Point-of-Care Echocardiography Unveils Misclassification of Acute Kidney Injury as Hepatorenal Syndrome.

INTRODUCTION: Fulfillment of the diagnostic criteria for -hepatorenal syndrome type 1 (HRS-1) requires prior failure of 2 days of intravenous volume expansion and/or diuretic withdrawal. However, no parameter of volume status is used to guide the need for volume expansion in patients with suspected HRS-1. We hypothesized that point-of-care echocardiography (POCE) may better characterize the volume status in patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) and cirrhosis to ascertain or disprove the diagnosis of HRS-1. METHODS: A pilot observational study was conducted to determine the clinical utility of POCE-based examination of inferior vena cava diameter (IVCD) and collapsibility index (IVCCI) to assess intravascular volume status in patients with cirrhosis and AKI who had been deemed adequately volume-repleted and thereby assigned a clinical diagnosis of HRS-1. Early improvement in kidney function was defined as ≥20% decrease in serum creatinine (sCr) at 48-72 h. RESULTS: A total of 53 patients were included. The mean sCr at the time of volume assessment was 3.2 ± 1.5 mg/dL, and the mean Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score was 29 ± 8. Fifteen (23%) patients had an IVCD <1.3 cm and IVCCI >40% and were reclassified as fluid-depleted, 11 (21%) had an IVCD >2 cm and IVCCI <40% and were reclassified as fluid-expanded, and 8 (15%) had and IVCD <1.3 cm and IVCCI <40% and were reclassified as having intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH). Twelve (23%) patients exhibited early improvement in kidney function following a POCE-guided therapeutic maneuver, that is, volume expansion, diuresis, or paracentesis for those deemed fluid-depleted, fluid-expanded or having IAH, respectively. CONCLUSION: POCE-based assessment of volume status in cirrhotic individuals with AKI reveals marked heterogeneity. Unguided volume expansion in these patients may lead to premature or delayed diagnosis of HRS-1.

News in pathophysiology, definition and classification of hepatorenal syndrome: A step beyond the International Club of Ascites (ICA) consensus document.

Renal dysfunction is a common, life-threatening complication occurring in patients with liver disease. Hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) has been defined as a purely "functional" type of renal failure that often occurs in patients with cirrhosis in the setting of marked abnormalities in arterial circulation, as well as overactivity of the endogenous vasoactive systems.4,5 In 2007, the International Club of Ascites (ICA) classified HRS into types 1 and 2 (HRS-1 and HRS-2).5 HRS-1 is characterised by a rapid deterioration of renal function that often occurs because of a precipitating event, while HRS-2 is a moderate and stable or slowly progressive renal dysfunction that often occurs without an obvious precipitant. Clinically, HRS-1 is characterised by acute renal failure while HRS-2 is mainly characterised by refractory ascites. Nevertheless, after these two entities were first described, new concepts, definitions, and diagnostic criteria have been developed by nephrologists for renal dysfunction in the general population and hospitalised patients. In particular, the definitions and characterisation of acute kidney injury (AKI), acute kidney disease and chronic kidney disease have been introduced/refined.6 Accordingly, a debate among hepatologists of the ICA led to a complete revision of the nomenclature and diagnosistic criteria for HRS-1, which was renamed HRS-AKI.7 Additionally, over recent years, greater granularity has been gained regarding the pathogenesis of HRS; it is now increasingly recognised that it is not a purely "functional" entity with haemodynamic derangements, but that systemic inflammation, oxidative stress and bile salt-related tubular damage may contribute significantly to its development. That is, HRS has an additional structural component that would not only make traditional diagnostic criteria less reliable, but would explain the lack of response to pharmacological treatment with vasoconstrictors plus albumin that correlates with a progressive increase in inflammation. Because classification, nomenclature, diagnostic criteria and pathogenic theories have evolved over the years since the traditional classification of HRS-1 and HRS-2 was first described, it was considered that all these novel aspects be reviewed and summarised in a position paper. The aim of this position paper authored by two hepatologists (members of ICA) and two nephrologists involved in the study of renal dysfunction in cirrhosis, is to complete the re-classification of HRS initiated by the ICA in 2012 and to provide an update on the definition, classification, diagnosis, pathophysiology and treatment of HRS.

