Biggins, Scott W.

We hypothesize that the prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) among patients with cirrhosis has increased due to the increased prevalence of CKD‐associated comorbidities, such as diabetes. We aimed to assess the characteristics of hospitalized patients with cirrhosis with CKD and its impact on renal and patient outcomes. The North American Consortium for the Study of End‐Stage Liver Disease (NACSELD) prospectively enrolled nonelectively admitted patients with cirrhosis and collected data on demographics, laboratory results, in‐hospital clinical course, and postdischarge 3‐month outcomes. CKD positive (CKD+) patients, defined as having an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR; Modification of Diet in Renal Disease–4 variable formula) of ≤60 mL/minute for >3 months, were compared with chronic kidney disease negative (CKD–) patients for development of organ failures, hospital course, and survival. There were 1099 CKD+ patients (46.8% of 2346 enrolled patients) who had significantly higher serum creatinine (2.21 ± 1.33 versus 0.83 ± 0.21 mg/dL in the CKD– group) on admission, higher prevalence of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis cirrhosis etiology, diabetes, refractory ascites, and hospital admissions in the previous 6 months compared with the CKD– group (all P < 0.001). Propensity matching (n = 922 in each group) by Child‐Pugh scores (9.78 ± 2.05 versus 9.74 ± 2.04, P = 0.70) showed that CKD+ patients had significantly higher rates of superimposed acute kidney injury (AKI; 68% versus 21%; P < 0.001) and eventual need for dialysis (11% versus 2%; P < 0.001) than CKD– patients. CKD+ patients also had more cases of acute‐on‐chronic liver failure as defined by the NACSELD group, which was associated with reduced 30‐ and 90‐day overall survival ( P < 0.001 for both). A 10 mL/minute drop in eGFR was associated with a 13.1% increase in the risk of 30‐day mortality. In conclusion, patients with CKD should be treated as a high‐risk group among hospitalized patients with cirrhosis due to their poor survival, and they should be monitored carefully for the development of superimposed AKI.

Acute‐on‐chronic liver failure (ACLF) characterized with ≥2 extrahepatic organ failures in cirrhosis carries a high mortality. Outcomes of patients listed for liver transplantation (LT) after ACLF and after LT are largely unknown. The North American Consortium for the Study of End‐Stage Liver Disease prospectively enrolled 2793 nonelectively hospitalized patients with cirrhosis; 768 were listed for LT. Within 3 months, 265 (35%) received a LT, 395 remained alive without LT, and 108 died/delisted. Compared with nonlisted patients, those listed were younger and more often had ACLF, acute kidney injury, and a higher admission Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score. ACLF was most common in patients who died/delisted, followed by those alive with and without LT respectively, (30%, 22%, and 7%, respectively; P < 0.001). At LT, median MELD was 27.9% and 70% were inpatients; median time from hospitalization to LT was 26 days. Post‐LT survival at 6 months was unchanged between those with and without ACLF (93% each at 6 months). There was no difference in 3‐ and 6‐month mean post‐LT creatinine in those with and without ACLF, despite those with ACLF having a higher mean pre‐LT creatinine and a higher rate of perioperative dialysis (61%). In conclusion, patients with and without ACLF had similar survival after transplant with excellent renal recovery in both groups.

