewed physicians were confronted spontaneously and provided ad hoc responses to the questionnaire. RESULTS: In total, 158 surveys were completed. Interestingly, many specialists (30%) would recommend a follow-up gastroscopy after 1 year in patients with compensated cirrhosis without varices (i.e., overtreatment). For small varices, 81.5% would use non-selective beta blockers (NSBB) for primary prophylaxis (PP). For PP in patients with large varices, endoscopic band ligation (EBL) plus NSBB was preferred by 51.4% (i.e., overtreatment). Knowledge on the indication criteria for early TIPS (transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt) was reported by 54.3%, but only 20% could report these criteria correctly. The majority (87.1%) correctly indicated a preference to use NSBB and EBL for secondary prophylaxis (SP). The majority of participating gastroenterologists reported no restrictions on the use of albumin (89.8%) in their hospitals. Of the interviewed specialists, 63.6% would use albumin in patients with SBP; however, only 11.4% would use the doses recommended by guidelines. The majority of specialists indicated using albumin at the recommended doses for hepatorenal syndrome (HRS-AKI, 86.4%) and for large volume paracentesis (LVP, 73.3%). The individual responses regarding albumin use for infections/sepsis, hyponatremia, renal impairment, and encephalopathy were heterogeneous. CONCLUSION: The reported management of PH and varices is mostly adherent to guidelines, but endoscopic surveillance in patients without varices is too intense and EBL is overused in the setting of PP. Knowledge on the correct use of early TIPS must be improved among Austrian specialists. Albumin use is widely unrestricted in Austria; however, albumin is often underdosed in established indications.

Severe Acquired Hypokalemic Paralysis in a Bodybuilder After Self-Medication With Triamterene/Hydrochlorothiazide.

BACKGROUND: Severe hypokalemia with severe neurological impairment and electrocardiogram (ECG) abnormalities due to the misuse of triamterene/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in a bodybuilder has not yet been reported. CASE REPORT: A 22-year-old bodybuilder developed acute generalized muscle cramps, sensory disturbance of the distal lower and upper limbs, quadriparesis, and urinary retention. These abnormalities were attributed to severe hypokalemia of 1.8 mmol/L (normal range 3.4-4.5 mmol/L) due to misuse of triamterene/HCTZ together with fluid restriction. He was cardiologically asymptomatic, but ECG revealed a corrected QT (QTc) interval of 625 ms. On intravenous application of fluids along with intravenous and oral substitution of potassium, his condition rapidly improved, such that the sensory disturbances, quadriparesis, and bladder dysfunction completely resolved within 2 days after admission. CONCLUSIONS: Self-medication with diuretics along with fluid restriction may result in severe hypokalemia, paralysis, and ECG abnormalities. Those responsible for the management of bodybuilding studios and competitions must be aware of the potential severe health threats caused by self-medication with diuretics and anabolic steroids. Although triamterene is potassium-sparing, it may enhance the potassium-lowering effect of HCTZ.

Hepatic Steatosis in Lean Patients: Risk Factors and Impact on Mortality.

BACKGROUND: The prognostic impact of liver steatosis in obese patients is well established. Limited data on the risk factors for and impact of hepatic steatosis in lean patients are available. AIMS: Assess risk factors for liver steatosis in lean patients and investigate its impact on survival. METHODS: Patients without viral hepatitis and with a BMI ≤ 25 kg/m2 undergoing liver stiffness measurement (LSM) and controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) by transient elastography were retrospectively identified. Clinical characteristics and laboratory test results were obtained at the time of LSM/CAP measurement. National death registry data were obtained in order to assess survival. RESULTS: Among n = 218 lean patients, n = 97 (34.5%) showed significant liver steatosis (CAP ≥ 268 dB/m), while n = 184 (65.5%) had no or just mild steatosis (CAP < 268 dB/m). Patients with steatosis had higher GGT (238.0(± 450.3) vs. 112.1(± 180.0) IU/mL; p = 0.013), AST (63(± 67.4) vs. 38.5(± 32.9) IU/mL; p = 0.001), ALT (59.1(± 58.8) vs. 44.3(± 52.7) IU/mL; p = 0.048) and triglyceride levels (120.1(± 80.3) vs. 96.1(± 58.2) mg/dL; p = 0.014), and showed a trend toward more severe fibrosis (LSM 15.6(± 19.5) vs. 12.0(± 15.7) kPa; p = 0.115). In multivariate binary logistic regression analysis, only serum uric acid levels were independently associated with liver steatosis (odds ratio 1.43 per unit mg/dL; 95% CI 1.001-2.054; p = 0.049). During a mean follow-up of 38.9(± 10.6) months, n = 14 patients (5.0%) died. In the absence of advanced fibrosis, survival after 1 year was similar in patients without (98.7%) and with (98.6%) significant steatosis. Patients with advanced fibrosis had worse 1-year survival without concomitant significant steatosis (84.8%) than patients with steatosis (95.8%; log-rank p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: High serum uric acid levels increase the risk of liver steatosis in lean patients. Liver fibrosis but not hepatic steatosis is a risk factor for impaired survival in lean patients.

