Duarte‐Rojo, Andrés

BACKGROUND: Patients with cirrhosis are growing older and the overlap between hepatic encephalopathy (HE) & pre-dementia mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is unclear. HE affects visuospatial/psychomotor speed while MCI affects memory. Aim: Determine the performance of elderly cirrhotics on tests for HE and dementia and their impact on quality of life (QOL). METHODS: Outpatient cirrhotics and controls ages 65–95 years were recruited at 4 centers. Subjects had to have MMSE > 25, no current HE or dementia to be eligible. All subjects got tests for HE (psychometric hepatic encephalopathy score, PHES: 5 tests & low score = poor, EncephalApp, OffTime + OnTime, high score = poor) and QOL: Sickness Impact profile (SIP, high score = poor QOL). Cirrhotics also got tests for MCI; RBANS (tests immediate memory, delayed memory, language, visuo-spatial & attention). A neuro-psychologist evaluated results and divided cirrhotics into (A) unimpaired (B) MCI only (C) HE only & (D) (MCI/HE overlap). Demographics, MELD, alcohol etiology, and SIP were compared. Finally, age, gender and education-adjusted norms were created for PHES and EncephalApp based on the controls. Presence of MHE and sensitivity of EncephalApp for MHE diagnosis were evaluated. RESULTS: 109 cirrhotics and 100 non-cirrhotic subjects were included. Demographics/education levels were statistically similar between centers. Controls were older than cirrhotics (74.9 ± 6.6 vs 70.5 ± 4.4, P < 0.05) and had similar education/gender distribution. Despite this, controls performed better than cirrhotics on all tests (PHES 2.9 ± 12.4 vs −4.5 ± +4.5, P < 0.001, EncephalApp Off+On 181.4 ± +71.9 vs 218.2 ± +80.0, P = 0.03) and had a better QOL (SIP total 3.8 ± +7.1 vs 7.9 ± +9.5, Psych 3.3 ± +8.4 vs 7.2 ± +11.1, Phys 3.0 ± +6.2 vs 6.7 ± +9.5, all P < 0.001). Within cirrhosis subgroups (Table 1), demographics, MELD/alc & MMSE were similar. Pts with both MCI/HE had worse cognition on all tests, which translated into a worse QOL compared to other groups. Presence of HE, with/without MCI, contributed towards poor QOL. Norms for PHES/EncephalApp: Adjusting for age, gender & education, 17% (n = 17) patients were positive for MHE on PHES compared to controls. On EncephalApp, 49% (n = 47) patients were positive. AUC for EncephalApp using PHES as the gold standard was 0.86 (0.78-0.95 CI). CONCLUSIONS: In this multi-center study, adjusted norms defining the high sensitivity of EncephalApp to diagnose HE in older individuals were created. Presence of HE regardless of MCI contributed towards poor cognition and QOL in patients >65 years.

Loss of muscle mass and function, or sarcopenia, is a common feature of cirrhosis and contributes significantly to morbidity and mortality in this population. Sarcopenia is a main indicator of adverse outcomes in this population, including poor quality of life, hepatic decompensation, mortality in patients with cirrhosis evaluated for liver transplantation (LT), longer hospital and intensive care unit stay, higher incidence of infection following LT, and higher overall health care cost. Although it is clear that muscle mass is an important predictor of LT outcomes, many questions remain, including the best modality for assessing muscle mass, the optimal cut‐off values for sarcopenia, the ideal timing and frequency of muscle mass assessment, and how to best incorporate the concept of sarcopenia into clinical decision making. For these reasons, we assembled a group of experts to form the North American Working Group on Sarcopenia in Liver Transplantation to use evidence from the medical literature to address these outstanding questions regarding sarcopenia in LT. We believe sarcopenia assessment should be considered in all patients with cirrhosis evaluated for liver transplantation. Skeletal muscle index (SMI) assessed by computed tomography constitutes the best‐studied technique for assessing sarcopenia in patients with cirrhosis. Cut‐off values for sarcopenia, defined as SMI < 50 cm 2 /m 2 in male and < 39 cm 2 /m 2 in female patients, constitute the validated definition for sarcopenia in patients with cirrhosis. Conclusion: The management of sarcopenia requires a multipronged approach including nutrition, exercise, and additional pharmacological therapy as deemed necessary. Future studies should evaluate whether recovery of sarcopenia with nutritional management in combination with an exercise program is sustainable as well as how improvement in muscle mass might be associated with improvement in clinical outcomes.