Ghabril, Marwan S

Patients with cirrhosis have abnormal coagulation indices such as a high international normalized ratio and low platelet count, but these do not correlate well with periprocedural bleeding risk. We sought to develop a consensus among the multiple stakeholders in cirrhosis care to inform process measures that can help improve the quality of the periprocedural management of coagulopathy in cirrhosis. We identified candidate process measures for periprocedural coagulopathy management in multiple contexts relating to the performance of paracentesis and upper endoscopy. An 11-member panel with content expertise was convened. It included nominees from professional societies for interventional radiology, transfusion medicine, and anesthesia as well as representatives from hematology, emergency medicine, transplant surgery, and community practice. Each measure was evaluated for agreement using a modified Delphi approach (3 rounds of rating) to define the final set of measures. Out of 286 possible measures, 33 measures made the final set. International normalized ratio testing was not required for diagnostic or therapeutic paracentesis as well as diagnostic endoscopy. Plasma transfusion should be avoided for all paracenteses and diagnostic endoscopy. No consensus was achieved for these items in therapeutic intent or emergent endoscopy. The risks of prophylactic platelet transfusions exceed their benefits for outpatient diagnostic paracentesis and diagnostic endosopies. For the other procedures examined, the risks outweigh benefits when platelet count is >20,000/mm 3 . It is uncertain whether risks outweigh benefits below 20,000/mm 3 in other contexts. No consensus was achieved on whether it was permissible to continue or stop systemic anticoagulation. Continuous aspirin was permissible for each procedure. Clopidogrel was permissible for diagnostic and therapeutic paracentesis and diagnostic endoscopy. We found many areas of consensus that may serve as a foundation for a common set of practice metrics for the periprocedural management of coagulopathy in cirrhosis.

The liver transplantation (LT) evaluation and waitlisting process is subject to variations in care that can impede quality. The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) Practice Metrics Committee (PMC) developed quality measures and patient-reported experience measures along the continuum of pre-LT care to reduce care variation and guide patient-centered care. Following a systematic literature review, candidate pre-LT measures were grouped into 4 phases of care: referral, evaluation and waitlisting, waitlist management, and organ acceptance. A modified Delphi panel with content expertise in hepatology, transplant surgery, psychiatry, transplant infectious disease, palliative care, and social work selected the final set. Candidate patient-reported experience measures spanned domains of cognitive health, emotional health, social well-being, and understanding the LT process. Of the 71 candidate measures, 41 were selected: 9 for referral; 20 for evaluation and waitlisting; 7 for waitlist management; and 5 for organ acceptance. A total of 14 were related to structure, 17 were process measures, and 10 were outcome measures that focused on elements not typically measured in routine care. Among the patient-reported experience measures, candidates of LT rated items from understanding the LT process domain as the most important. The proposed pre-LT measures provide a framework for quality improvement and care standardization among candidates of LT. Select measures apply to various stakeholders such as referring practitioners in the community and LT centers. Clinically meaningful measures that are distinct from those used for regulatory transplant reporting may facilitate local quality improvement initiatives to improve access and quality of care.

Plasma exchange (PE) is a promising therapeutic option in patients with acute liver failure (ALF) and acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF). However, the impact of PE on patient survival in these syndromes is unclear. We aimed to systematically investigate the use of PE in patients with ALF and ACLF compared with standard medical therapy (SMT). We searched PubMed/Embase/Cochrane databases to include all studies comparing PE versus SMT for patients ≥ 18 years of age with ALF and ACLF. Pooled risk ratios (RR) with corresponding 95% CIs were calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel method within a random-effect model. The primary outcome was 30-day survival for ACLF and ALF. Secondary outcomes were overall and 90-day survival for ALF and ACLF, respectively. Five studies, including 343 ALF patients (n = 174 PE vs. n = 169 SMT), and 20 studies, including 5,705 ACLF patients (n = 2,856 PE vs. n = 2,849 SMT), were analyzed. Compared with SMT, PE was significantly associated with higher 30-day (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.06–1.87, p = 0.02) and overall (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.12–1.63, p = 0.002) survival in ALF patients. In ACLF, PE was also significantly associated with higher 30-day (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.22–1.52, p < 0.001) and 90-day (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.10–1.34, p < 0.001) survival. On subgroup analysis of randomized controlled trials, results remained unchanged in ALF, but no differences in survival were found between PE and SMT in ACLF. In conclusion, PE is associated with improved survival in ALF and could improve survival in ACLF. PE may be considered in managing ALF and ACLF patients who are not liver transplant (LT) candidates or as a bridge to LT in otherwise eligible patients. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm the survival benefit of PE in ACLF.

Abstract The burden of HCC is substantial. To address gaps in HCC care, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) Practice Metrics Committee (PMC) aimed to develop a standard set of process‐based measures and patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) along the HCC care continuum. We identified candidate process and outcomes measures for HCC care based on structured literature review. A 13‐member panel with content expertise across the HCC care continuum evaluated candidate measures on importance and performance gap using a modified Delphi approach (two rounds of rating) to define the final set of measures. Candidate PROs based on a structured scoping review were ranked by 74 patients with HCC across 7 diverse institutions. Out of 135 measures, 29 measures made the final set. These covered surveillance (6 measures), diagnosis (6 measures), staging (2 measures), treatment (10 measures), and outcomes (5 measures). Examples included the use of ultrasound (± alpha‐fetoprotein [AFP]) every 6 months, need for surveillance in high‐risk populations, diagnostic testing for patients with a new AFP elevation, multidisciplinary liver tumor board (MLTB) review of Liver Imaging‐Reporting and Data System 4 lesions, standard evaluation at diagnosis, treatment recommendations based on Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer staging, MLTB discussion of treatment options, appropriate referral for evaluation of liver transplantation candidacy, and role of palliative therapy. PROs include those related to pain, anxiety, fear of treatment, and uncertainty about the best individual treatment and the future. The AASLD PMC has developed a set of explicit quality measures in HCC care to help bridge the gap between guideline recommendations and measurable processes and outcomes. Measurement and subsequent implementation of these metrics could be a central step in the improvement of patient care and outcomes in this high‐risk population.