Wadei, Hani M

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.

The Hispanic population of the United States is the second largest racial or ethnic group, comprising 18.7% of the population. However, this population is incredibly heterogeneous differing in genetic traits, cultural upbringing, educational backgrounds, and financial status. The impact of this heterogeneity on the prevalence and outcomes of renal disease and kidney transplantation is understudied compared with non-Hispanic White and Black populations. What is known appears to be underrecognized. This review aims to critically assess current medical literature on Hispanic individuals, focusing on etiological factors, disease progression, and outcomes related to CKD and kidney transplantation. By doing so, we aim to underscore key areas for further in-depth investigation.

Key points The study found a higher incidence of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) and recalcitrant CRS in cadaveric organ transplant recipients compared to those receiving living donor transplants. Recipients of cadaveric transplants were 1.32 times more likely to develop CRS and 1.68 times more likely to develop medically recalcitrant CRS. Living kidney transplants significantly reduced the risk of developing CRS (OR = 0.12) and recalcitrant CRS (OR = 0.11), highlighting a potentially protective effect against these conditions. In contrast, cadaveric liver transplants were associated with an increased risk of CRS and medically recalcitrant CRS. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis indicated a significant difference in time to CRS onset between cadaveric and living donor transplants. Median time to CRS onset was longer for living donor recipients (21.1 months) compared to cadaveric recipients (15.6 months). This study underscores the need for transplant teams and otolaryngologist to consider donor type during transplant follow‐up due to differing risks of CRS development.

ABSTRACTPerformance‐based measures of frailty are associated with healthcare utilization after kidney transplantation (KT) but require in‐person assessment. A promising alternative is self‐reported frailty. The goal of this study was to examine the ability of performance‐based and self‐reported frailty measures to predict 30‐day rehospitalizations after KT. We conducted a prospective, observational cohort study involving 272 adults undergoing KT at Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, Florida, or Arizona. We simultaneously measured frailty before KT using the physical frailty phenotype (PFP), the short physical performance battery (SPPB), and self‐report (the Patient‐Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS] 4‐item physical function short form v2.0). Both the PFP and self‐reported frailty were independently associated with more than a 2‐fold greater odds of 30‐day rehospitalizations, while the SPPB was not. To our knowledge, this is the first study to assess the prognostic value of all three of the above frailty measures in patients undergoing KT. The PFP is more prognostic than the SPPB when assessing the risk of 30‐day rehospitalizations; self‐reported frailty can complement the PFP but not replace it. However, the 4‐item survey assessing self‐reported frailty represents a simple way to identify patients undergoing KT surgery who would benefit from interventions to lower the risk of rehospitalizations.

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.

AbstractBackgroundSimultaneous liver kidney (SLK) transplant protects against acute cellular rejection. In 2017, UNOS implemented a “safety net” policy to allow patients with renal recovery to avoid renal transplantation. Whether kidney after liver transplantation (KALT) increases the risk of rejection is unknown.MethodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) database of adult patients who received liver transplant, SLK or KALT between 2010 and 2020. We examined rejection of the liver within 6 months and 1 year of the liver transplant, as well as rejection of the kidney within 6 months and 1 year of receiving the kidney, as well as patient and graft loss.ResultsSixty‐six thousand seventy‐nine patients were transplanted; 60 168 with liver transplant alone, 5627 with SLK, and 284 with KALT. Acute or chronic liver rejection rates within 6 or 12 months were statistically higher in the KALT group (10.0% and 10.9%) compared to the SLK group (6.1% and 7.5%), but comparable to the LTA group (9.3% and 11.1%). Kidney rejection and graft survival rates were not different. Liver graft survival was worse in KALT than SLK or LTA (Kaplan‐Meier estimates .61 vs. .89 and .90), but these patients were more ill at the time of transplantation. KDPI and LDRI scores were notably lower in the SLK than KALT group. Patient survival was not clinically different between the groups.ConclusionKALT does not increase the risk of acute or chronic kidney rejection. SLK has a lower risk of early liver rejection, but this effect diminishes by one year to being not clinically different compared to KALT. Given that KALT is immunologically safe, and potentially avoids unnecessary renal graft use, it should be preferred over SLK.Brief summaryPatients undergoing sequential kidney after liver transplant do not have an increased risk of liver or kidney rejection when compared to liver transplant alone or simultaneous liver and kidney transplant.

The number of kidney after liver transplants (KALT) increased after the implementation of the United Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS) safety net policy, but the effects of the policy on KALT outcomes remain unknown. Using the UNOS database, we identified KALT between 60 and 365 days from liver transplant from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2020. The main outcome was 1- and 3-year patient, liver, and kidney graft survival. Secondary outcomes included 6-month and 1-year acute rejection (AR) of liver and kidney, and 1-year kidney allograft function. Of the 256 KALT, 90 were pre-policy and 166 post-policy. Compared to pre-policy, post-policy 1- and 3-year liver graft survival was higher (54% and 54% vs. 86% and 81%, respectively, p <0.001), while 1- and 3-year kidney graft survival (99% and 75% vs. 92% and 79%, respectively, p =0.19), and 1- and 3-year patient survival (99% and 99% vs. 95% and 89%, respectively, p =0.11) were not significantly different. Subgroup analysis revealed similar trends in patients with and without renal failure at liver transplant. Liver AR at 6 months was lower post-policy (6.3% vs. 18.3%, p =0.006) but was similar (10.5% vs. 13%, p =0.63) at 1 year. Kidney AR was unchanged post-policy at 6 months and 1 year. Creatinine at 1 year did not differ post-policy versus pre-policy (1.4 vs. 1.3 mg/dL, p =0.07) despite a higher proportion of deceased donors, higher Kidney Donor Profile Index, and longer kidney cold ischemia time post-policy ( p <0.05 for all). This 3-year follow-up after the 2017 UNOS policy revision demonstrated that the safety net implementation has resulted in improved liver outcomes for patients who underwent KALT with no increased AR of the liver or the kidney allografts.

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is common in cirrhotic patients affecting almost 20% of these patients. While multiple etiologies can lead to AKI, pre-renal azotemia seems to be the most common cause of AKI. Irrespective of the cause, AKI is associated with worse survival with the poorest outcomes observed in those with hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) and acute tubular necrosis (ATN). In recent years, new definitions, and classifications of AKI in cirrhosis have emerged. More knowledge has also become available regarding the benefits and drawbacks of albumin and terlipressin use in these patients. Diagnostic tools such as urinary biomarkers and point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) became available and they will be used in the near future to differentiate between different causes of AKI and direct management of AKI in these patients. In this update, we will review these new classifications, treatment recommendations, and diagnostic tools for AKI in cirrhotic patients.