MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

S2359 Beyond Varices: The Cardiovascular Impact of Non-Selective Beta-Blockers in Cirrhosis

2025· article· en· W4417202397 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eunice Omeludike, Babajide Obidigbo, Abdul-Rahaman Adedolapo Ottun, Eunice Aregbesola, Cherechi Nwabueze, Ooreoluwa Fasola, Sarpong Boateng, Sarah Acheampong, Elizabeth Soladoye, Chisom Nwaneki, Papa K.A. Beeko, Brice Njobe

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaceCirrhosisHeart failureFunnel plotRandomized controlled trialMeta-analysisCochrane LibraryDiabetes mellitusObservational study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension are at elevated cardiovascular risk due to systemic inflammation, autonomic imbalance, and hemodynamic alterations. Non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs), routinely used to prevent variceal bleeding, may also influence cardiovascular outcomes. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis using the PRISMA guidelines. Literature searches were performed across PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library through February 2025 for studies assessing cardiovascular outcomes in adults with cirrhosis and clinically significant portal hypertension on long-term NSBB therapy (propranolol, nadolol, or carvedilol) versus no NSBBs. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE: myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular death). Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalization. Ten eligible studies (N = 18,612 patients), including 2 randomized controlled trials and 8 observational cohorts, were included. Data were pooled using a random-effects model, and heterogeneity was quantified using the I² statistic. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for cohorts and the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool for RCTs. Results: Pooled analysis showed that NSBB use was associated with a statistically significant reduction in MACE (RR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.68–0.91; P = 0.001; I² = 41%) and all-cause mortality (RR = 0.83,95% CI: 0.74–0.94; P = 0.004; I² = 52%). No significant difference was observed in heart failure hospitalizations (RR = 1.06, 95% CI: 0.89–1.26; P = 0.51; I² = 35%). Subgroup analyses by age, MELD score, and diabetes status confirmed the cardioprotective trend. Sensitivity analyses and leave-one-out tests confirmed robustness. Funnel plot and Egger's test showed minimal publication bias. Conclusion: Our meta-analysis provides pooled evidence supporting the cardiovascular benefit of NSBBs in patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension. NSBBs are associated with a lower risk of MACE and mortality without increasing heart failure admissions. These findings suggest that NSBBs may serve a dual protective role—reducing both portal pressures and cardiovascular burden. While RCTs strengthen the conclusions, larger prospective trials remain necessary to confirm causality and guide practice.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.012
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology→Same topicLiver Disease and Transplantation→French-language works237,207→