Palliative Care for Patients with End-Stage Liver Disease on the Liver Transplant Waiting List: An International Systematic Review

Terminal Hospitalizations in Liver Transplant Recipients: Reducing Costs and High-Intensity Care Through Palliative Care

IntroductionEnd-of-life care for liver transplant recipients is often characterized by high utilization of invasive procedures, prolonged hospital stays, and elevated health care costs. Despite evidence demonstrating that palliative care can reduce aggressive interventions, improve patient-centered outcomes, and lower costs, its integration into transplant care remains inconsistent.MethodsA retrospective analysis was conducted using the National Inpatient Sample database (2016-2021). Hospitalizations ending in death for liver transplant recipients were compared to non-recipients regarding invasive procedures, health care costs, and the impact of palliative care consultations. Assessed procedures included: mechanical ventilation, tracheostomy, enteral and parenteral nutrition support, red blood cell transfusion, renal replacement therapy, central line placement, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Multivariable regression models adjusted for demographic and clinical covariates were utilized.ResultsAmong 4,582,658 terminal hospitalizations, liver transplant recipients (n = 5995) were younger (mean age: 66.0 vs 70.9 years, P < 0.001), had higher comorbidity burdens, and were more likely to have undergone one or more of the assessed procedures (74.7% vs 58.4%, P < .001) compared to non-recipients. Hospitalization costs were increased in transplant recipients ($62,630 vs $46,930, P < .001). Palliative care consultations were associated with reduced procedure utilization (69.9% vs 83.7%, P < .001), shorter hospital stays, and lower costs ($46,930 vs $62,630, P < .001).DiscussionLiver transplant recipients face unique end-of-life care challenges, including greater reliance on high-intensity interventions and associated costs. Palliative care is associated with less invasive procedures and lower costs, highlighting the need for its integration into transplant care pathways.

Developing palliative care interventions in liver disease using formative and summative qualitative evaluation

Evaluation of the effectiveness of nascent care delivery interventions to integrate palliative care into end-stage-liver disease (ESLD) is limited. Intervention development and evaluation is a systematic, complex, and time-consuming process. Qualitative research approaches, known as formative and summative evaluations, are recommended during intervention development to explore intervention mechanisms, determine the need for refinement, and provide a deeper understanding of intervention efficacy, effectiveness, and implementation barriers and facilitators. Although qualitative formative and summative evaluations are resource-intensive, they provide critical information about intervention feasibility, patient and clinician acceptability, and patient-centeredness. This review summarizes how qualitative formative and summative evaluation methods can inform the design, adaptation, and evaluation of interventions to integrate palliative care into ESLD. We describe the completed qualitative summative evaluation study, embedded within PALliative Care for end stage LIVER diseases, an in-progress 19-site cluster randomized trial of hepatologist-led versus palliative specialist-led palliative care for patients with ESLD and their caregivers. We include patient, family, and clinician demographic data emphasizing how the sample is representative of the parent randomized clinical trial (RCT) and describe how the embedded qualitative study explored patient, family, and clinicians' perspectives on the intervention. Specifically, we sought to understand how the intervention was enacted (fidelity) and to provide a roadmap for future palliative care practice integration in ESLD. In conclusion, formative and summative evaluations play a vital role in improving interventions so that valuable and scarce palliative care resources are applied equitably and effectively and so that patients and their caregivers experience the best possible care and quality of life as they live with ESLD.

Early Integration of Palliative Care in Nononcological Patients: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Palliative care (PALC) is traditionally linked to end-of-life cancer care but also benefits advanced nononcological diseases.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review evaluated the impact of early PALC on quality of life (QOL), symptom management, advance care planning (ACP), and healthcare resource utilization (HRU) among nononcological patients.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched for randomized controlled trials and clinical studies published between January 2018 and April 2023. Participants were adult patients with nononcological diseases exposed to PALC interventions compared to usual care. Outcomes included QOL, symptom management, ACP, and HRU. The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane tools.