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for hepatorenal syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hepatorenal syndrome is a severe complication of advanced liver diseases with a dismal prognosis. AIMS: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to explore the efficacy and safety of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for the treatment of hepatorenal syndrome. METHOD: Publications were searched via PubMed and EMBASE databases. The pooled proportion and mean difference were calculated by using a random-effect model. RESULTS: Nine publications were included, in which 128 patients with hepatorenal syndrome were treated with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt. The pooled short-term and 1-year survival rates were 72% and 47% in type 1 hepatorenal syndrome and 86% and 64% in type 2 hepatorenal syndrome. No lethal procedure-related complications were observed. The pooled rate of hepatic encephalopathy after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt was 49%. The pooled rate of renal function improvement after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt was 93% in type 1 hepatorenal syndrome and 83% in any type of hepatorenal syndrome. After transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt, serum creatinine, blood urea nitrogen, serum sodium, sodium excretion, and urine volume were significantly improved; by comparison, serum bilirubin slightly increased, but the difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Limited evidence suggested a potential survival benefit of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in patients with hepatorenal syndrome but with a high incidence of hepatic encephalopathy.

Comparative efficacy of vasoconstrictor therapies for type 1 hepatorenal syndrome: a network meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The outcome of a comparative efficacy and safety of vasoconstrictor therapies for treatment of patients with type 1 hepatorenal syndrome (HRS-1) remain inconclusive. Areas covered: We searched literature databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) until 31 January 2016, and included ten eligible RCTs. In conclusion, terlipressin was the most efficacious vasoconstrictor drug for HRS-1, but had a higher probability of causing AEs. Norepinephrine was an attractive alternative to terlipressin and associated with less AEs. Expert commentary: To date, most previous traditional meta-analyses included trials with a limited population and compared terlipressin alone or with albumin against no intervention or albumin. Since different HRS types have different diagnoses and show different responses to vasoconstrictors, it may be questionable to combine data from patients with type 1 and type 2 HRS, which has been reported for most previous meta-analyses. Thus, performing a high-quality network meta-analysis of the existing literature is a valuable way to interrogate published data and to draw conclusions which may inform on the best interventional strategy.

Terlipressin versus placebo or no intervention for people with cirrhosis and hepatorenal syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Hepatorenal syndrome is a potentially reversible renal failure associated with severe liver disease. The disease is relatively common among people with decompensated cirrhosis. Terlipressin is a drug that increases the blood flow to the kidneys by constricting blood vessels. The previous version of this systematic review found a potential beneficial effect of terlipressin on mortality and renal function in people with cirrhosis and hepatorenal syndrome. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of terlipressin versus placebo/no intervention for people with cirrhosis and hepatorenal syndrome. SEARCH METHODS: We identified eligible trials through searches of the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index Expanded, and manual searches until 21 November 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) involving participants with cirrhosis and type 1 or type 2 hepatorenal syndrome allocated to terlipressin versus placebo or no intervention. We allowed co-administration with albumin administered to both comparison groups. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data from trial reports and undertook correspondence with the authors. Primary outcomes were mortality, hepatorenal syndrome, and serious adverse events. We conducted sensitivity analyses of RCTs in which participants received albumin, subgroup analyses of participants with type 1 or type 2 hepatorenal syndrome, and Trial Sequential Analyses to control random errors. We reported random-effects meta-analyses with risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the risk of bias based on the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group domains. We graded the quality of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine RCTs with a total of 534 participants with cirrhosis and ascites. One RCT had a low risk of bias for mortality and a high risk of bias for the remaining outcomes. All included trials had a high risk of bias for non-mortality outcomes. In total, 473 participants had type 1 hepatorenal syndrome. Seven RCTs specifically evaluated terlipressin and albumin. Terlipressin was associated with a beneficial effect on mortality when including all RCTs (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.98; 534 participants; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 10.3 people; low-quality evidence). Trial Sequential Analysis including all RCTs also found a beneficial effect of terlipressin. Additional analyses showed a beneficial effect of terlipressin and albumin on reversal of hepatorenal syndrome (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.82; 510 participants; 8 RCTs; NNTB 4 people; low-quality evidence). Terlipressin increased the risk of serious cardiovascular adverse events (RR 7.26, 95% CI 1.70 to 31.05; 234 participants; 4 RCTs), but it had no effect on the risk of serious adverse events when analysed as a composite outcome (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.21; 534 participants; 9 RCTs; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome 24.5 people; low-quality evidence). Non-serious adverse events were mainly gastrointestinal, including diarrhoea (RR 5.76, 95% CI 2.19 to 15.15; 240 participants; low-quality evidence) and abdominal pain (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.43; 294 participants; low-quality evidence).We identified one ongoing trial on terlipressin versus placebo in participants with cirrhosis, ascites, and hepatorenal syndrome type 1.Three RCTs reported funding from a pharmaceutical company. The remaining trials did not report funding or did not receive funding from pharmaceutical companies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests that terlipressin may be associated with beneficial effects on mortality and renal function in people with cirrhosis and type 1 hepatorenal syndrome, but it is also associated with serious adverse effects. We downgraded the strength of the evidence due to methodological issues including bias control, clinical heterogeneity, and imprecision. Consequently, additional evidence is needed.

