Krowka, Michael J.

We investigated the prevalence of spirometric restriction in liver transplantation (LT) candidates and the clinical impacts of restriction. We performed a cross‐sectional study within the Pulmonary Vascular Complications of Liver Disease 2 (PVCLD2) study, a multicenter prospective cohort study of patients being evaluated for LT. Patients with obstructive lung disease or missing spirometry or chest imaging were excluded. Patients with and without restriction, defined as a forced vital capacity (FVC) <70% predicted, were compared. Restriction prevalence was 18.4% (63/343). Higher Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease–sodium score (odds ratio [OR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02‐1.11; P = 0.007), the presence of pleural effusions (OR, 3.59; 95% CI, 1.96‐6.58; P < 0.001), and a history of ascites (OR, 2.59; 95% CI, 1.26‐5.33; P = 0.01) were associated with the presence of restriction, though one‐third with restriction had neither pleural effusions nor ascites. In multivariate analysis, restriction was significantly and independently associated with lower 6‐minute walk distances (least squares mean, 342.0 [95% CI, 316.6‐367.4] m versus 395.7 [95% CI, 381.2‐410.2] m; P < 0.001), dyspnea (OR, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.46‐4.95; P = 0.002), and lower physical component summary Short Form 36 scores indicating worse quality of life (least squares mean, 34.1 [95% CI, 31.5‐36.7] versus 38.2 [95% CI, 36.6‐39.7]; P = 0.004). Lower FVC percent predicted was associated with an increased risk of death (hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.04‐1.27 per 10‐point decrease in FVC percent predicted; P = 0.01). Restriction and abnormal lung function are common in LT candidates; can be present in the absence of an obvious cause, such as pleural effusions or ascites; and is associated with worse exercise capacity, quality of life, and survival.

Background. The role of liver transplantation (LT) in the management of portopulmonary hypertension (POPH) is poorly understood. The aim of this study was to better understand provider attitudes and practice patterns regarding the management of patients with POPH and to assess the concordance between clinical practice and current guidelines. Methods. We performed a multicenter survey study of hepatologists and pulmonary hypertension (PH) physicians at US LT centers that performed >50 transplants per year. Survey responses are summarized as number (%). Associations were assessed using a Wilcoxon-rank sum, chi-square, or Fisher exact test, as appropriate. Results. Seventy-four providers from 35 centers were included. There was marked variability regarding screening practices, management, and attitudes. Forty-two percent responded that POPH nearly always or often improves with LT, and 15.5% reported that POPH rarely or never improves. In contrast to current guidelines, 50.7% agreed that treated POPH should be an indication for LT in patients with compensated cirrhosis. Hepatologists were more likely than PH physicians to agree that POPH should be an indication for LT (P = 0.02). Forty-nine percent of respondents thought that the current POPH Model for End-stage Liver Disease exception criteria should be modified, and management of patients with an elevated mean pulmonary arterial pressure and normal pulmonary vascular resistance differed from current policies. Conclusions. There is marked variability in provider attitudes and practice patterns regarding the management of POPH. This study highlights the need for prospective studies to inform practice and for improved implementation of practice guidelines in order to standardize care.

The tyrosine kinase inhibitor sorafenib improves hepatopulmonary syndrome (HPS) in an experimental model. However, the efficacy and adverse effect profile in patients with HPS are unknown. We aimed to determine the effect of sorafenib on the alveolar‐arterial oxygen gradient (AaPO2) at 3 months in patients with HPS. We performed a randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled parallel trial of sorafenib in patients with HPS at 7 centers. A total of 28 patients with HPS were randomized to sorafenib 400 mg by mouth daily or a matching placebo in a 1:1 ratio. We found no statistically significant difference in the median change in AaPO2 from baseline to 12 weeks between the patients allocated to sorafenib (4.5 mm Hg; IQR, –3.8 to 7.0 mm Hg) and those allocated to placebo (–2.4 mm Hg; IQR, –4.8 to 8.2 mm Hg; P = 0.70). There was also no difference between the groups in terms of degree of intrapulmonary shunting by contrast echocardiography. Sorafenib significantly reduced circulating levels of angiogenic markers, including vascular endothelial growth factor receptors (P < 0.01) and TIE2‐expressing M2 monocytes (P = 0.03), but it reduced the mental component scores of the Short Form 36 (P = 0.04), indicating a worse quality of life. In conclusion, sorafenib did not change the AaPO2 or other disease markers at 3 months in patients with HPS. Alternative antiangiogenic therapies or treatments targeting other pathways should be investigated.