Outcomes after placement of a SX-ELLA oesophageal stent for refractory variceal bleeding-A national multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines favour the use of bleeding stents over balloon tamponade (BT) for refractory variceal bleeding (VB) from oesophageal varices. However, data on the efficacy and safety of self-expandable metal SX-ELLA Danis stents (SEMS) are limited. METHODS: Cirrhotic patients receiving SEMS for VB at four tertiary care centres were included in this retrospective multicentre study. Rates of failure-to-control bleeding (within 5 days) and bleeding-related mortality (6 weeks) were assessed. RESULTS: SEMS controlled VB in 79.4% (27/34) of patients. In the rest of patients, other rescue treatments including endoscopic band ligation (EBL, n = 3), SEMS renewed (n = 2) or Linton (n = 2) were applied; however, VB was only controlled in one patient. Early rebleeding within six weeks occurred in 17.6% (6/34) patients. Median SEMS dwell time was three (IQR:6) days. Overall n = 13/34 (38.2%) patients died with SEMS in situ. After SEMS removal, rebleeding and bleeding-related death occurred in n = 7 (35%) and n = 5 (14.7%) patients respectively. Only 32.4% (10/34) patients did not experience any rebleeding within six weeks after SEMS removal. Bleeding-related mortality was 47.1% (n = 16/34) and the median survival after SEMS placement was 2.1 months. Notably, no patient received an early transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS). The most common adverse events were stent dislocations (n = 13; 38.2%), while ulcers/necrosis of the oesophageal mucosa was seen in only four (11.8%) patients. CONCLUSION: SEMS controlled refractory VB in most patients. However, bleeding-related mortality remained high. While SEMS dislocations were frequent, ulcers/necrosis of the oesophagus was rare. Further studies should investigate whether the wider use of early TIPS reduces bleeding-related mortality after SEMS placement.

Small Esophageal Varices in Patients with Cirrhosis-Should We Treat Them?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The natural history and classification systems of small varices (≤ 5 mm in diameter) in cirrhotic patients with portal hypertension are summarized. Studies that assessed the course of and therapeutic intervention for small varices are discussed. RECENT FINDINGS: Current non-invasive methods show suboptimal sensitivity to detect small varices in patients with cirrhosis. Next to etiological therapy, hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG)-guided non-selective betablocker or carvedilol treatment has shown to impact on natural history of small varices. SUMMARY: The main therapeutic focus in cirrhotic patients with small varices is the cure of the underlying etiology. The optimal management of small varices should include measurement of HVPG. A pharmacological decrease in HVPG by non-selective betablocker therapy of ≥ 10% reduces the risk of progression to large varices, first variceal bleeding, and hepatic decompensation. If HVPG is not available, we would recommend carvedilol 12.5 mg q.d. for treatment of small varices in compensated patients without severe ascites. Only if small esophageal varices (EV) are not treated or in hemodynamic non-responders, follow-up endoscopies should be performed in 1-2 years of intervals considering the activity of liver disease or if hepatic decompensation occurs.

Non-selective beta-blocker treatment does not impact on kidney function in cirrhotic patients with varices.

GOALS AND BACKGROUND: Non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) are used for bleeding prophylaxis in cirrhotic patients with gastroesophageal varices (GEVs). Recent data suggested that NSBB treatment might increase the risk of renal dysfunction in patients with refractory ascites due to an impaired response to acute haemodynamic stress. STUDY: Retrospective longitudinal assessment of kidney function in a cohort of cirrhotic patients with GEVs with vs. without NSBB therapy. Serum creatinine (SCre), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI), new onset of large volume ascites and TIPS-/transplant-free survival were compared. RESULTS: Among 176 patients, 93 patients received NSBBs, while 83 did not. Most patients were male (77.8%), had alcoholic aetiology (52.3%) and compensated cirrhosis (51.1% Child-A, MELD: 12.1 ± 3.8). Over a 3-year follow-up, renal function was comparable between patients with and without NSBB treatment. Incidence of AKI was similar in NSBB vs. no-NSBB patients (p = .323). Even in potential risk groups (ascites, MAP <90 mmHg, baseline creatinine > ULN, hyponatraemia, MELD score ≥15 points, Child-Pugh B/C), there was no difference in SCre or eGFR with vs. without NSBBs (p = n.s. at 74/78 and 76/78 of analysed time points). However, multivariate analysis revealed that the presence of ascites (HR: 3.901, 95%CI: 1.352-11.251; p = .012) and pre-existing renal impairment (HR: 4.315, 95%CI: 1.054-17.672; p = .042) were independent risk factors for AKI. Importantly, NSBB use (HR: 0.319, 95%CI: 0.120-0.848; p = .022) was independently associated with improved TIPS-/transplant-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: In our cohort of unselected, mostly compensated cirrhotic patients with GEVs, NSBB treatment was neither associated with worsening of kidney function nor with increased incidence of AKI. On the contrary, NSBB treatment improved TIPS-/transplant-free survival.