RESULTS

Seven studies were included involving 1118 patients. Early PALC positively affects pain interference and fatigue in heart failure (HF) patients and time until first readmission and days alive outside the hospital in end-stage liver disease (ESLD) patients. Benefits were noted in symptom burden for patients with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), anxiety and depression in stroke patients, and ACP in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) patients. However, results for anxiety and depression in HF patients are inconsistent, and no significant differences in QOL were observed in HF, ESLD, IPF, and COPD. The intervention did not improve overall QOL in HIV.

CONCLUSIONS

The impact of early PALC on health outcomes in nononcological diseases is inconsistent. Addressing barriers to early PALC integration and conducting further high-quality research are essential for optimizing care pathways and enhancing patient outcomes.

Integrating Palliative Care Consultation Into Inpatient Liver Transplant Evaluations: A Quality Improvement Study

Palliative care (PC) consultation in high-risk patients with liver disease who are undergoing liver transplant (LT) evaluation is underused due to common beliefs that PC would negatively impact a patient's desire for transplant. This population is at risk due to high morbidity, mortality, and negative impact to overall quality of life. A 4-week pilot study was conducted in a transplant surgical intensive care unit at a single academic center to increase PC consultation during inpatient LT evaluation and improve transitions in care. Two Plan, Do, Study, Act quality improvement cycles were subsequently led by the PC nurse practitioner and social worker to increase the effectiveness of this intervention. The first cycle (November 29, 2018, to September 30, 2019) identified the need to increase PC education of intensive care unit nurses and promote interdisciplinary collaboration. The second cycle (October 1, 2019, to June 13, 2022) modified the study protocol to prioritize high-risk patients undergoing inpatient LT evaluation. Palliative care consultation increased by 262.5% from 2018 to 2019, with consults completed on 19% of all patients admitted for inpatient LT evaluations throughout the duration of the quality improvement study. Palliative care consultation on high-risk patients undergoing inpatient LT evaluation is a promising targeted strategy to increase utilization of PC in this population.

The experiences of people with liver disease of palliative and end-of-life care in the United Kingdom-A systematic literature review and metasynthesis

BACKGROUND

Liver disease is a growing health concern and a major cause of death. It causes multiple symptoms, including financial, psychological and social issues. To address these challenges, palliative care can support people alongside active treatment, and towards the end of life, but little is known about the care experiences of individuals with liver disease in the United Kingdom. This review aimed to explore the palliative and end-of-life care experiences of people with liver disease in the United Kingdom.

METHOD

A systematic review was conducted using a five-stage process and following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses guidelines. Searches were across Web of Science, Scopus, EBSCO and grey literature until 10 May 2023. The review was registered through International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). NVivo 12.5 was used to facilitate data analysis (systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42022382649).

RESULTS

Of 6035 papers (excluding duplicates) found from searches, five met the inclusion criteria of primary research related to adults with liver disease receiving palliative and/or end-of-life care in the United Kingdom, published in English. Reflexive thematic analysis of the data was conducted. The themes identified were the experiences of people with liver disease of relating to healthcare professionals, using services, receiving support, and experiences of information and communication. These were connected by an overarching concept of disempowerment versus empowerment, with the notion of person-centred care as an important feature.

CONCLUSION

This review has found variations in the care experiences of people with advanced liver disease towards the end of life and an overall lack of access to specialist palliative care services. Where services are designed to be person-centred, experiences are more empowering. Further research is needed but with recognition that it is often unclear when care for people with liver disease is palliative or end-of-life.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

An online public involvement workshop was held on 18 April 2023 through Voice (2023). This included four people with liver disease and four carers to discuss the review findings and to design a qualitative research study to further explore the topic.

