Hepatorenal
Hepatorenal
Hepatorenal
KEYWORDS
Acute on chronic liver failure Acute kidney injury Cirrhosis
Hepatorenal syndrome Biomarkers Liver transplantation
Simultaneous liver kidney transplantation Model end-stage liver disease
KEY POINTS
Assessment and evaluation of renal function and identifying cause of acute kidney injury
(AKI) remain difficult in patients with liver cirrhosis.
Various novel biomarkers have been developed that may be helpful in the diagnosis of AKI
in patients with chronic liver disease and liver cirrhosis.
Vasoconstrictor therapies, such as noradrenalin and terlipressin, along with albumin
remain the main treatment for hepatorenal syndrome-AKI.
Most recent Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network/United Network for Organ
Sharing criteria for consideration of simultaneous liver and kidney transplantation have
streamlined the decision-making process.
Development of post–liver transplant AKI is multifactorial, relating to the recipient’s pre-
transplant course, the donor, surgical events, and the use of immunosuppression.
INTRODUCTION
Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a frequent complication of end-stage liver disease and oc-
curs in as high as 50% of shospitalized patients.1 The development of AKI impacts
short- and long-term mortality and reduces kidney function following liver transplanta-
tion (LT).2,3 Circulatory changes observed in end-stage cirrhosis, namely, hyperkinetic
state, with renal vasoconstriction leading to decreased kidney blood flow are central in
a
Division of Gastroenterology/Liver, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern Califor-
nia, 1510 San Pablo Street, Los Angeles, CA 90033, USA; b Hepatology and Liver Intensive Care,
Hospital Beaujon, 100 Boulevard Du General Leclerc, Clichy 92110, France; c Hepatology and
Liver Intensive Care, Hospital Beaujon, University of Paris, 100 Boulevard Du General Leclerc,
Clichy 92110, France; d Division of Gastroenterology (Liver Unit), Department of Critical Care
Medicine, University of Alberta, 1-40 Zeidler Ledcor Building, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2X8,
Canada; e Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Keck School of Medicine, University of
Southern California, 1520 San Pablo Street, Suite 4300, Los Angeles, CA 90033, USA
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mitra.nadim@med.usc.edu
DEFINITIONS
Historically, AKI in cirrhosis was defined by a fixed value of sCr >1.5 mg/dL (133 mmol/
L).16 However, this definition had limitations because patients with advanced cirrhosis
and sCr values within the normal range may have a significant decrease in GFR
because of reduced muscle mass and decreased creatine production.11 In 2010,
the Acute Disease Quality Initiative (ADQI) proposed a novel classification system of
AKI in cirrhosis based on sCr changes and qualifying type 1 HRS as only one of the
possible causes of AKI in end-stage liver disease.17 In 2015, the International Club of
Ascites (ICA) proposed revised definitions of AKI in cirrhosis based on the Kidney Dis-
ease Improving Global Outcomes Guidelines (KDIGO) (Table 1).18 In line with the
KDIGO criteria, AKI is defined by a change in sCr only and categorized into 3 stages
of increasing severity. Baseline sCr is defined by a value of sCr obtained in the previ-
ous 3 months when available. Type 1 HRS is now considered one of the different phe-
notypes of AKI in cirrhosis termed AKI-HRS (see Table 1).18 The prognostic relevance
of these new definitions has been validated in several studies.1,19
Although oliguria was not included in the current definition of AKI in patients with
liver disease, urine output (UO) has been found to be a sensitive and early marker
for AKI and to be associated with adverse outcomes with more than 50% increase
(14.6% vs 9%; P<.001) in mortality among critically ill patients with chronic liver dis-
ease and stage 1 AKI when defined by oliguria instead of sCr alone.20 Furthermore,
61% of stage 2 to 3 AKI patients classified by oliguria were misclassified as non-
AKI or stage 1 AKI based on sCr criteria. An international consensus meeting on
management of critically ill cirrhotic patients has recommended that regardless of
any increase in sCr, worsening oliguria or development of anuria should be considered
AKI in patients with cirrhosis until proven otherwise.21
Recently, a group of experts proposed further changes in the definitions of HRS and
other phenotypes of AKI in cirrhosis.22 According to these changes, UO was reintro-
duced as one of the criteria defining HRS-AKI (UO 0.5 mL/kg for 6 hours). Type
2 HRS, which is a more chronic presentation of HRS, is termed HRS-NAKI (for non-
AKI) and defined by eGFR 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 for more than 3 months with initial
fulfillment of ICA criteria for the diagnosis of HRS-AKI.18,22,23 Whether these changes
help better categorize cirrhotic patients with AKI or chronic kidney disease (CKD)
needs further validation.