OBJECTIVES: Antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended for prevention of the first episode of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP; primary prophylaxis 1°) and subsequent episodes (secondary prophylaxis 2°). We aimed to compare outcomes in cirrhotic inpatients on 1° vs 2° SBP prophylaxis. METHODS: Data from North American Consortium for the Study of End-Stage Liver Disease were evaluated for cirrhosis details, reasons for admission/medications, inpatient course recorded, and outcomes over 90 days. Outcomes (intensive care units, acute kidney injury, inpatient/90-day mortality) were compared between the 2 groups after propensity-matching on admission model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score and serum albumin. RESULTS: Among the 2,731 patients enrolled, 305 were on 1° and 187 on 2° SBP prophylaxis. After propensity-matching, 154 patients remained in each group. Patients on 1° prophylaxis were more likely to have admission systemic inflammatory response syndrome ( P = 0.02), with higher intensive care unit admissions (31% vs 21%; P = 0.05) and inpatient mortality (19% vs 9%; P = 0.01) than the 2° prophylaxis group. Patients on 2° prophylaxis had higher total (22% vs 10%; P = 0004), readmission (16% vs 9%; P = 0.03), and nosocomial (6% vs 0.5%; P = 0.01) SBP rates with predominant Gram-negative organisms compared to 1° prophylaxis patients. At 90 days, 1° prophylaxis patients had a higher mortality (35% vs 22%; P = 0.02) and acute kidney injury incidence (48% vs 30%; P = 0.04) compared to 2° prophylaxis patients. DISCUSSION: In this inpatient cirrhosis study, despite prophylaxis, a high proportion of patients developed SBP, which was associated with mortality. Cirrhotic inpatients on 1° prophylaxis had worse outcomes than those on 2° prophylaxis when propensity-matched for the MELD score and serum albumin during the index admission and 90-day follow-up.

Hepatic encephalopathy (HE) is a major cause of morbidity in cirrhosis. However, its severity assessment is often subjective, which needs to be studied systematically. The aim was to determine how accurately trainee and nontrainee practitioners grade and manage HE patients throughout its severity. We performed a survey study using standardized simulated patient videos at 4 US and 3 Canadian centers. Participants were trainees (gastroenterology/hepatology fellows) and nontrainees (faculty, nurse practitioners, physician assistants). We determined the accuracy of HE severity identification and management options between grades <2 or ≥2 HE and trainees/nontrainees. In total, 108 respondents (62 trainees, 46 nontrainees) were included. For patients with grades <2 versus ≥2 HE, a higher percentage of respondents were better at correctly diagnosing grades ≥2 compared with grades <2 (91% versus 64%; P < 0.001). Specialized cognitive testing was checked significantly more often in grades <2, whereas more aggressive investigation for precipitating factors was ordered in HE grades >2. Serum ammonia levels were ordered in almost a third of grade ≥2 patients. For trainees and nontrainees, HE grades were identified similarly between groups. Trainees were less likely to order serum ammonia and low‐protein diets, more likely to order rifaximin, and more likely to perform a more thorough workup for precipitating factors compared with nontrainee respondents. There was excellent concordance in the classification of grade ≥2 HE between nontrainees versus trainees, but lower grades showed discordance. Important differences were seen regarding blood ammonia, specialized testing, and nutritional management between trainees and nontrainees. These results have important implications at the patient level, interpreting multicenter clinical trials, and in the education of practitioners. Liver Transplantation 24 587–594 2018 AASLD.

The North American Consortium for the Study of End‐Stage Liver Disease's definition of acute‐on‐chronic liver failure (NACSELD‐ACLF) as two or more extrahepatic organ failures has been proposed as a simple bedside tool to assess the risk of mortality in hospitalized patients with cirrhosis. We validated the NACSELD‐ACLF's ability to predict 30‐day survival (defined as in‐hospital death or hospice discharge) in a separate multicenter prospectively enrolled cohort of both infected and uninfected hospitalized patients with cirrhosis. We used the NACSELD database of 14 tertiary care hepatology centers that prospectively enrolled nonelective hospitalized patients with cirrhosis (n = 2,675). The cohort was randomly split 60%/40% into training (n = 1,605) and testing (n = 1,070) groups. Organ failures assessed were (1) shock, (2) hepatic encephalopathy (grade III/IV), (3) renal (need for dialysis), and (4) respiratory (mechanical ventilation). Patients were most commonly Caucasian (79%) men (62%) with a mean age of 57 years and a diagnosis of alcohol‐induced cirrhosis (45%), and 1,079 patients had an infection during hospitalization. The mean Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease score was 19, and the median Child score was 10. No demographic differences were present between the two split groups. Multivariable modeling revealed that the NACSELD‐ACLF score, as determined by number of organ failures, was the strongest predictor of decreased survival after controlling for admission age, white blood cell count, serum albumin, Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease score, and presence of infection. The c‐statistics were 0.8073 for the training set and 0.8532 for the validation set. Conclusion: Although infection status remains an important predictor of death, NACSELD‐ACLF was independently validated in a separate large multinational prospective cohort as a simple, reliable bedside tool to predict 30‐day survival in both infected and uninfected patients hospitalized with a diagnosis of cirrhosis. (H epatology 2018;67:2367‐2374).