European Society for Organ Transplantation (ESOT) Consensus Statement on Outcome Measures in Liver Transplantation According to Value-Based Health Care

Liver transplantation is a highly complex, life-saving, treatment for many patients with advanced liver disease. Liver transplantation requires multidisciplinary teams, system-wide adaptations and significant investment, as well as being an expensive treatment. Several metrics have been proposed to monitor processes and outcomes, however these lack patient focus and do not capture all aspects of the process. Most of the reported outcomes do not capture those outcomes that matter to the patients. Adopting the principles of Value-Based Health Care (VBHC), may provide an opportunity to develop those metrics that matter to patients. In this article, we present a Consensus Statement on Outcome Measures in Liver Transplantation following the principles of VBHC, developed by a dedicated panel of experts under the auspices of the European Society of Organ Transplantation (ESOT) Guidelines' Taskforce. The overarching goal is to provide a framework to facilitate the development of outcome measures as an initial step to apply the VMC paradigm to liver transplantation.

Palliative Care and End-of-Life Outcomes in Patients Considered for Liver Transplantation: A Single-Center Experience in the US Midwest

Introduction: Previous research has shown limited palliative care (PC) utilization among patients evaluated for liver transplantation (LT) despite the cohort's significant symptom burden, high frequency of hospitalization and risk of rapid decompensation. Our aim was to evaluate patient characteristics and end-of-life (EOL) outcomes (i.e. ICU utilization, code status, advance care planning) associated with the use of PC services in patients who were evaluated for LT. Methods: We performed a single-center cross-sectional study comprised of 223 deceased patients evaluated for LT between 1/1/2017 and 12/31/2021. We evaluated demographic characteristics and EOL outcomes for differences between patients who received PC consultation and those who did not. EOL outcomes associated with PC use were assessed using logistic and linear regression analysis adjusted for patient demographics. Results: Patients who received PC consultation were younger (mean 57 vs. 61; P = 0.048), had higher Model for end-stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores (27.5 vs. 22; P = 0.001), higher rates of hepatic encephalopathy (96% vs. 84%, P = 0.005), and were more frequently declined for LT (77% vs. 57%; P = 0.008). Patients who received PC services were less likely to die in the ICU (OR = 0.07 [0.02-0.18]) and were more likely to have documented advance care planning (OR = 3.16 [1.47-6.97]), family meetings (OR = 6.58 [2.72-17.08]), and goals-of-care discussions (OR = 14.83 [4.39-69.29]). Conclusion: For patients being evaluated for LT, PC utilization differed based on demographics, disease complications and severity, and transplant status. Those who received PC services had higher quality EOL care planning and fewer ICU admissions.

Palliative Care and Advanced Directive Practices at Liver Transplant Centers in the United States

Introduction: Patients with cirrhosis have a decreased quality of life due to decompensations of their underlying disease. While liver transplantation (LT) has improved outcomes and quality of life for patients with cirrhosis, many patients die or are delisted before transplant. Despite high morbidity and mortality, palliative care (PC) services are underutilized for patients with cirrhosis. Methods: To evaluate current PC and advance care practices at LT centers, a survey was designed and sent to 115 U.S. LT centers. Results: Forty-two surveys were completed (37% response rate) with representation from all United Network for Organ Sharing regions. Nineteen institutions (46.3%) reported 100 or fewer waitlisted patients, while 22 (53.6%) reported more than 100. Twenty-five institutions (59.5%) reported 100 or fewer transplants performed in the last year and 17 (40.5%) reported more than 100. Nineteen transplant centers (45.2%) require patients to discuss advance directives as part of the LT evaluation, while 23 (54.8%) do not. Only 5 centers (12.2%) reported having a dedicated PC provider as part of their transplant team and only 2 reported requiring patients to meet with a PC provider as part of the LT evaluation process. Discussion: This study shows many LT centers do not engage their patients in advance directive discussions and highlights the underutilization of PC services in the LT evaluation process. Our results also show minimal advancement in the collaboration between PC and transplant hepatology over the last decade. Encouraging or requiring LT centers to hold advance directive discussions and incorporate PC providers into the transplant team is a recommended area for improvement.

Healthcare burden and outcomes of hepatorenal syndrome among cirrhosis-related hospitalisations in the US

BACKGROUND

Hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) contributes to significant morbidity and mortality in hospitalised patients with cirrhosis.