A major limitation of the HRS criteria is that they do not allow for the coexistence of
other forms of acute or CKD, such as underlying diabetic nephropathy or other
Table 1
International club of ascites definition of acute kidney injury and hepatorenal syndrome in
cirrhosis
Purpose Definition
Definition of AKI Increase in sCr 0.3 mg/dL (26 mmol/L) within 48 h, or
A percentage increase in sCr 50% from baseline, which is known
or presumed to have occurred within the previous 7 d
Staging of AKI Stage 1: increase in sCr 0.3 mg/dL (26 mmol/L) or increase in
sCr 1.5 to 2-fold from baseline
Stage 2: increase in sCr >2- to 3-fold from baseline
Stage 3: increase in sCr >3-fold from baseline or sCr >4 mg/dL
(353 mmol/L) with an acute increase 0.3 mg/dL (26 mmol/L) or
initiation of renal replacement therapy
AKI-HRS AKI stage 2
No improvement in sCr after 48 h of diuretic withdrawal and
volume expansion with albumin at a dose of 1 g/kg up to a
maximum of 100 g daily
Absence of hypovolemic shock or infection requiring vasoactive
drugs to support blood pressure
No current or recent use of nephrotoxic drugs
Proteinuria <500 mg/d and hematuria <50 red blood cells per
high-power field
glomerular diseases often associated with patients with liver disease (eg, immuno-
globulin A, membranous or membranoproliferative disease). However, patients with
underlying kidney disease can still develop “hepatorenal physiology.” As a result,
ADQI proposed that the term “hepatorenal disorders” be used to describe all patients
with advanced cirrhosis and concurrent kidney dysfunction.17 Such a definition would
allow patients with cirrhosis and renal dysfunction to be properly classified and treated
while maintaining the term HRS.
PATHOPHYSIOLOGY
Splanchnic and Systemic Circulatory Changes
Portal hypertension and splanchnic vasodilatation are characteristic features of
cirrhosis that play a central role in HRS-AKI (Fig. 1).4,24,25 In early stages of cirrhosis
(compensated cirrhosis), mild reduction in arterial blood pressure is compensated
for by an increase in cardiac output (CO) that preserves kidney perfusion. As portal hy-
pertension increases and liver function deteriorates, systemic circulatory changes are
more pronounced with a further decrease in systemic vascular resistance (SVR) and
increase in CO. Splanchnic arterial vasodilatation increases as a result of increased
synthesis of nitric oxide and other vasodilatory mediators. The state of central hypo-
volemia results in activation of systemic vasoconstrictors, including the renin angio-
tensin aldosterone system, the sympathetic system, and release of arginine
vasopressin (AVP), which all contribute to maintain arterial pressure and kidney perfu-
sion.24 Although activation of RASS with elevated plasma renin activity and increased
circulating levels of norepinephrine has a positive impact on arterial pressure, this
response has a negative impact with retention of sodium and water, resulting in asci-
tes, edema, and impaired free water excretion. Intense renal vasoconstriction also re-
sults in decreased kidney perfusion and decreased GFR, a central mechanism of
HRS-AKI.26 In recent years, it has been suggested that impaired cardiac function
could also be one of the mechanisms leading to HRS-AKI.27 Evidence suggests that
cardiac work decreases in the most advanced stages of cirrhosis and that impaired
cardiac work is more pronounced in patients receiving b-blockers.28
Kidney Factors
The main renal prostaglandins (prostaglandin I2 and prostaglandin E2) have vasodi-
lator effects in the kidney and are increased in patients with cirrhosis and ascites.29
Changes in renal blood flow autoregulation also exist in cirrhosis with a shift in the
autoregulation curve, at least in part related to the activation of the sympathetic ner-
vous system. As a result, for a given level of kidney perfusion pressure, kidney perfu-
sion is lower in patients with cirrhosis as compared with patients without cirrhosis.