Proton pump inhibitor intake neither predisposes to spontaneous bacterial peritonitis or other infections nor increases mortality in patients with cirrhosis and ascites.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The aim of this study was to assess the impact of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) intake on the development of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) or other infections, as well as on mortality, in a thoroughly documented cohort of patients with cirrhosis and ascites. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of follow-up data from 607 consecutive patients with cirrhosis undergoing their first paracentesis at a tertiary center. A binary logistic regression model investigating the association between PPI intake and SBP at the first paracentesis was calculated. Competing risk analyses and Cox models were used to investigate the effect of PPIs on the cumulative incidence of SBP or other infections and transplant-free survival, respectively. Adjustments were made for age, hepatocellular carcinoma, history of variceal bleeding, varices and model of end-stage liver disease score. RESULTS: Eighty-six percent of patients were receiving PPIs. After adjusting for potential confounding factors, PPI intake was neither associated with increased SBP prevalence at the first paracentesis (odds ratio (OR):1.11,95% confidence interval (95%CI):0.6-2.06; P = 0.731) nor cumulative incidence of SBP (subdistribution hazard ratio (SHR): 1.38; 95%CI:0.63-3.01; P = 0.42) and SBP or other infections (SHR:1.71; 95%CI:0.85-3.44; P = 0.13) during follow-up. Moreover, PPI intake had no impact on transplant-free survival in both the overall cohort (hazard ratio (HR):0.973,95%CI:0.719-1.317; P = 0.859) as well as in the subgroups of patients without SBP (HR:1.01,95%CI:0.72-1.42; P = 0.971) and without SBP or other infections at the first paracentesis (HR:0.944,95%CI:0.668-1.334; P = 0.742). CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of cirrhotic patients with PPI intake was higher than in previous reports, suggesting that PPI indications were interpreted liberally. In our cohort with a particularly high prevalence of PPI intake, we observed no association between PPIs and SBP or other infections, as well as mortality. Thus, the severity of liver disease and other factors, rather than PPI treatment per se may predispose for infectious complications.

Nonselective ß blockers increase risk for hepatorenal syndrome and death in patients with cirrhosis and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Nonselective ß blockers (NSBBs) reduce portal pressure and the risk for variceal hemorrhage in patients with cirrhosis. However, development of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) in these patients could preclude treatment with NSBBs because of their effects on the circulatory reserve. We investigated the effects of NSBBs in patients with cirrhosis and ascites with and without SBP. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of data from 607 consecutive patients with cirrhosis who had their first paracentesis at the Medical University of Vienna from 2006 through 2011. Cox models were calculated to investigate the effect of NSBBs on transplant-free survival time and adjusted for Child-Pugh stage and presence of varices. RESULTS: NSBBs increased transplant-free survival in patients without SBP (hazard ratio = 0.75; 95% confidence interval: 0.581-0.968; P = .027) and reduced days of nonelective hospitalization (19.4 days/year for patients on NSBBs vs 23.9 days/year for patients not taking NSBBs). NSBBs had only moderate effects on systemic hemodynamics at patients' first paracentesis. However, at the first diagnosis of SBP, the proportion of hemodynamically compromised patients with systolic arterial pressure <100 mm Hg was higher among those who received NSBBs (38% vs 18% of those not taking NSBBs; P = .002), as was the proportion of patients with arterial pressure <82 mm Hg (64% of those taking NSBBs vs 44% of those not taking NSBBs; P = .006). Among patients with SBP, NSBBs reduced transplant-free survival (hazard ratio = 1.58; 95% confidence interval: 1.098-2.274; P = .014) and increased days of nonelective hospitalization (29.6 days/person-year in patients on NSBBs vs 23.7 days/person-year in those not taking NSBBs). A higher proportion of patients on NSBBs had hepatorenal syndrome (24% vs 11% in those not taking NSBBs; P = .027) and grade C acute kidney injury (20% vs 8% for those not taking NSBBs; P = .021). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with cirrhosis and SBP, NSBBs increase the proportion who are hemodynamically compromised, time of hospitalization, and risks for hepatorenal syndrome and acute kidney injury. They also reduce transplant-free survival. Patients with cirrhosis and SBP should not receive NSBBs.