AIMS

To examine recent trends, magnitude and outcomes of HRS in the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database METHODS: Among the NIS database on cirrhosis hospitalisations (2016-2019) due to alcohol (ALD), chronic viral hepatitis (CVH), or NASH and complicated by acute kidney injury (AKI) were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of 113,454 hospitalisations, 18,735 (16.5%) had HRS (mean age 56 years, 36% females, 68% whites, 80% ALD, 7% NASH) with a stable trend over time. Among 1:1 propensity-matched 36,090 hospitalisations, the odds of HRS were 12% higher in NASH versus CVH. Based on weighted national estimates, there were 27,180 (8.3 per 100,000 US population) HRS hospitalisations in 2019, with economic burden of $4.2 billion USD. Mean hospitalisation and total charges (ALD vs. CVH vs. NASH) were 11 versus 10.8 versus 9.2 days and 151,000 versus 157,000 versus 120,000 USD, respectively; p < 0.001. In-hospital mortality was 18.9%, higher in HRS (25.8 vs. 12%, p < 0.001), and decreased by 15% annually. Survivors were more likely to be discharged to short- or long-term care facilities (HRS vs. non-HRS [42 vs. 27%, p < 0.001]); only 28.7% received palliative care.

CONCLUSION

HRS was the cause of AKI in 16.5% of patients hospitalised with cirrhosis and conferred significant healthcare burden with 27,180 HRS hospitalisations in 2019 and requiring an estimated 4.2 billion USD for hospital care. While there has been a decrease in in-hospital mortality over time, it remained high at 23.7% in 2019 in those with HRS.

Hospice care for end stage liver disease in the United States

INTRODUCTION

Patients with end-stage liver disease (ESLD) have impaired physical, psychological, and social functions, which can diminish patient quality of life, burden family caregivers, and increase health-care utilization. For those with a life expectancy of less than six months, these impairments and their downstream effects can be addressed effectively through high-quality hospice care, delivered by multidisciplinary teams and focused on the physical, emotional, social, and spiritual wellbeing of patients and caregivers, with a goal of improving quality of life.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, we examine the evidence supporting hospice for ESLD, we compare this evidence to that supporting hospice more broadly, and we identify potential criteria that may be useful in determining hospice appropriateness.

EXPERT OPINION

Despite the potential for hospice to improve care for those at the end of life, it is underutilized for patients with ESLD. Increasing the appropriate utilization of hospice for ESLD requires a better understanding of patient eligibility, which can be based on predictors of high short-term mortality and liver transplant ineligibility. Such hospice criteria should be data-driven and should accommodate the uncertainty faced by patients and physicians.

Do screening tools assess palliative care needs and 12-month mortality in patients admitted to hepatology in-patient wards?

BACKGROUND

Many liver patients have unmet palliative care needs, but liver clinicians are unclear whom to refer to specialist palliative care (SPC). The Supportive and Palliative Care Indicator Tool (SPICT) and the Bristol Prognostic Screening Tool (BPST) could help identify suitable patients, but neither has been tested for this role. This study evaluated their role as screening tools for palliative care needs and for predicting 12-month mortality.

METHODS

A case note review of hepatology in-patients, who were not peritransplant and post-transplant status, was conducted in one tertiary unit. Main outcomes were clinical judgement of need for SPC referral, BPST scores, SPICT attribution of caseness and 12-month survival status. Discriminatory ability of tools was assessed using sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve.

RESULTS

117 medical notes were reviewed for survival analysis, 47 of which were additionally assessed for suitability for SPC referral, using clinical judgement. SPICT (sensitivity=93%; PPV=93%; AUROC=0.933) and BPST (sensitivity=59%, PPV=79%, AUROC=0.693) demonstrated excellent and good performance, respectively, in predicting patients' need for SPC referral. SPICT and BPST only had moderate ability at predicting death at 12 months (PPV: 54% and 56%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

SPICT and BPST show potential as screening tools for identifying patients for referral to SPC. Further work is needed to determine how to implement these tools in a clinical setting.