Effects of somatostatin, terlipressin and somatostatin plus terlipressin on portal and systemic hemodynamics and renal sodium excretion in patients with cirrhosis

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Terlipressin and somatostatin are the most preferable agents for the control of variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients. The present study evaluated the hemodynamic effects of somatostatin, terlipressin and somatostatin plus terlipressin in cirrhotic patients with portal hypertension, as well as the effect of each regimen on renal sodium excretion. METHODS: Twenty-four patients with esophageal varices were randomly assigned to receive either an intravenous infusion of a placebo (n = 12) or somatostatin 250 microg/h after an initial bolus of 250 microg (n = 12) for 60 min. Thereafter, each patient received an intravenous injection of terlipressin 2 mg while the intravenous infusion of either somatostatin or placebo was maintained. Portal and systemic hemodynamic parameters, assessed by Doppler sonography, and urinary sodium excretion were evaluated at baseline, 60 min after placebo or somatostatin, and 30 min after terlipressin. RESULTS: Placebo had no effect on the patients studied. After terlipressin, portal vein velocity, portal flow volume and cardiac output (CO) significantly decreased (0.09 vs 0.15 m/s, 0.56 vs 1 L/min and 6.4 vs 7.6 L/min, respectively [values are medians]), while mean arterial pressure (MAP) and systemic vascular resistance significantly increased (103.3 vs 89.9 mmHg and 1541 vs 1108dyn.s/cm(5), respectively). Fractional sodium excretion significantly increased in patients without ascites (0.43 vs 0.16%) while it did not change in patients with ascites. Somatostatin did not alter portal hemodynamics whereas it significantly reduced MAP, heart rate (HR) and CO (86.9 vs 98.6 mmHg, 65 vs 73 bpm and 8.4 vs 9.1 L/min, respectively) and, in patients with ascites, sodium excretion (0.13 vs 0.23%). The addition of terlipressin to somatostatin induced similar changes to those observed after terlipressin alone. The magnitude of increase in MAP was significantly higher in patients receiving terlipressin alone than in those receiving somatostatin plus terlipressin (15 vs 5.3%), while CO was conversely affected (-28.5 vs-20.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Combined treatment with somatostatin and terlipressin does not exert an additive portal hypotensive effect in cirrhotic patients as compared to terlipressin alone, whereas somatostatin alone may impair systemic hemodynamics. Compared with somatostatin, terlipressin exerts a more beneficial effect on renal sodium excretion in patients with or without ascites.     

Exercise capacity in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: the effect of pulmonary hypertension

Background and objective: Increased pulmonary arterial pressure (PAP) usually coexists with impaired lung function in IPF. Data on the effect of pulmonary hypertension (PH) on cardiopulmonary responses during exercise in IPF patients is very limited. We sought to investigate the impact of PH on exercise capacity and the correlation between systolic PAP (sPAP) and pulmonary function testing, as well as cardiopulmonary exercise parameters, in patients with IPF and PH. Methods: Eighty‐one consecutive patients with IPF, who were evaluated over a 6‐year period, were retrospectively studied. Patients underwent pulmonary function testing, Doppler echocardiography and maximal cardiopulmonary exercise testing. PH was defined as sPAP > 35 mm Hg. Results: PH was diagnosed in 57% of the patients. Categorization of patients according to severity of PH indicated a significant reduction in maximum work rate, peak O₂ uptake, anaerobic threshold and peak O₂ pulse in those with sPAP > 50 mm Hg. In IPF patients with PH, estimated sPAP correlated with peak O₂ uptake, anaerobic threshold, peak O₂ pulse and end‐tidal CO₂ at anaerobic threshold, while the strongest correlation was between sPAP and ventilatory equivalent for CO₂ at anaerobic threshold (r = 0.611, P < 0.001). There were no differences in pulmonary function or exercise parameters indicative of lung volume reduction, across the patient categories, and none of these parameters correlated with sPAP. Conclusions: PH has a negative impact on exercise capacity in IPF patients. In IPF patients with PH, resting sPAP correlated with exercise parameters indicative of gas exchange and circulatory impairment, but not with defective lung mechanics.