INTRODUCTION: One of the primary goals of the Liver Cirrhosis Network (LCN) is to develop a cohort study to better understand and predict the risk of hepatic decompensation and other clinical and patient-reported outcomes among patients with Child A cirrhosis. METHODS: The LCN consists of a Scientific Data Coordinating Center and 10 clinical centers whose investigators populate multiple committees. The LCN Definitions and Measurements Committee developed preliminary definitions of cirrhosis and its complications by literature review, expert opinion, and reviewing definition documents developed by other organizations. The Cohort Committee developed the study protocol with the input of the steering committee. RESULTS: The LCN developed a prospective cohort study to describe and predict the rates of incident clinical events pertaining to first decompensation and patient-reported outcomes. The LCN developed a pragmatic definition of compensated cirrhosis incorporating clinical, laboratory, imaging, and histological criteria. Definitions of incident and recompensated ascites, overt hepatic encephalopathy, variceal hemorrhage, bleeding because of portal gastropathy, and hepatocellular carcinoma were also codified. DISCUSSION: The LCN Cohort Study design will inform the natural history of cirrhosis in contemporary patients with compensated cirrhosis. The LCN Definitions and Measures Committee developed criteria for the definition of cirrhosis to standardize entry into this multicenter cohort study and standardized criteria for liver-related outcome measures. This effort has produced definitions intended to be both sensitive and specific as well as easily operationalized by study staff such that outcomes critical to the LCN cohort are identified and reported in an accurate and generalizable fashion. REGISTRATION: NCT05740358.
The RELAX randomized controlled trial: Stretching versus meditation for nocturnal muscle cramps
AbstractBackgroundMuscle cramps are common among persons with cirrhosis and are associated with poor health‐related quality of life (HRQOL). Treatment options are limited. We compared stretching or meditation in a randomized‐controlled trial (RCT).PatientsWe enrolled 98 patients with a history of >4 muscle cramps in the prior month from 7/22–7/23. We randomized patients 1:1 to stretching versus meditation for 35 days. Our primary outcome was the change in cramp severity measured by the visual analogue scale for cramps (VAS‐cramps, scaled 0–10). Secondary outcomes included a patient global impression of change (PGIC), change in sleep quality and global HRQOL measured using the EQ‐5D and VAS‐global HRQOL.ResultsOverall, 48% of patients had cirrhosis, 40% had diabetes, 16% the median age was 63, most were women (67%) and 81% were college educated. Both arms experienced a reduction in cramp severity—a median of 1.44 (.58–2.29) points for stretching and 1.97 (1.01–2.93) points for meditation. These changes were significant changes from baseline (p = .001 for stretching, p < .0001 for meditation) but these changes were equivalent between arms (p = .4). The PGIC was improved: 1.33 (1.02–1.65) for stretching, 1.05 (.70–1.41) for meditation, p‐difference .2. Sleep was also improved for both. HRQOL did not change according to the Eq5D; according to the VAS, HRQOL rose for meditation by 6 (.1–11.8) points but not for stretching. More patients recommended stretching than meditation (79.2% vs. 55.3%, p = .02).ConclusionIn a randomized trial, stretching and meditation both reduced cramp severity and improved sleep quality and global impression of change. While patients preferred stretching, there was no difference in effect between arms.
Management of coagulopathy among patients with cirrhosis undergoing upper endoscopy and paracentesis: Persistent gaps and areas of consensus in a multispecialty Delphi
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.
Quality measures in pre-liver transplant care by the Practice Metrics Committee of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases
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.
Manuscript best practices: Takeaways from a community conversation
Background: Following the adoption of new nomenclature for steatotic liver disease, we aimed to build consensus on the use of International Classification of Diseases codes and recommendations for future research and advocacy. Methods: Through a two-stage Delphi process, a core group (n = 20) reviewed draft statements and recommendations (n = 6), indicating levels of agreement. Following revisions, this process was repeated with a large expert panel (n = 243) from 73 countries. Results: Consensus ranged from 88.8% to 96.9% (mean = 92.3%). Conclusions: This global consensus statement provides guidance on harmonizing the International Classification of Diseases coding for steatotic liver disease and future directions to advance the field.
Precipitous changes in nomenclature and definitions—NAFLD becomes SLD: Implications for and expectations of AASLD journals