Axley, Page

Acute‐on‐chronic liver failure (ACLF) is characterized by multiple organ failure (OF) with high short‐term mortality. There is lack of population‐based data on trends on etiology specific ACLF related burden. National Inpatient Sample (2006‐2014) was queried using ICD‐09 codes for admissions with cirrhosis and ACLF (≥2 extrahepatic OF). Of 1,928,764 admissions for cirrhosis between 2006 and 2014, 112,174 (5.9%) had ACLF (4.5%, 1.2%, and 0.2% with ACLF 1, 2, and 3, respectively). The brain was the most common OF in 11.9%, followed by respiratory failure in 7.7%, cardiac failure in 6.3%, and renal failure in 5.6%. ACLF increased by 24% between 2006 and 2014 with a 63% increase in 179,104 patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) cirrhosis (3.5% to 5.7%); a 28% increase in patients with 429,306 alcoholic cirrhosis (5.6% to 7.2%); a 25% increase in patients with 1,091,053 with other etiologies (5.2% to 6.5%); and no significant change in 229,301 patients with viral hepatitis (VH) (4.0% to 4.1%). In‐hospital mortality was higher among ACLF patients compared with patients without ACLF (44% versus 4.7%; P < 0.0001). Each NASH‐related ACLF patient compared with other etiologies had a longer mean length of stay (14 versus 12 days), was associated with higher median total charges (US $151,196 versus US $134,597), and had more frequent use of dialysis (45% versus 36%) and longterm care (32% versus 26%; P < 0.0001 for all). Results remained similar in a subgroup analysis after including half of admissions with cryptogenic cirrhosis as NASH. In conclusion, NASH cirrhosis is the most rapidly growing indication for ACLF‐related hospitalization and use of hospital resources. In the setting of improved treatment options for chronic hepatitis, the health care burden of chronic viral‐related liver disease remains stable. Population‐based strategies are needed to reduce the health care burden of cirrhosis, particularly related to NASH.

Abstract Identifying patients at high risk for acute kidney injury (AKI) during hospitalization among patients admitted with severe alcoholic hepatitis (AH) is an unmet clinical need. We performed a multicentric prospective cohort study using data from 4 different cohorts on well‐characterized patients hospitalized with severe AH. Data collected on 773 AH patients from 4 cohorts across the globe were randomly split into test (n = 390) and validation (n = 383) cohorts. We found that 32% of the patients developed inpatient AKI in the test cohort. Approximately 60% of patients met criteria for systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) at admission. Hepatic encephalopathy, SIRS, and Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease score at admission predicted inpatient AKI with odds ratios of 3.86, 2.24, and 1.14, respectively. The AKI risk score developed using these predictors stratified risk of inpatient AKI to low (score <3), moderate (3‐4), and high (>4). These findings were replicated in the validation cohort. In the whole study cohort, patients with AKI had a lower 90‐day survival (53% versus 77%; P < 0.001). Those with AKI risk score of >4 had significantly lower 90‐day survival as compared with those with risk scores between 3 and 4 and <3 (47% versus 68% versus 88%; P < 0.001). In conclusion, AKI occurs frequently in AH patients and negatively impacts short‐term mortality. The AKI risk score is useful in identifying patients at high risk for inpatient AKI and may be useful for developing new therapeutic strategies to prevent AKI in patients with AH.

BackgroundData on liver transplant (LT) outcomes using deceased donors with heavy drinking (HD) (>2 drinks per day) are scanty.MethodsUsing the United Network for Organ Sharing database (2002-2014), we examined outcomes after LT in adults comparing deceased HD donors with non-HD (ND) donors.ResultsOf 56 182 first LTs performed in the United States for 10 common indications using deceased donors, 47 882 with available information on alcohol use were analyzed. Of these 47 882 LT recipients, 7298 (15%) were from HD donors, with similar proportion over time (2002-2014, Armitage trend testP= 0.75) and for recipient liver disease etiology (χ2P= 0.42). Proportion of liver organ used for LT was lower for HD donors compared with ND donors (63% vs 78%;P< 0.001). Five-year outcomes on first LT comparing 7166 HD donors and 21 498 ND donors matched based on propensity score were similar for liver graft (73.7% vs 73.7%, log rankP= 0.98) and patient survival (77.6% vs 77.0%,P= 0.36). On Cox regression analysis, history of HD in deceased donors did not affect liver graft 1.02 (0.97-1.08) or patient survival 1.03 (0.97-1.09).ConclusionsAmong LT recipients using select liver grafts, history of HD in deceased donors does not impact outcomes after LT.