Systemic Inflammatory Response
There is now general agreement that cirrhosis is characterized by systemic inflamma-
tory state and that inflammation contributes to complications, such as HRS-AKI. Even
in the absence of documented infection, patients with cirrhosis have increased circu-
lating levels of C-reactive proteins and proinflammatory cytokines, and this increase is
correlated with disease severity, portal pressure, and hyperkinetic syndrome.30 Bac-
terial translocation is one of the mechanisms involved in chronic systemic inflamma-
tory response. Patients with bacterial translocation from gut lumen to mesenteric
lymph nodes were shown to have increased levels of proinflammatory cytokines (tu-
mor necrosis factor-a [TNF-a] and interleukin-6 [IL-6]), and vasoactive factors,
including NO, in the splanchnic area.31 In patients with spontaneous bacterial perito-
nitis (SBP) and HRS-AKI, TNF-a and IL-6 levels in ascitic fluid and blood are signifi-
cantly higher than in patients with SBP and no HRS-AKI. This increased cytokine
level is associated with increased NO levels also.32 These findings suggest that sys-
temic inflammatory response may trigger HRS-AKI by worsening circulatory dysfunc-
tion and further decreasing kidney perfusion.
The most common causes of AKI in hospitalized patients are prerenal azotemia (most
due to hypovolemia-induced AKI and only one-third due to HRS), followed by ATN.
The cause of AKI should be determined promptly in order to prevent further worsening
of AKI as progression to advanced stage AKI has been associated with a higher mor-
tality. The cause of AKI is generally distinguished by the preceding history as well as
urinalysis and response to diuretic withdrawal and volume challenge. However, these
criteria may be misleading in certain circumstances, such as presence of CKD or
recent diuretic use. Prompt diagnosis and identification of AKI phenotype in patients
with cirrhosis allow for appropriate and timely intervention, whereby progression of
AKI stage confers increasing mortality, particularly with HRS.33 Given that sCr often
lags in highlighting the timing and severity of renal injury, several urine biomarkers in
addition to urine microalbuminuria or fractional excretion of sodium have been evalu-
ated to allow earlier diagnosis and identification of the cause of AKI (ie, HRS vs ATN).
This can potentially help identify patients who are less likely to benefit from volume
resuscitation and vasopressor therapy.34–36
Urinary NGAL has emerged as the most sensitive marker to detect ATN or persistent
AKI.36 However, even though urinary NGAL level is higher in ATN when compared with
HRS and other causes of AKI, there is a significant overlap between the groups.34,36–38
Accurate biomarkers of underlying CKD are still lacking, and kidney biopsy is often
contraindicated in this population. In most studies, the diagnosis of ATN was based
on nonspecific criteria without a gold standard (biopsy) and therefore should be inter-
preted with caution.
Albumin
Infusion of volume expanders, such as albumin, has been noted to be beneficial, and
its use has become very common in the diagnosis and treatment of patients with HRS-
AKI. Proposed mechanisms for this improvement include increased cardiac preload
and peripheral vascular resistance, which may be due to the ability of albumin to
bind vasodilators, such as nitric oxide, IL-6, and TNF-a.40 Reduced levels of inflamma-
tory markers have been noted in plasma and ascitic fluid of patients with SBP after al-
bumin infusion.41 In addition, albumin infusion has been shown in randomized trials to
prevent HRS and improve survival in patients diagnosed with SBP.42
Pharmacologic Therapy
Once a diagnosis of HRS is made, the goal of medical therapy is to improve systemic
hemodynamics with vasoconstrictors and restoring effective circulatory volume with
albumin (Table 2). It is recommend to use concentrated albumin 1 g/kg with a
maximum of 100 g initially followed by daily doses of 20 to 40 g/d. Choice of vasocon-
strictors is guided by location of hospitalized patients (intensive care unit [ICU] vs gen-
eral ward) and availability, as terlipressin is currently not available in several countries,
including North America. Several randomized controlled trials have shown the efficacy
of vasoconstrictors, particularly terlipressin and albumin, in treating HRS with a
response rate ranging from 45% to 75% in more recent studies (Table 3). Recently,
a large randomized controlled trial (n 5 300) in North America demonstrated a higher
rate of HRS reversal in patients who received terlipressin plus albumin versus albumin
alone (29.1% vs 15.8%) for treatment of patients with HRS type 1.43
Noradrenaline or norepinephrine is an a-adrenergic agonist that has shown efficacy
in treatment of HRS. A systematic review comparing terlipressin and noradrenaline
demonstrated equivalent efficacy in regard to HRS reversal, 30-day mortality, and
recurrence of HRS.44 Adverse events were less frequent in patients who received
noradrenaline.
