Citations

Background and Aims Compared to other chronic diseases, patients with chronic liver disease (CLD) have significantly higher inpatient mortality; accurate models to predict inpatient mortality are lacking. Serum lactate (LA) may be elevated in patients with CLD due to both tissue hypoperfusion as well as decreased LA clearance. We hypothesized that a parsimonious model consisting of Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease (MELD) and LA at admission may predict inpatient mortality in patients with CLD. Approach and Results We examined all patients with CLD in two large and diverse health care systems in Texas (North Texas [NTX] and Central Texas [CTX]) between 2010 and 2015. We developed (n = 3,588) and validated (n = 1,804) a model containing MELD and LA measured at the time of hospitalization. We further validated the model in a second cohort of 14 tertiary care hepatology centers that prospectively enrolled nonelective hospitalized patients with cirrhosis (n = 726). MELD‐LA was an excellent predictor of inpatient mortality in development (concordance statistic [C‐statistic] = 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79‐0.82) and both validation cohorts (CTX cohort, C‐statistic = 0.85, 95% CI 0.78‐0.87; multicenter cohort C‐statistic = 0.82, 95% CI 0.74‐0.88). MELD‐LA performed especially well in patients with specific cirrhosis diagnoses (C‐statistic = 0.84, 95% CI 0.81‐0.86) or sepsis (C‐statistic = 0.80, 95% CI 0.78‐0.82). For MELD score 25, inpatient mortality rates were 11.2% (LA = 1 mmol/L), 19.4% (LA = 3 mmol/L), 34.3% (LA = 5 mmol/L), and >50% (LA > 8 mmol/L). A linear increase (P < 0.01) was seen in MELD‐LA and increasing number of organ failures. Overall, use of MELD‐LA improved the risk prediction in 23.5% of patients compared to MELD alone. Conclusions MELD‐LA (bswh.md/meldla) is an early and objective predictor of inpatient mortality and may serve as a model for risk assessment and guide therapeutic options.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cirrhosis are growing older and the overlap between hepatic encephalopathy (HE) & pre-dementia mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is unclear. HE affects visuospatial/psychomotor speed while MCI affects memory. Aim: Determine the performance of elderly cirrhotics on tests for HE and dementia and their impact on quality of life (QOL). METHODS: Outpatient cirrhotics and controls ages 65–95 years were recruited at 4 centers. Subjects had to have MMSE > 25, no current HE or dementia to be eligible. All subjects got tests for HE (psychometric hepatic encephalopathy score, PHES: 5 tests & low score = poor, EncephalApp, OffTime + OnTime, high score = poor) and QOL: Sickness Impact profile (SIP, high score = poor QOL). Cirrhotics also got tests for MCI; RBANS (tests immediate memory, delayed memory, language, visuo-spatial & attention). A neuro-psychologist evaluated results and divided cirrhotics into (A) unimpaired (B) MCI only (C) HE only & (D) (MCI/HE overlap). Demographics, MELD, alcohol etiology, and SIP were compared. Finally, age, gender and education-adjusted norms were created for PHES and EncephalApp based on the controls. Presence of MHE and sensitivity of EncephalApp for MHE diagnosis were evaluated. RESULTS: 109 cirrhotics and 100 non-cirrhotic subjects were included. Demographics/education levels were statistically similar between centers. Controls were older than cirrhotics (74.9 ± 6.6 vs 70.5 ± 4.4, P < 0.05) and had similar education/gender distribution. Despite this, controls performed better than cirrhotics on all tests (PHES 2.9 ± 12.4 vs −4.5 ± +4.5, P < 0.001, EncephalApp Off+On 181.4 ± +71.9 vs 218.2 ± +80.0, P = 0.03) and had a better QOL (SIP total 3.8 ± +7.1 vs 7.9 ± +9.5, Psych 3.3 ± +8.4 vs 7.2 ± +11.1, Phys 3.0 ± +6.2 vs 6.7 ± +9.5, all P < 0.001). Within cirrhosis subgroups (Table 1), demographics, MELD/alc & MMSE were similar. Pts with both MCI/HE had worse cognition on all tests, which translated into a worse QOL compared to other groups. Presence of HE, with/without MCI, contributed towards poor QOL. Norms for PHES/EncephalApp: Adjusting for age, gender & education, 17% (n = 17) patients were positive for MHE on PHES compared to controls. On EncephalApp, 49% (n = 47) patients were positive. AUC for EncephalApp using PHES as the gold standard was 0.86 (0.78-0.95 CI). CONCLUSIONS: In this multi-center study, adjusted norms defining the high sensitivity of EncephalApp to diagnose HE in older individuals were created. Presence of HE regardless of MCI contributed towards poor cognition and QOL in patients >65 years.

OBJECTIVES: Nosocomial infections (NIs) can be a major cause of morbidity and mortality in cirrhosis. This study aims to define the determinants of NI development and its impact on 30-day outcomes among hospitalized patients with cirrhosis. METHODS: North American Consortium for the Study of End-Stage Liver Disease enrolled patients with cirrhosis who were admitted nonelectively. Admission variables and 30-day outcomes were compared between patients with and without NI. These were also compared based on whether there was an isolated admission infection, NI, or both. Models were created for NI development using admission variables and for 30-day mortality. RESULTS: The study included 2,864 patients; of which, 15% (n = 436) developed NI. When comparing NI vs no NI, 1,866 patients were found to be infection free, whereas 562 had admission infections only, 228 had only NI, and 208 had both infections. At admission, patients with NI were more likely to be infected and have advanced cirrhosis. NIs were associated with higher rates of acute-on-chronic liver failure, death, and transplant regardless of admission infections. Patients with NI had higher respiratory infection, urinary tract infection, Clostridium difficile infection, fungal infections, and infection with vancomycin-resistant enterococci compared with patients without NI. Risk factors for NIs were admission infections, model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) > 20, systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria, proton pump inhibitor, rifaximin, and lactulose use, but the regression model (sensitivity, 0.67; specificity, 0.63) was not robust. Age, alcohol etiology, admission MELD score, lactulose use, acute-on-chronic liver failure, acute kidney injury, intensive care unit, and NI increased the risk of death, whereas rifaximin decreased the risk of death. DISCUSSION: NIs are prevalent in hospitalized patients with cirrhosis and are associated with poor outcomes. Although higher MELD scores and systemic inflammatory response syndrome are associated with NI, all hospitalized patients with cirrhosis require vigilance and preventive strategies.

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.