Reiberger, Thomas

Abstract Background Posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) contributes significantly to morbidity and mortality after liver surgery. Standardized assessment of preoperative liver function is crucial to identify patients at risk. These European consensus guidelines provide guidance for preoperative patient assessment. Methods A modified Delphi approach was used to achieve consensus. The expert panel consisted of hepatobiliary surgeons, radiologists, nuclear medicine specialists, and hepatologists. The guideline process was supervised by a methodologist and reviewed by a patient representative. A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, the Cochrane library, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry. Evidence assessment and statement development followed Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network methodology. Results Based on 271 publications covering 4 key areas, 21 statements (at least 85 per cent agreement) were produced (median level of evidence 2− to 2+). Only a few systematic reviews (2++) and one RCT (1+) were identified. Preoperative liver function assessment should be considered before complex resections, and in patients with suspected or known underlying liver disease, or chemotherapy-associated or drug-induced liver injury. Clinical assessment and blood-based scores reflecting liver function or portal hypertension (for example albumin/bilirubin, platelet count) aid in identifying risk of PHLF. Volumetry of the future liver remnant represents the foundation for assessment, and can be combined with indocyanine green clearance or LiMAx® according to local expertise and availability. Functional MRI and liver scintigraphy are alternatives, combining FLR volume and function in one examination. Conclusion These guidelines reflect established methods to assess preoperative liver function and PHLF risk, and have uncovered evidence gaps of interest for future research.

Background and Aims Patients with cirrhosis on the liver transplant (LT) waiting list may die or be removed because of complications of portal hypertension (PH) or infections. von Willebrand factor antigen (vWF‐Ag) and C‐reactive protein (CRP) are simple, broadly available markers of these processes. Approach and Results We determined whether addition of vWF‐Ag and CRP to the Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease‐Sodium (MELD‐Na) score improves risk stratification of patients awaiting LT. CRP and vWF‐Ag at LT listing were assessed in two independent cohorts (Medical University of Vienna [exploration cohort] and Mayo Clinic Rochester [validation cohort]). Clinical characteristics, MELD‐Na, and mortality on the waiting list were recorded. Prediction of 3‐month waiting list mortality was assessed by receiver operating characteristics curve (ROC‐AUC). In order to explore potential mechanisms underlying the prognostic utility of vWF‐Ag and CRP in this setting, we evaluated their association with PH, bacterial translocation, systemic inflammation, and circulatory dysfunction. In the exploration cohort (n = 269) vWF‐Ag and CRP both improved the predictive value of MELD‐Na for 3‐month waitlist mortality and showed the highest predictive value when combined (AUC: MELD‐Na, 0.764; MELD‐Na + CRP, 0.790; MELD‐Na + vWF, 0.803; MELD‐Na + CRP + vWF‐Ag, 0.824). Results were confirmed in an independent validation cohort (n = 129; AUC: MELD‐Na, 0.677; MELD‐Na + CRP + vWF‐Ag, 0.882). vWF‐Ag was independently associated with PH and inflammatory biomarkers, whereas CRP closely, and MELD independently, correlated with biomarkers of bacterial translocation/inflammation. Conclusions The addition of vWF‐Ag and CRP—reflecting central pathophysiological mechanisms of PH, bacterial translocation, and inflammation, that are all drivers of mortality on the waiting list for LT—to the MELD‐Na score improves prediction of waitlist mortality. Using the vWFAg‐CRP‐MELD‐Na model for prioritizing organ allocation may improve prediction of waitlist mortality and decrease waitlist mortality.

AbstractBackground & AimsPhosphodiesterase‐5 inhibitors (PDE‐5‐I) are used for treatment of erectile dysfunction (ED), which is common in patients with cirrhosis. They may improve portal hypertension (PH), but contradictory data on efficacy and side‐effects have been reported. Non‐selective beta blockers (NSBB) reduce portal pressure, but might aggravate ED. Thus, we evaluated the combination of PDE‐5‐I with NSBB and its impact on PH and ED in experimental cirrhosis.MethodsED was assessed in cirrhotic patients (n = 86) using standardized questionnaire. Experimental cirrhosis was induced by bile‐duct‐ligation or carbon‐tetrachloride intoxication in rats. Corpus cavernosum pressure – a surrogate of ED ‐, as well as systemic and portal haemodynamics, were measured in vivo and in situ after acute administration of udenafil alone or in combination with propranolol. mRNA and protein levels of PDE‐5 signalling were analysed using PCR and western Blot.ResultsED in humans was related to severity of liver disease and to NSBB treatment. PDE‐5 was mainly expressed in hepatic stellate cells and upregulated in human and experimental cirrhosis. Propranolol reduced corpus cavernosum pressure in cirrhotic rats and it was restored by udenafil. Even though udenafil treatment improved PH, it led to a reduction of mean arterial pressure. The combination of udenafil and propranolol reduced portal pressure and hepatic resistance without systemic side‐effects.ConclusionsED is common with advanced cirrhosis and concomitant NSBB treatment. The combination of PDE‐5‐I and NSBB improves ED and PH in experimental cirrhosis.

Background. Critically ill cirrhotic patients are increasingly transplanted, but there is no consensus about futile liver transplantation (LT). Therefore, the decision to delay or deny LT is often extensively debated. These debates arise from different opinions of futility among transplant team members. This study aims to achieve a multinational and multidisciplinary consensus on the definition of futility in LT and to develop well-articulated criteria for not proceeding with LT due to futility. Methods. Thirty-five international experts from anesthesiology/intensive care, hepatology, and transplant surgery were surveyed using the Delphi method. More than 70% of similar answers to a question were necessary to define agreement. Results. The panel recommended patient and graft survival at 1 year after LT to define futility. Severe frailty and persistent fever or <72 hours of appropriate antimicrobial therapy in case of ongoing sepsis were considered reasons to delay LT. A simple assessment of the number of organs failing was considered the most appropriate way to decide whether LT should be delayed or denied, with respiratory, circulatory and metabolic failures having the most influence in this decision. The thresholds of severity of organ failures contraindicating LT for which a consensus was achieved were a Pa o 2 /FiO2 ratio<150 mm Hg, a norepinephrine dose >1 μg/kg per minute and a serum lactate level >9 mmol/L. Conclusions. Our expert panel provides a consensus on the definition of futile LT and on specific criteria for postponing or denying LT. A framework that may facilitate the decision if a patient is too sick for transplant is presented.