In smaller single‐center studies, patients with cirrhosis are at a high readmission risk, but a multicenter perspective study is lacking. We evaluated the determinants of 3‐month readmissions among inpatients with cirrhosis using the prospective 14‐center North American Consortium for the Study of End‐Stage Liver Disease cohort. Patients with cirrhosis hospitalized for nonelective indications provided consent and were followed for 3 months postdischarge. The number of 3‐month readmissions and their determinants on index admission and discharge were calculated. We used multivariable logistic regression for all readmissions and for hepatic encephalopathy (HE), renal/metabolic, and infection‐related readmissions. A score was developed using admission/discharge variables for the total sample, which was validated on a random half of the total population. Of the 1353 patients enrolled, 1177 were eligible on discharge and 1013 had 3‐month outcomes. Readmissions occurred in 53% (n = 535; 316 with one, 219 with two or more), with consistent rates across sites. The leading causes were liver‐related (n = 333; HE, renal/metabolic, and infections). Patients with cirrhosis and with worse Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease score or diabetes, those taking prophylactic antibiotics, and those with prior HE were more likely to be readmitted. The admission model included Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease and diabetes (c‐statistic = 0.64, after split‐validation 0.65). The discharge model included Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease, proton pump inhibitor use, and lower length of stay (c‐statistic = 0.65, after split‐validation 0.70). Thirty percent of readmissions could not be predicted. Patients with liver‐related readmissions consistently had index‐stay nosocomial infections as a predictor for HE, renal/metabolic, and infection‐associated readmissions (odds ratio = 1.9‐3.0). Conclusions: Three‐month readmissions occurred in about half of discharged patients with cirrhosis, which were associated with cirrhosis severity, diabetes, and nosocomial infections; close monitoring of patients with advanced cirrhosis and prevention of nosocomial infections could reduce this burden. (Hepatology 2016;64:200–208)

Because Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores at the time of liver transplantation (LT) increase nationwide, patients are at an increased risk for delisting by becoming too sick or dying while awaiting transplantation. We quantified the risk and defined the predictors of delisting or death in patients with cirrhosis hospitalized with an infection. North American Consortium for the Study of End‐Stage Liver Disease (NACSELD) is a 15‐center consortium of tertiary‐care hepatology centers that prospectively enroll and collect data on infected patients with cirrhosis. Of the 413 patients evaluated, 136 were listed for LT. The listed patients' median age was 55.18 years, 58% were male, and 47% were hepatitis C virus infected, with a mean MELD score of 2303. At 6‐month follow‐up, 42% (57/136) of patients were delisted/died, 35% (47/136) underwent transplantation, and 24% (32/136) remained listed for transplant. The frequency and types of infection were similar among all 3 groups. MELD scores were highest in those who were delisted/died and were lowest in those remaining listed (25.07, 24.26, 17.59, respectively; P < 0.001). Those who were delisted or died, rather than those who underwent transplantation or were awaiting transplantation, had the highest proportion of 3 or 4 organ failures at hospitalization versus those transplanted or those continuing to await LT (38%, 11%, and 3%, respectively; P = 0.004). For those who were delisted or died, underwent transplantation, or were awaiting transplantation, organ failures were dominated by respiratory (41%, 17%, and 3%, respectively; P < 0.001) and circulatory failures (42%, 16%, and 3%, respectively; P < 0.001). LT‐listed patients with end‐stage liver disease and infection have a 42% risk of delisting/death within a 6‐month period following an admission. The number of organ failures was highly predictive of the risk for delisting/death. Strategies focusing on prevention of infections and extrahepatic organ failure in listed patients with cirrhosis are required. Liver Transpl 21:881‐888, 2015. © 2015 AASLD.