Acute kidney injury and hepatorenal syndrome in cirrhosis.

Cirrhosis is the eighth leading cause of "years of lost life" in the United States and accounts for approximately 1% to 2% of all deaths in Europe. Patients with cirrhosis have a high risk of developing acute kidney injury. The clinical characteristics of hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) are similar to prerenal uremia, but the condition does not respond to volume expansion. HRS type 1 is rapidly progressive whereas HRS type 2 has a slower course often associated with refractory ascites. A number of factors can precipitate HRS such as infections, alcoholic hepatitis, and bleeding. The monitoring, prevention, early detection, and treatment of HRS are essential. This paper reviews the value of early evaluation of renal function based on two new sets of diagnostic criteria. Interventions for HRS type 1 include terlipressin combined with albumin. In HRS type 2, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) should be considered. For both types of HRS patients should be evaluated for liver transplantation.

Hepatorenal syndrome: a decade later.

Hepatorenal syndrome is a unique form of acute kidney injury seen in patients with acute liver failure or chronic liver disease in absence of any other identifiable cause of renal failure. It is primarily a diagnosis of exclusion. Despite of good pathophysiological understanding and better available therapeutic options for management of hepatorenal syndrome, it is still associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Liver transplantation forms the cornerstone for its management. In this review article, we have attempted to assimilate and summarise the advances made in the previous decade with regards to pathophysiology, classification and management of this entity.

Impact of molecular adsorbent recirculating system on renal recovery in type-1 hepatorenal syndrome patients with chronic liver failure.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Liver transplantation remains the best option for treating type-1 hepatorenal syndrome (HRS1). The aim of this retrospective study was to determine whether the molecular adsorbent recirculation system (MARS) can improve renal function in HRS1 patients. METHODS: Thirty-two patients with chronic liver disease and HRS1 were treated by MARS sessions which were performed every other day. The endpoint was renal function improvement by 28 days after diagnosis of HRS1 that was defined as a serum-creatinine level of < 133 µmol/L. Partial renal recovery was defined as a 10% decrease in baseline serum-creatinine level. RESULTS: The mean number of MARS sessions required by each patient was 3.5 ± 1.5. The median time between admission and the start of MARS therapy was 3 (0-15) days. Of the total patients, 13 (40%) had improved renal function. Among these, nine (28%) had complete renal recovery. Among the patients that survived, only 40% (6/15) had improved renal function, and among the patients that died within the first month after the initiation of MARS, seven patients had a renal response. The 28-day survival rate was 47%. Seven patients received a liver transplant after diagnosis of HRS. Of these, four had complete or partial recovery after transplantation (57%) versus 9 of the 25 patients who did not undergo liver transplantation (36%), P = not significant. CONCLUSION: MARS therapy improved renal function in only very few patients with HRS1. Further controlled studies including large number of patients are required.