Midodrine, which is an orally administered a-adrenergic agonist, in combination
with octreotide, a somatostatin analogue, along with albumin infusion has also been
used widely in management of type 1 HRS. Recently, a small randomized controlled
trial of 49 patients comparing midodrine/octreotide to terlipressin, both with albumin,
showed that the latter was more effective in reversing HRS (28.6% vs 70.4%;
P 5 .01).45
Hepatorenal Syndrome
Octreotide SQ 100 mg tid, titrated 200 mg
tid on day 2, if renal function has not
improved
Abbreviations: IV, intravenous; MAP, mean arterial pressure; SQ, subcutaneous; tid, 3 times a day.
Note: All vasoconstrictors should be given in combination with 25% IV albumin, initially 1 g of albumin/kg for 2 d, up to a maximum of 100 g/d, followed by 20 to
40 g/d.
327
328
Khemichian et al
Table 3
Randomized controlled trials of terlipressin for the treatment of hepatorenal syndrome
ClinicalKey.es por Elsevier en mayo 01, 2022. Para uso personal exclusivamente. No se permiten
Box 1
Medical eligibility criteria for simultaneous liver and kidney transplantation53
Patients with CKD with a measured GFR 60 mL/min for more than 90 consecutive days and
at least one of the following:
ESRD on dialysis
Measured/calculated creatinine clearance or GFR 30 mL/min, at the time of placement of
the patient on the LT waiting list
Diagnosis of sustained AKI for 6 weeks including either:
Dialysis at least once every 7 days, or
Measured/calculated creatinine clearance or GFR of 25 mL/min documented at least once
every 7 days
Diagnosis of metabolic disease with either:
Hyperoxaluria
Atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome from mutations in factor H or factor I
Familial nonneuropathic systemic amyloidosis
Methylmalonic aciduria
between 60 and 365 days after LT. Currently, there is not a substantial number of
studies analyzing the outcomes associated with changes implemented by UNOS
with regards to SLK versus Liver-alone transplant. Emergence of these data will
help with future policy changes to allow the best possible outcome for patients and
utilization of scarce organs.
AKI after LT is a common occurrence that can be seen in more than 50% of cases in
some recent series.54–57 Many patients undergoing LT have had some evidence of AKI
and may have been on RRT, both of which are predisposing factors for development
of CKD in the posttransplant setting.58,59 Typically, posttransplant AKI is multifactorial,
relating to the recipient’s pretransplant course, the donor, surgical events, and the use
of immunosuppression.
SUMMARY
Development of HRS portends a poor prognosis in patients with chronic liver disease.
Determining the cause of AKI in patients with chronic liver disease can be challenging.
HRS remains a diagnosis of exclusion and may coexist with patients with underlying CKD.
It is imperative to identify and remove any potential precipitating agents that may
predispose to development of HRS.
Once a diagnosis of HRS is made, the goal of medical therapy is to improve systemic
hemodynamics with vasoconstrictors and to restore effective circulatory volume with
albumin with the goal to increase the mean arterial pressure by approximately 15 mm Hg.
Patients with sustained kidney impairment who are eligible should be considered for SLK
transplantation.
DISCLOSURE
REFERENCES
1. Tandon P, James MT, Abraldes JG, et al. Relevance of new definitions to inci-
dence and prognosis of acute kidney injury in hospitalized patients with cirrhosis:
a retrospective population-based cohort study. PLoS One 2016;11(8):e0160394.
2. Nadim MK, Genyk YS, Tokin C, et al. Impact of the etiology of acute kidney injury
on outcomes following liver transplantation: acute tubular necrosis versus hepa-
torenal syndrome. Liver Transpl 2012;18(5):539–48.
3. Hilmi IA, Damian D, Al-Khafaji A, et al. Acute kidney injury following orthotopic
liver transplantation: incidence, risk factors, and effects on patient and graft out-
comes. Br J Anaesth 2015;114(6):919–26.
4. Francoz C, Durand F, Kahn JA, et al. Hepatorenal syndrome. Clin J Am Soc
Nephrol 2019;14(5):774–81.
5. Wong F, O’Leary JG, Reddy KR, et al. New consensus definition of acute kidney
injury accurately predicts 30-day mortality in patients with cirrhosis and infection.
Gastroenterology 2013;145(6):1280–1288 e1281.
6. Macedo E, Bouchard J, Soroko SH, et al. Fluid accumulation, recognition and
staging of acute kidney injury in critically-ill patients. Crit Care 2010;14(3):R82.
