Non-Selective Beta-Blockers and Risk of Sepsis in Patients with Cirrhosis and Ascites: Results from a Large Observational Study.

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Clinical Epidemiology Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.2147/CLEP.S400399
Morten Daniel Jensen, Hugh Watson, Hendrik Vilstrup, Peter Jepsen
{"title":"Non-Selective Beta-Blockers and Risk of Sepsis in Patients with Cirrhosis and Ascites: Results from a Large Observational Study.","authors":"Morten Daniel Jensen,&nbsp;Hugh Watson,&nbsp;Hendrik Vilstrup,&nbsp;Peter Jepsen","doi":"10.2147/CLEP.S400399","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Previous studies have not been able to determine whether non-selective beta-blockers (NSBB) reduce the risk of sepsis in cirrhosis. We aimed to examine this question with data from 1198 patients with cirrhosis and ascites included in clinical studies of satavaptan, a vasopressin receptor antagonist with no effect on infection risk.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Risk of sepsis was estimated for NSBB users vs nonusers. Patients were examined every four weeks, or in relation to hospitalization, for the one-year duration of the trials. We computed the cumulative risk of sepsis for patients who did vs did not use NSBB at baseline. We used Cox regression to compare hazard rates of sepsis between current users and nonusers, accounting for changes in NSBB use over time. We adjusted for patient sex and age, MELD-Na score, albumin, use of antibiotics, use of proton pump inhibitors, cirrhosis etiology, history of variceal bleeding or SBP, severity of ascites and HE, HCC, other cancers, and diabetes, while stratifying on geographical region.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 1198 patients, 54% used NSBB at some time. There were 56 sepsis episodes. The 1-year risk of sepsis was reduced to 5.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.8-8.6) in baseline NSBB users vs 11.6% (95% CI 7.0-15.9) in baseline nonusers. The hazard ratio of sepsis for current NSBB users vs current nonusers was reduced to 0.5 (95% CI 0.3-0.8) and after adjustment to 0.7 (95% CI 0.4-1.3).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>NSBB use may reduce the risk of sepsis in patients with cirrhosis and ascites, but the precision of the estimate was limited by the number of episodes of sepsis.</p>","PeriodicalId":10362,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Epidemiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/e5/e0/clep-15-775.PMC10290839.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S400399","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and aims: Previous studies have not been able to determine whether non-selective beta-blockers (NSBB) reduce the risk of sepsis in cirrhosis. We aimed to examine this question with data from 1198 patients with cirrhosis and ascites included in clinical studies of satavaptan, a vasopressin receptor antagonist with no effect on infection risk.

Methods: Risk of sepsis was estimated for NSBB users vs nonusers. Patients were examined every four weeks, or in relation to hospitalization, for the one-year duration of the trials. We computed the cumulative risk of sepsis for patients who did vs did not use NSBB at baseline. We used Cox regression to compare hazard rates of sepsis between current users and nonusers, accounting for changes in NSBB use over time. We adjusted for patient sex and age, MELD-Na score, albumin, use of antibiotics, use of proton pump inhibitors, cirrhosis etiology, history of variceal bleeding or SBP, severity of ascites and HE, HCC, other cancers, and diabetes, while stratifying on geographical region.

Results: Of the 1198 patients, 54% used NSBB at some time. There were 56 sepsis episodes. The 1-year risk of sepsis was reduced to 5.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.8-8.6) in baseline NSBB users vs 11.6% (95% CI 7.0-15.9) in baseline nonusers. The hazard ratio of sepsis for current NSBB users vs current nonusers was reduced to 0.5 (95% CI 0.3-0.8) and after adjustment to 0.7 (95% CI 0.4-1.3).

Conclusion: NSBB use may reduce the risk of sepsis in patients with cirrhosis and ascites, but the precision of the estimate was limited by the number of episodes of sepsis.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
非选择性β受体阻滞剂与肝硬化和腹水患者败血症风险:一项大型观察性研究的结果。
背景和目的:先前的研究未能确定非选择性β受体阻滞剂(NSBB)是否能降低肝硬化败血症的风险。我们的目的是通过1198例肝硬化和腹水患者的数据来检验这个问题,这些数据包括在沙他伐坦的临床研究中,沙他伐坦是一种抗利尿激素受体拮抗剂,对感染风险没有影响。方法:评估NSBB使用者与非使用者的败血症风险。在为期一年的试验期间,每四周对患者进行一次检查,或与住院有关。我们计算了在基线时使用NSBB和未使用NSBB的患者的败血症累积风险。我们使用Cox回归比较当前使用者和非使用者之间败血症的危险率,考虑NSBB使用随时间的变化。我们调整了患者的性别和年龄、MELD-Na评分、白蛋白、抗生素的使用、质子泵抑制剂的使用、肝硬化病因、静脉曲张出血或收缩压史、腹水和HE的严重程度、HCC、其他癌症和糖尿病,同时按地理区域分层。结果:1198例患者中,54%的患者曾使用过NSBB。56例败血症发作。基线NSBB使用者的1年脓毒症风险降至5.7%(95%可信区间[CI] 2.8-8.6),而基线非使用者的1年脓毒症风险降至11.6%(95%可信区间[CI] 7.0-15.9)。目前NSBB使用者与目前非使用者败血症的危险比降至0.5 (95% CI 0.3-0.8),调整后降至0.7 (95% CI 0.4-1.3)。结论:使用NSBB可降低肝硬化和腹水患者败血症的风险,但估计的准确性受到败血症发作次数的限制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Epidemiology
Clinical Epidemiology Medicine-Epidemiology
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
5.10%
发文量
169
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Epidemiology is an international, peer reviewed, open access journal. Clinical Epidemiology focuses on the application of epidemiological principles and questions relating to patients and clinical care in terms of prevention, diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment. Clinical Epidemiology welcomes papers covering these topics in form of original research and systematic reviews. Clinical Epidemiology has a special interest in international electronic medical patient records and other routine health care data, especially as applied to safety of medical interventions, clinical utility of diagnostic procedures, understanding short- and long-term clinical course of diseases, clinical epidemiological and biostatistical methods, and systematic reviews. When considering submission of a paper utilizing publicly-available data, authors should ensure that such studies add significantly to the body of knowledge and that they use appropriate validated methods for identifying health outcomes. The journal has launched special series describing existing data sources for clinical epidemiology, international health care systems and validation studies of algorithms based on databases and registries.
期刊最新文献
Drug-Induced Gynecomastia: Data Mining and Analysis of the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System Database Impact of Smoking Reduction Scenarios on the Burden of Myocardial Infarction in the French Population Until 2035 Using Routinely Collected Electronic Healthcare Record Data to Investigate Fibrotic Multimorbidity in England [Letter]. Burden of Gastrointestinal Tumors in Asian Countries, 1990–2021: An Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021 Causes of Excess Mortality in Diabetes Patients Without Coronary Artery Disease: A Cohort Study Revealing Endocrinologic Contributions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1