Terlipressin for hepatorenal syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials suggest that terlipressin improves renal function in hepatorenal syndrome, but the evidence concerning mortality is equivocal. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of terlipressin alone or with albumin versus placebo, no intervention or albumin for hepatorenal syndrome. SEARCH METHODS: Eligible trials were identified through electronic (The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Science Citation Index databases) and manual searches until January 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials involving patients with type 1 or type 2 hepatorenal syndrome were included irrespective of publication status or language. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The review authors independently extracted data from trial reports and undertook correspondence with the authors. Primary outcome measures included mortality, reversal of hepatorenal syndrome and adverse events. Intention-to-treat, random-effects model meta-analyses were performed and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and the I(2) statistic provided a measure of intertrial heterogeneity. Subgroup, sensitivity, regression and sequential analyses were performed. MAIN RESULTS: We identified six randomised clinical trials. All had high risk of bias. Five trials assessed terlipressin (with albumin in three trials) versus no intervention (with albumin in three trials) and one trial assessed terlipressin versus albumin. Data from five randomised trials on terlipressin alone (one trial) or terlipressin and albumin (four trials) were included in the review. In total, 74 of 155 (47.7%) patients randomised to terlipressin alone or terlipressin with albumin versus 98 of 154 (63.6%) patients randomised to no intervention, placebo or albumin died. Random-effects model meta-analysis found that terlipressin reduced mortality (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.95). The results were stable when repeated with trials on terlipressin plus albumin, trials on patients with type 2 hepatorenal syndrome, and trials with a low risk of selection bias. No evidence of bias or small study effects were identified in regression analyses. In a trial sequential analysis on mortality, the cumulative Z curve approached but did not cross the monitoring boundary suggesting that the results were not stable to adjustment for sparse data and multiple comparisons. Analyses of the remaining outcome measures found that terlipressin and albumin increased the number of patients with reversal of hepatorenal syndrome as well as adverse events, including cardiovascular and gastrointestinal symptoms. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Terlipressin may reduce mortality and improve renal function in patients with type 1 hepatorenal syndrome. Whether the evidence is strong enough to support the intervention for clinical practice could be debated due to the results of the trial sequential analyses. However, the outcome measures assessed are objective, which reduces the risk of bias.

Diagnosis, treatment and survival of patients with hepatorenal syndrome: a survey on daily medical practice.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) is a severe complication of cirrhosis with ascites. The International Ascites Club recommended strict diagnostic criteria and treatment with vasoconstrictors and albumin. Aim of this prospective cohort study was to investigate the prevalence of HRS, diagnostic criteria, treatment and 3-month outcome in the daily-clinical-practice. METHODS: Two-hundred-fifty-three patients with cirrhosis and renal failure consecutively admitted to 21 Italian hospitals were recruited. RESULTS: The prevalence of HRS was 45.8% (30% type-1 and 15.8% type-2). In 36% of cases HRS was presumed because not all diagnostic criteria could be fulfilled. In 8% of cases HRS was superimposed on an organic nephropathy. Patients with HRS type-1 were younger and showed higher leukocyte count, higher respiratory rates, and worse liver function scores. Sixty-four patients with HRS type-1 received vasoconstrictors (40 terlipressin and 24 midodrine/octreotide). A complete response was obtained in 19 cases (30%) and a partial response in 13 (20%). Age was the only independent predictor of response (p=0.033). Three-month survival of patients with HRS type-1 was 19.7%. Survival was better in patients who responded to therapy. Age (p=0.017), bilirubin (p=0.012), and creatinine increase after diagnostic volume expansion (p=0.02) independently predicted death. The mortality rate was 97% among patients with at least two negative predictors. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic criteria of HRS in our daily-clinical-practice could not be completely fulfilled in one third of cases. The treatment with vasoconstrictors and albumin was widely implemented. Mortality was strongly predicted by simple baseline variables.

