Ufere, Nneka N

Key Points In patients with cirrhosis and AKI requiring renal replacement therapy (RRT), hepatorenal syndrome-AKI was not associated with an increased 90-day mortality when compared with other AKI etiologies. Etiology of AKI may not be a critical factor regarding decisions to trial RRT in acutely ill patients with cirrhosis and AKI. Although elevated, mortality rates in this study are comparable with those reported in general hospitalized patients with AKI requiring RRT. Background While AKI requiring renal replacement therapy (AKI-RRT) is associated with increased mortality in heterogeneous inpatient populations, the epidemiology of AKI-RRT in hospitalized patients with cirrhosis is not fully known. Herein, we evaluated the association of etiology of AKI with mortality in hospitalized patients with cirrhosis and AKI-RRT in a multicentric contemporary cohort. Methods This is a multicenter retrospective cohort study using data from the HRS-HARMONY consortium, which included 11 US hospital network systems. Consecutive adult patients admitted in 2019 with cirrhosis and AKI-RRT were included. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality, and the main independent variable was AKI etiology, classified as hepatorenal syndrome (HRS-AKI) versus other (non–HRS-AKI). AKI etiology was determined by at least two independent adjudicators. We performed Fine and Gray subdistribution hazard analyses adjusting for relevant clinical variables. Results Of 2063 hospitalized patients with cirrhosis and AKI, 374 (18.1%) had AKI-RRT. Among them, 65 (17.4%) had HRS-AKI and 309 (82.6%) had non–HRS-AKI, which included acute tubular necrosis in most cases (62.6%). Continuous renal replacement therapy was used as the initial modality in 264 (71%) of patients, while intermittent hemodialysis was used in 108 (29%). The HRS-AKI (versus non–HRS-AKI) group received more vasoconstrictors for HRS management (81.5% versus 67.9%), whereas the non–HRS-AKI group received more mechanical ventilation (64.3% versus 50.8%) and more continuous renal replacement therapy (versus intermittent hemodialysis) as the initial RRT modality (73.9% versus 56.9%). In the adjusted model, HRS-AKI (versus non–HRS-AKI) was not independently associated with increased 90-day mortality (subdistribution hazard ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 0.95 to 1.94). Conclusions In this multicenter contemporary cohort of hospitalized adult patients with cirrhosis and AKI-RRT, HRS-AKI was not independently associated with an increased risk of 90-day mortality when compared with other AKI etiologies. The etiology of AKI appears less relevant than previously considered when evaluating the prognosis of hospitalized adult patients with cirrhosis and AKI requiring RRT.

Acute kidney injury (AKI) frequently complicates the course of hospitalized patients with cirrhosis and negatively affects their prognosis. How AKI response influences the timing of liver transplantation (LT) remains unclear. We sought to assess the impact of AKI response to treatment on survival and LT rates in patients with cirrhosis awaiting LT. This was a retrospective multicenter study of cirrhosis patients waitlisted for LT and hospitalized with AKI in 2019. The exposure was AKI response versus no response during hospitalization. Outcomes were 90-day overall and transplant-free survival, and rates of LT with time to transplant. We adjusted for age, sex, race, cirrhosis etiology, site, and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease-Sodium (MELD-Na) score. Among the 317 patients in this study, 170 had an AKI response (53.6%), and 147 had no response (46.4%). Compared to nonresponders, responders had better 90-day overall survival (89.4% vs. 76.2%, adjusted subhazard ratio for mortality 0.34, p=0.001), and transplant-free survival (63.5% vs. 25.2%, aHR for probability of death or transplant 0.35, p<0.001). The LT rate was lower in responders (45.9% vs. 61.2%, adjusted subhazard ratio 0.55, p=0.005); 79% of transplants in responders occurred after discharge, at a median of 103 days, while 62% of transplants in nonresponders occurred during hospitalization, with the remainder occurring postdischarge at a median of 58 days. In patients with cirrhosis waitlisted for LT who are hospitalized with AKI, AKI response to therapy is associated with improved 90-day survival, despite a reduced LT rate and longer time to LT.

Summary Background & Aims The development of acute kidney injury (AKI) in the setting of alcohol‐associated hepatitis (AH) portends a poor prognosis. Whether the presence of AH itself drives worse outcomes in patients with cirrhosis and AKI is unknown. Methods Retrospective cohort study of 11 hospital networks of consecutive adult patients admitted in 2019 with cirrhosis and AKI. AKI phenotypes, clinical course, and outcomes were compared between AH and non‐AH groups. Results A total of 2062 patients were included, of which 303 (15%) had AH, as defined by National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) criteria. Patients with AH, compared to those without, were younger and had higher Model for End‐stage Liver Disease‐Sodium (MELD‐Na) scores on admission. AKI phenotypes significantly differed between groups ( p < 0.001) with acute tubular necrosis occurring more frequently in patients with AH. Patients with AH reached more severe peak AKI stage, required more renal replacement therapy, and had higher 90‐day cumulative incidence of death (45% [95% CI: 39%–51%] vs. 38% [95% CI: 35%–40%], p = 0.026). Using no AH as reference, the unadjusted sHR for 90‐day mortality was higher for AH (sHR: 1.24 [95% CI: 1.03–1.50], p = 0.024), but was not significant when adjusting for MELD‐Na, age and sex. However, in patients with hepatorenal syndrome, AH was an independent predictor of 90‐day mortality (sHR: 1.82 [95% CI: 1.16–2.86], p = 0.009). Conclusions Hospitalised patients with cirrhosis and AKI presenting with AH had higher 90‐day mortality than those without AH, but this may have been driven by higher MELD‐Na rather than AH itself. However, in patients with hepatorenal syndrome, AH was an independent predictor of mortality.

Racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities exist in the prevalence and natural history of chronic liver disease, access to care, and clinical outcomes. Solutions to improve health equity range widely, from digital health tools to policy changes. The current review outlines the disparities along the chronic liver disease health care continuum from screening and diagnosis to the management of cirrhosis and considerations of pre-liver and post-liver transplantation. Using a health equity research and implementation science framework, we offer pragmatic strategies to address barriers to implementing high-quality equitable care for patients with chronic liver disease.

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.