Citations

Loss of muscle mass and function, or sarcopenia, is a common feature of cirrhosis and contributes significantly to morbidity and mortality in this population. Sarcopenia is a main indicator of adverse outcomes in this population, including poor quality of life, hepatic decompensation, mortality in patients with cirrhosis evaluated for liver transplantation (LT), longer hospital and intensive care unit stay, higher incidence of infection following LT, and higher overall health care cost. Although it is clear that muscle mass is an important predictor of LT outcomes, many questions remain, including the best modality for assessing muscle mass, the optimal cut‐off values for sarcopenia, the ideal timing and frequency of muscle mass assessment, and how to best incorporate the concept of sarcopenia into clinical decision making. For these reasons, we assembled a group of experts to form the North American Working Group on Sarcopenia in Liver Transplantation to use evidence from the medical literature to address these outstanding questions regarding sarcopenia in LT. We believe sarcopenia assessment should be considered in all patients with cirrhosis evaluated for liver transplantation. Skeletal muscle index (SMI) assessed by computed tomography constitutes the best‐studied technique for assessing sarcopenia in patients with cirrhosis. Cut‐off values for sarcopenia, defined as SMI < 50 cm 2 /m 2 in male and < 39 cm 2 /m 2 in female patients, constitute the validated definition for sarcopenia in patients with cirrhosis. Conclusion: The management of sarcopenia requires a multipronged approach including nutrition, exercise, and additional pharmacological therapy as deemed necessary. Future studies should evaluate whether recovery of sarcopenia with nutritional management in combination with an exercise program is sustainable as well as how improvement in muscle mass might be associated with improvement in clinical outcomes.

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.

Acute on chronic liver failure (ACLF) is the culmination of chronic liver disease and extrahepatic organ failures, which is associated with a high short‐term mortality and immense health care expenditure. There are varying definitions for organ failures and ACLF in Europe, North America, and Asia. These differing definitions need to be reconciled to enhance progress in the field. The pathogenesis of ACLF is multifactorial and related to interactions between the immunoinflammatory system, microbiota, and the various precipitating factors. Individual organ failures related to the kidney, brain, lungs, and circulation have cumulative adverse effects on mortality and are often complicated or precipitated by infections. Strategies to prevent and rapidly treat these organ failures are paramount in improving survival. With the aging population and paucity of organs for liver transplant, the prognosis of ACLF patients is poor, highlighting the need for novel therapeutic strategies. The role of liver transplant in ACLF is evolving and needs further investigation across large consortia. A role for early palliative care and management of frailty as approaches to alleviate disease burden and improve patient‐reported outcomes is being increasingly recognized. Conclusion: ACLF is a clinically relevant syndrome that is epidemic worldwide and requires a dedicated multinational approach focused on prognostication and management; investigations are underway worldwide to prepare ACLF for prime time. (Hepatology 2018; 00:000‐000)

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)