Citations

Sleep disturbances are common in chronic liver disease and significantly impact patient outcomes and quality of life. The severity and nature of sleep disturbances vary by liver disease etiology and severity. While there is ongoing research into the association between liver disease and sleep-wake dysfunction, the underlying pathophysiology varies and, in many cases, is poorly understood. Liver disease is associated with alterations in thermoregulation, inflammation, and physical activity, and is associated with disease-specific complications, such as HE, that may directly affect sleep. In this article, we review the relevant pathophysiologic processes, disease-specific sleep-wake disturbances, and clinical management of CLD-associated sleep-wake disturbances.

AbstractLiver transplantation (LT) with hepatitis B core antibody (anti‐HBc) positive grafts to hepatitis B surface‐antigen (HBsAg) negative recipients is safe and has likely contributed to improvements in organ access over the years. The incidence of de novo hepatitis B infection (HBV) in these instances is low with appropriate prophylaxis and is affected by recipient immunologic status. There is debate as to whether hepatitis B surface antibody (anti‐HBs) positivity may safely inform prophylaxis discontinuation post‐LT. In this retrospective study of all hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) negative recipients of anti‐HBc positive organs at three large academic centers between January 2014 and December 2019, nine LT recipients discontinued prophylaxis after developing anti‐HBs antibodies 1 year or later post‐LT. Three of the nine patients (33%) developed de novo HBV, defined by positive HBsAg or hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA, during the study period. The remaining six patients had no evidence of HBV infection after a mean follow‐up of 37 months. The patients without de novo HBV had higher anti‐HBs titers at the time of prophylaxis discontinuation and were less likely to have negative anti‐HBs at the time of transplant or negative anti‐HBc at any time point. These results suggest that quantitative anti‐HBs titer thresholds rather than qualitative anti‐HBs positivity at 1 year or later after LT should be used to identify patients at decreased risk of de novo infection and help guide prophylaxis duration.

The term “futility” in liver transplantation is used inappropriately and inaccurately, as it is frequently applied to patient populations with suboptimal outcomes that are often not truly “futile.” The term “futile” is used interchangeably with poor outcomes. Not all poor outcomes fulfill a definition of futility when considering all viewpoints. Definitions of “futility” are variable throughout the medical literature. We review futility in the context of liver transplantation, encompassing various viewpoints, with a goal to propose focused outcome definitions, including futility, that encompass broader viewpoints, and improve the utilization of “futility” to truly futile situations, and improve communication between providers and patients/families. Focused, appropriate definitions will help the transplant community develop better models to more accurately predict and avoid futile transplants, and better predict an individual patient’s posttransplant outcome.

Occurrence of metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) is common following liver transplantation (LT). MASLD can be classified as a recurrent disease when it occurs in patients receiving LT for metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH) or as de novo when it occurs in patients undergoing transplantation for non-metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis etiologies of liver disease. Fibrosis progression in patients with MASLD is accelerated, with progression to cirrhosis occurring more rapidly compared with the general (ie, non-LT) population. Moreover, the metabolic burden in LT recipients with MASLD is high and synergizes with liver disease to negatively affect the clinical course. Despite the oversized clinical burden of MASLD among LT recipients, there is currently a lack of regulatory approach and pathway for therapeutics development in this patient population. The present document, thus, provides guidance for therapeutics development that incorporates nuances of transplant care in patients with post-LT MASLD to facilitate drug development.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading complication after liver transplantation and has a significant impact on patients’ outcomes posttransplant. The major risk factors for post–liver transplant CVD are age, preexisting CVD, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, chronic kidney disease, and metabolic syndrome. This review explores the contemporary strategies and approaches to minimizing cardiometabolic disease burden in liver transplant recipients. We highlight areas for potential intervention to reduce the mortality of patients with metabolic syndrome and CVD after liver transplantation.

Background. Surgical-site infections (SSIs) are common in liver transplant recipients. The optimal SSI antimicrobial prophylaxis agent and duration are not established. We aimed to explore risk factors for SSIs after transplant, with a particular interest in the impact of perioperative antibiotic regimen on the development of SSIs. Methods. Retrospective study of adults undergoing liver transplant across 3 transplant programs between January 1, 2020, and June 01, 2021. Results. Of 557 patients included in the study, 32 (5.7%) were infected or colonized with a multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) within 1 y before liver transplant. Narrow-spectrum SSI prophylaxis with ceftriaxone or cefazolin alone was administered in 488 of 577 patients (87.6%); the remaining 69 patients (12.4%) received broad-spectrum prophylaxis with vancomycin and aztreonam (n = 40), piperacillin–tazobactam (n = 11), carbapenems (n = 8), ceftriaxone and another antibiotic (n = 7), and others. Patients with pretransplant MDRO were more likely to receive broad-spectrum coverage than those without pretransplant MDROs (28.1% versus 11.4%, P = 0.005). SSIs were identified in 40 patients (7.2%); 25 (62.5%) were organ–space infections, 3 (7.5%) were deep incisional infections, and 12 (30.0%) were superficial incisional infections. The median time from liver transplant to SSIs was 14 d (interquartile range, 10–20.2). MDROs were identified in 12 SSIs (30%). Multivariable analysis revealed no significant association between antimicrobial spectrum and risk of SSIs (P = 0.5), whereas surgical leak (P<0.001) and reoperation (P = 0.017) were independently associated with increased risk of SSIs. SSIs were not significantly associated with composite risk of death or liver allograft failure. Conclusions. The spectrum of antimicrobial prophylaxis did not impact the development of SSIs in liver transplant recipients.

Background. When a partial liver graft is unable to meet the demands of the recipient, a clinical phenomenon, small-for-size syndrome (SFSS), may ensue. Clear definition, diagnosis, and management are needed to optimize transplant outcomes. Methods. A Consensus Scientific committee (106 members from 21 countries) performed an extensive literature review on specific aspects of SFSS, recommendations underwent blinded review by an independent panel, and discussion/voting on the recommendations occurred at the Consensus Conference. Results. The ideal graft-to-recipient weight ratio of ≥0.8% (or graft volume standard liver volume ratio of ≥40%) is recommended. It is also recommended to measure portal pressure or portal blood flow during living donor liver transplantation and maintain a postreperfusion portal pressure of <15 mm Hg and/or portal blood flow of <250 mL/min/100 g graft weight to optimize outcomes. The typical time point to diagnose SFSS is the postoperative day 7 to facilitate treatment and intervention. An objective 3-grade stratification of severity for protocolized management of SFSS is proposed. Conclusions. The proposed grading system based on clinical and biochemical factors will help clinicians in the early identification of patients at risk of developing SFSS and institute timely therapeutic measures. The validity of this newly created grading system should be evaluated in future prospective studies.