Predictors of response to terlipressin plus albumin in hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) type 1: relationship of serum creatinine to hemodynamics.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Administration of terlipressin plus albumin is effective in reversing type 1 HRS as compared to albumin alone. However, only about 1/3 of patients respond to treatment, therefore, predictors of response and survival would help identify the patients most likely to benefit from treatment. METHODS: We analyzed our controlled trial of terlipressin vs. placebo (Gastroenterology 2008;134:1360) to define factors predictive of a response and to correlate hemodynamic changes to changes in renal function. RESULTS: Single variant analysis showed treatment with terlipressin, MELD score, and baseline serum creatinine to be predictive of HRS reversal. Alcoholic hepatitis, baseline serum creatinine, and MELD score were predictive of survival. When treatment was not considered as a variable, only baseline serum creatinine predicted HRS reversal. Baseline serum creatinine, presence of alcoholic hepatitis, and Child-Pugh score were also predictive of survival on multivariate analysis. The rise in mean arterial pressure (MAP) following terlipressin administration was not predictive of HRS reversal. However, in those who achieved HRS reversal from terlipressin, there was a significant rise in MAP from beginning to end of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The most consistent predictor of response to terlipressin and of survival is the baseline serum creatinine. Patients most likely to benefit from terlipressin have earlier onset renal failure (i.e. serum creatinine <5.0mg/dl). A sustained rise in MAP is required for HRS reversal. As MAP is a surrogate marker for the hyperdynamic circulation, it is only with improvement in the hyperdynamic circulation that HRS reversal is observed.

Renal failure in patients with cirrhosis: hepatorenal syndrome and renal support strategies.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The development of hepatorenal syndrome in liver cirrhosis leads to an increased morbidity and mortality in patients with cirrhosis. Currently, there are no proven methods for the treatment or prevention of hepatorenal syndrome except to maintain adequate hemodynamics and intravascular volume in this patient population. These patients will frequently require renal replacement therapy when presenting for hepatic transplantation. RECENT FINDINGS: New consensus definitions have been published in order to create uniform standards for classifying and diagnosing acute kidney injury. Two such groups are the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative (ADQI) and the Acute Kidney Injury Network (AKIN), which have proposed approaches to defining criteria for acute kidney injury. Recent literature supports not only the role of splanchnic vasodilation and systemic vasoconstriction but also heart failure in the pathogenesis of hepatorenal syndrome. The practice of using vasoconstrictor and intravenous albumin therapy for the treatment of hepatorenal syndrome is ongoing with a growing body of recent data supporting the use of vasopressin analogs as the first-line therapy in the ICU setting with knowledge of the possible cardiovascular side-effects. SUMMARY: Hepatorenal syndrome, HRS, is a diagnosis of exclusion. There are two forms of hepatorenal syndrome: type 1 hepatorenal syndrome and type 2 hepatorenal syndrome. Type 1 HRS is rapidly progressive and portends a very poor prognosis and has a high mortality rate. Type 2 is more indolent while still associated with an overall poor prognosis. Treatment of HRS is largely still supportive. It is imperative to maintain euvolemia and hemodynamics in this patient population to optimize renal perfusion and preserve renal function. Renal replacement therapy may be necessary in this chronically ill patient population, if renal function deteriorates such that the kidneys cannot maintain metabolic and volume homeostasis. Further research is still necessary as to the prevention and effective treatment for hepatorenal syndrome.

[Acute renal failure in patients with liver cirrhosis--what to do? An update]. / Akutes Nierenversagen bei Patienten mit Leberzirrhose--was tun? Ubersicht.

A lot of patients suffering from liver cirrhosis show a decreased renal perfusion and glomerular filtration rate. An impaired renal function is the result of complex e.g. hemodynamic disturbances, resulting of the chronic liver disease. This explains its disposition to renal dysfunction and the higher incidence of acute renal failure in liver cirrhosis. In the case of renal failure hepatorenal syndrome, apart from prerenal, renal and postrenal causes, should be included in the differential diagnosis especially when signs of portal hypertension are apparent regarding its high mortalityand fatal prognosis requiring an immediate therapeutically approach. Special attention must be due to preventive strategies to avoid renal deterioration. This includes simple steps e.g. a careful election of medication but also an adequate therapy of infection-associated complications in patients with liver cirrhosis.

Recent advances in the management of hepato-renal syndrome (HRS).