7. Liu KD, Thompson BT, Ancukiewicz M, et al. Acute kidney injury in patients with
acute lung injury: impact of fluid accumulation on classification of acute kidney
injury and associated outcomes. Crit Care Med 2011;39(12):2665–71.
8. Xirouchakis E, Marelli L, Cholongitas E, et al. Comparison of cystatin C and
creatinine-based glomerular filtration rate formulas with 51Cr-EDTA clearance in
patients with cirrhosis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2011;6(1):84–92.
9. Proulx NL, Akbari A, Garg AX, et al. Measured creatinine clearance from timed
urine collections substantially overestimates glomerular filtration rate in patients
with liver cirrhosis: a systematic review and individual patient meta-analysis.
Nephrol Dial Transplant 2005;20(8):1617–22.
10. Francoz C, Glotz D, Moreau R, et al. The evaluation of renal function and disease
in patients with cirrhosis. J Hepatol 2010;52(4):605–13.
11. Francoz C, Nadim MK, Baron A, et al. Glomerular filtration rate equations for liver-
kidney transplantation in patients with cirrhosis: validation of current recommen-
dations. Hepatology 2014;59(4):1514–21.
12. Mindikoglu AL, Dowling TC, Weir MR, et al. Performance of chronic kidney dis-
ease epidemiology collaboration creatinine-cystatin C equation for estimating
kidney function in cirrhosis. Hepatology 2014;59(4):1532–42.
13. De Souza V, Hadj-Aissa A, Dolomanova O, et al. Creatinine- versus cystatine
C-based equations in assessing the renal function of candidates for liver trans-
plantation with cirrhosis. Hepatology 2014;59(4):1522–31.
14. Asrani SK, Jennings LW, Trotter JF, et al. A model for glomerular filtration rate
assessment in liver disease (GRAIL) in the presence of renal dysfunction. Hepa-
tology 2019;69(3):1219–30.
15. Asrani SK, Jennings LW, Kim WR, et al. MELD-GRAIL-Na: glomerular filtration rate
and mortality on liver-transplant waiting list. Hepatology 2020;71(5):1766–74.
16. Salerno F, Gerbes A, Gines P, et al. Diagnosis, prevention and treatment of hep-
atorenal syndrome in cirrhosis. Gut 2007;56(9):1310–8.
17. Nadim MK, Kellum JA, Davenport A, et al. Hepatorenal syndrome: the 8th Inter-
national Consensus Conference of the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative (ADQI)
group. Crit Care 2012;16(1):R23.
18. Angeli P, Gines P, Wong F, et al. Diagnosis and management of acute kidney
injury in patients with cirrhosis: revised consensus recommendations of the Inter-
national Club of Ascites. J Hepatol 2015;62(4):968–74.
19. Belcher JM, Garcia-Tsao G, Sanyal AJ, et al. Association of AKI with mortality and
complications in hospitalized patients with cirrhosis. Hepatology 2013;57(2):
753–62.
20. Amathieu R, Al-Khafaji A, Sileanu FE, et al. Significance of oliguria in critically ill
patients with chronic liver disease. Hepatology 2017;66(5):1592–600.
21. Nadim MK, Durand F, Kellum JA, et al. Management of the critically ill patient with
cirrhosis: a multidisciplinary perspective. J Hepatol 2016;64(3):717–35.
22. Angeli P, Garcia-Tsao G, Nadim MK, et al. News in pathophysiology, definition
and classification of hepatorenal syndrome: a step beyond the International
Club of Ascites (ICA) consensus document. J Hepatol 2019;71(4):811–22.
23. European Association for the Study of the Liver. Electronic address EEE, Euro-
pean Association for the Study of the L. EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines for
the management of patients with decompensated cirrhosis. J Hepatol 2018;
69(2):406–60.
24. Durand F, Graupera I, Gines P, et al. Pathogenesis of hepatorenal syndrome: im-
plications for therapy. Am J Kidney Dis 2016;67(2):318–28.
25. Ginès P, Solà E, Angeli P, et al. Hepatorenal syndrome. Nat Rev Dis Primers 2018;
4(1):23.
26. Salerno F, Gerbes A, Ginès P, et al. Diagnosis, prevention and treatment of hep-
atorenal syndrome in cirrhosis. Postgrad Med J 2008;84(998):662–70.
27. Wiese S, Hove JD, Bendtsen F, et al. Cirrhotic cardiomyopathy: pathogenesis and
clinical relevance. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014;11(3):177–86.