Hepato-renal syndrome (HRS) is a functional renal failure complicating end-stage liver disease. HRS is characterized by marked arterial vasodilation (mainly of the splanchnic bed) and severe renal vasoconstriction. HRS is classified into 2 types: type I HRS shows a rapid and progressive decline in renal function with a very poor prognosis (median survival of about 2 weeks); HRS type 2 has a more stable renal failure, with a median survival of about 6 months. The management of HRS is still a big challenge. The definitive therapy for HRS is liver transplantation (LT); however, the survival rate of HRS patients is poor, and important organ shortage exists. Various approaches have been used for HRS treatment including vasoconstrictor therapy. Recent evidence has shown that vasoconstrictor agents are effective and serve as a bridge to LT; the rationale for vasoconstrictors is to counteract the splanchnic arterial vasodilation and increase the effective arterial blood volume. Thus, renal perfusion and glomerular filtration rates improve. Terlipressin, a V1 vasopressin agonist, has been used frequently. A recent meta-analysis of clinical trials showed that the pooled rate of patients who reversed HRS after terlipressin therapy was 0.52 (95% CI, 0.42; 0.61; P = 0.0001, /2 = 24.6%). The pooled Odds Ratio (OR) for mortality rate in HRS patients who were not responders to terlipressin versus responders was 5.746 (95% CI, 1.5; 21.9; P = 0.0005). Prospective, controlled clinical trials are in progress to address the impact of vasoconstrictor use on survival in HRS patients. Alternative therapies such as transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPS) and extracorporeal albumin dialysis (ECAD) have given encouraging results but experience is extremely limited.

MELD score and clinical type predict prognosis in hepatorenal syndrome: relevance to liver transplantation.

Important progress has been made recently regarding the pathogenesis and treatment of hepatorenal syndrome (HRS). However, scant information exists about factors predicting outcome in patients with cirrhosis and HRS. Moreover, the prognostic value of the model of end-stage liver disease (MELD) score has not been validated in the setting of HRS. The current study was designed to assess the prognostic factors and outcome of patients with cirrhosis and HRS. The study included 105 consecutive patients with HRS. Forty-one patients had type 1 HRS, while 64 patients had type 2 HRS. Patients with type 1 HRS not only had more severe liver and renal failure than type 2 patients, they also had greater impairment of circulatory function, as indicated by lower arterial pressure and higher activation of vasoconstrictor factors. In the whole series, the median survival was 3.3 months. In a multivariate analysis of survival, only HRS type and MELD score were associated with an independent prognostic value. All patients with type 1 HRS had a high MELD score (> or =20) and showed an extremely poor outcome (median survival: 1 mo). By contrast, the survival of patients with type 2 HRS was longer and dependent on MELD score (> or =20, median survival 3 mo; <20, median survival 11 mo; P < .002). In conclusion, the outcome of patients with cirrhosis and HRS can be estimated by using two easily available variables, HRS type and MELD score. These data can be useful in the management of patients with HRS, particularly for patients who are candidates for liver transplantation.

Fisiopatología de la ascitis refractaria y el síndrome hepatorrenal / Pathophisiology of refractary ascites and hepatorenal síndrome

No disponible

No disponible

Vasoconstrictores en el tratamiento del síndrome hepatorrenal / Vasoconstrictors in the hepatorenal syndrome treatment

No disponible

No disponible

TIPS or vasoconstrictors for the treatment of hepatorenal syndrome type 1--effect on survival?

HRS is a serious complication in patients with cirrhosis and ascites and associated with a poor prognosis unless liver transplantation can be performed. Two different types of HES are being differentiated according to the clinical presentation: while HRS type I is characterised by rapid deterioration of renal function indicated by a two-fold increase of serum creatinine to values above 2.5 mg/dl or a decrease of creatinine clearance to values below 20 ml/min, HRS type II shows moderately increased serum creatinine above 1.5 mg/dl remaining stable over a longer period. The most prominent circulatory alterations in patients with chronic liver disease comprise portal hypertension and peripheral (mainly splanchnic) arterial vasodilation. This leads to a decreased centrally effective blood volume in cirrhotic patients. As a consequence, activation of sodium- and volume-retaining neurohumoral systems such as the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and the sympathetic nervous system and a non-osmotic release of arginine-vasopressin can be observed. These neurohumoral alterations induce renal sodium and water retention which are responsible for accumulation of ascites and deterioration of renal function. Recent therapeutic strategies of the hepatorenal syndrome take into account these pathophysiologic considerations: whereas the transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt lowers portal hypertension, infusion of vasoactive drugs increases systemic vascular resistance in cirrhotic patients. Several uncontrolled trials have reported a positive effect of these strategies on renal function. The present analysis of combined data from these reports shows that this positive effect on renal function also may improve survival of patients with HRS type I.