28. Giannelli V, Roux O, Laouenan C, et al. Impact of cardiac function, refractory as-
cites and beta blockers on the outcome of patients with cirrhosis listed for liver
transplantation. J Hepatol 2020;72(3):463–71.
29. Elia C, Graupera I, Barreto R, et al. Severe acute kidney injury associated with
non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in cirrhosis: a case-control study.
J Hepatol 2015;63(3):593–600.
30. Mehta G, Gustot T, Mookerjee RP, et al. Inflammation and portal hypertension -
the undiscovered country. J Hepatol 2014;61(1):155–63.
31. Wiest R, Lawson M, Geuking M. Pathological bacterial translocation in liver
cirrhosis. J Hepatol 2014;60(1):197–209.
32. Navasa M, Follo A, Filella X, et al. Tumor necrosis factor and interleukin-6 in spon-
taneous bacterial peritonitis in cirrhosis: relationship with the development of
renal impairment and mortality. Hepatology 1998;27(5):1227–32.
33. Gluud LL, Christensen K, Christensen E, et al. Systematic review of randomized
trials on vasoconstrictor drugs for hepatorenal syndrome. Hepatology 2010;
51(2):576–84.
34. Belcher JM, Sanyal AJ, Peixoto AJ, et al. Kidney biomarkers and differential diag-
nosis of patients with cirrhosis and acute kidney injury. Hepatology 2014;60(2):
622–32.
35. Francoz C, Nadim MK, Durand F. Kidney biomarkers in cirrhosis. J Hepatol 2016;
65(4):809–24.
36. Huelin P, Solà E, Elia C, et al. Neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin for
assessment of acute kidney injury in cirrhosis: a prospective study. Hepatology
2019;70(1):319–33.
37. Fagundes C, Pepin MN, Guevara M, et al. Urinary neutrophil gelatinase-
associated lipocalin as biomarker in the differential diagnosis of impairment of
kidney function in cirrhosis. J Hepatol 2012;57(2):267–73.
38. Verna EC, Brown RS, Farrand E, et al. Urinary neutrophil gelatinase-associated
lipocalin predicts mortality and identifies acute kidney injury in cirrhosis. Dig
Dis Sci 2012;57(9):2362–70.
57. Durand F, Francoz C, Asrani SK, et al. Acute kidney injury after liver transplanta-
tion. Transplantation 2018;102(10):1636–49.
58. Ojo AO, Held PJ, Port FK, et al. Chronic renal failure after transplantation of a non-
renal organ. N Engl J Med 2003;349(10):931–40.
59. Levitsky J, O’Leary JG, Asrani S, et al. Protecting the kidney in liver transplant re-
cipients: practice-based recommendations from the American Society of Trans-
plantation Liver and Intestine Community of Practice. Am J Transplant 2016;
16(9):2532–44.
60. Alessandria C, Ottobrelli A, Debernardi-Venon W, et al. Noradrenalin vs terlipres-
sin in patients with hepatorenal syndrome: a prospective, randomized, un-
blinded, pilot study. J Hepatol 2007;47(4):499–505.
61. Sharma P, Kumar A, Shrama BC, et al. An open label, pilot, randomized
controlled trial of noradrenaline versus terlipressin in the treatment of type 1 hep-
atorenal syndrome and predictors of response. Am J Gastroenterol 2008;103(7):
1689–97.
62. Sanyal AJ, Boyer T, Garcia-Tsao G, et al. A randomized, prospective, double-
blind, placebo-controlled trial of terlipressin for type 1 hepatorenal syndrome.
Gastroenterology 2008;134(5):1360–8.
63. Martı́n-Llahı́ M, Pépin MN, Guevara M, et al. Terlipressin and albumin vs albumin
in patients with cirrhosis and hepatorenal syndrome: a randomized study. Gastro-
enterology 2008;134(5):1352–9.
64. Singh V, Ghosh S, Singh B, et al. Noradrenaline vs. terlipressin in the treatment of
hepatorenal syndrome: a randomized study. J Hepatol 2012;56(6):1293–8.
65. Boyer TD, Sanyal AJ, Wong F, et al. Terlipressin plus albumin is more effective
than albumin alone in improving renal function in patients with cirrhosis and hep-
atorenal syndrome Type 1. Gastroenterology 2016;150(7):1579–89.e1572.
66. Arora V, Maiwall R, Rajan V, et al. Terlipressin is superior to noradrenaline in the
management of acute kidney injury in acute on chronic liver failure. Hepatology
2020;71(2):600–10.