The patient with cirrhosis in the intensive care unit and the management of acute-on-chronic liver failure

Liver transplantation for alcohol-associated liver disease

Alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, and a leading indication for liver transplantation (LT) in many countries, including the United States. However, LT for ALD is a complex and evolving field with ethical, social, and medical challenges. Thus, it requires a multidisciplinary approach and individualized decision-making. Short-term and long-term patient and graft survival of patients undergoing LT for ALD are comparable to other indications, but there is a continued need to develop better tools to identify patients who may benefit from LT, improve the pretransplant and posttransplant management of ALD, and evaluate the impact of LT for ALD on the organ donation and transplantation systems. In this review, we summarize the current evidence on LT for ALD, from alcohol-associated hepatitis to decompensated alcohol-associated cirrhosis. We discuss the indications, criteria, outcomes, and controversies of LT for these conditions and highlight the knowledge gaps and research priorities in this field.

Should viscoelastic testing be a standard point-of-care test on all intensive care units?

Viscoelastic tests (VETs) have transformed assessment of haemostasis and transfusion practices in trauma, cardiac and liver transplantation centres. Impaired haemostasis is a common problem on the general intensive care unit (ICU), but routine use of VETs is rare. We have accordingly reviewed the evidence to determine whether there is evidence to support the use of VETs as a standard point of care test on all ICUs in assessing and managing patients. The benefits of using VETs in the management of major haemorrhage, namely faster identification of a coagulopathy, in particular early detection of fibrinolysis, and reduced transfusion requirements for blood products have been seen in the general ICU. Validation of treatments algorithms is now required to standardise practice. There is also emerging evidence to support the use of VETs to guide urgent treatment decisions in patients with a coagulopathy or in patients taking anti-coagulants or anti-platelet therapies. We recommend that departments independently review the feasibility of setting up a viscoelastic point of care service which considers the applicability to their patient cohort, the financial cost and the personnel required.

Critical care outcomes in decompensated cirrhosis: a United States national inpatient sample cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Prior assessments of critical care outcomes in patients with cirrhosis have shown conflicting results. We aimed to provide nationwide generalizable results of critical care outcomes in patients with decompensated cirrhosis.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study using the National Inpatient Sample from 2016 to 2019. Adults with cirrhosis who required respiratory intubation, central venous catheter placement or both (n = 12,945) with principal diagnoses including: esophageal variceal hemorrhage (EVH, 24%), hepatic encephalopathy (58%), hepatorenal syndrome (HRS, 14%) or spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (4%) were included. A comparison cohort of patients without cirrhosis requiring intubation or central line placement for any principal diagnosis was included.

RESULTS

Those with cirrhosis were younger (mean 58 vs. 63 years, p < 0.001) and more likely to be male (62% vs. 54%, p < 0.001). In-hospital mortality was higher in the cirrhosis cohort (33.1% vs. 26.6%, p < 0.001) and ranged from 26.7% in EVH to 50.6% HRS. Mortality when renal replacement therapy was utilized (n = 1580, 12.2%) was 46.5% in the cirrhosis cohort, compared to 32.3% in other hospitalizations (p < 0.001), and was lowest in EVH (25.7%) and highest in HRS (51.5%). Mortality when cardiopulmonary resuscitation was used was increased in the cirrhosis cohort (88.0% vs. 72.1%, p < 0.001) and highest in HRS (95.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

One-third of patients with cirrhosis requiring critical care did not survive to discharge in this U.S. nationwide assessment. While outcomes were worse than in patients without cirrhosis, the results do suggest better outcomes compared to previous studies.

Delayed referral for liver transplant evaluation worsens outcomes in chronic liver disease patients requiring inpatient transplant evaluation

BACKGROUND

Indications to refer patients with cirrhosis for liver transplant evaluation (LTE) include hepatic decompensation or a model for end stage liver disease (MELD-Na) score ≥ 15. Few studies have evaluated how delaying referral beyond these criteria affects patient outcomes.

AIM

To evaluate clinical characteristics of patients undergoing inpatient LTE and to assess the effects of delayed LTE on patient outcomes (death, transplantation).

METHODS

This is a single center retrospective cohort study assessing all patients undergoing inpatient LTE (n = 159) at a large quaternary care and liver transplant center between 10/23/2017-7/31/2021. Delayed referral was defined as having prior indication (decompensation, MELD-Na ≥ 15) for LTE without referral. Early referral was defined as referrals made within 3 mo of having an indication based on practice guidelines. Logistic regression and Cox Hazard Regression were used to evaluate the relationship between delayed referral and patient outcomes.

RESULTS

Many patients who require expedited inpatient LTE had delayed referrals. Misconceptions regarding transplant candidacy were a leading cause of delayed referral. Ultimately, delayed referrals negatively affected overall patient outcome and an independent predictor of both death and not receiving a transplant. Delayed referral was associated with a 2.5 hazard risk of death.

CONCLUSION

Beyond initial access to an liver transplant (LT) center, delaying LTE increases risk of death and reduces risk of LT in patients with chronic liver disease. There is substantial opportunity to increase the percentage of patients undergoing LTE when first clinically indicated. It is crucial for providers to remain informed about the latest guidelines on liver transplant candidacy and the transplant referral process.

Intensive Care Unit Care of a Patient with Cirrhosis

Patients with cirrhosis frequently require admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). Common indications for admission to ICU include one or more reasons of sepsis, shock due to any cause, acute gastrointestinal bleeding, and altered mentation either due to hepatic encephalopathy, alcohol withdrawal/intoxication, or metabolic encephalopathy. The appropriate critical care of an individual can determine the outcomes of these sick patients. The Airway, Breathing, Circulation, Disability (ABCD) approach to a patient admitted to ICU includes airway, breathing, circulation, and disability management. In this review, the authors discuss the common indications for ICU admission in a patient with cirrhosis and also their management.

Cirrhosis and fungal infections-a cocktail for catastrophe: A systematic review and meta-analysis with machine learning

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated the magnitude and factors contributing to poor outcomes among cirrhosis patients with fungal infections (FIs).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Ovid and WOS and included articles reporting mortality in cirrhosis with FIs. We pooled the point and relative-risk (RR) estimates of mortality on random-effects meta-analysis and explored their heterogeneity (I² ) on subgroups, meta-regression and machine learning (ML). We assessed the study quality through New-Castle-Ottawa Scale and estimate-asymmetry through Eggers regression. (CRD42019142782).

RESULTS

Of 4345, 34 studies (2134 patients) were included (good/fair/poor quality: 12/21/1). Pooled mortality of FIs was 64.1% (95% CI: 55.4-72.0, I² : 87%, p < .01), which was 2.1 times higher than controls (95% CI: 1.8-2.5, I² :89%, p < .01). Higher CTP (MD: +0.52, 95% CI: 0.27-0.77), MELD (MD: +2.75, 95% CI: 1.21-4.28), organ failures and increased hospital stay (30 vs. 19 days) were reported among cases with FIs. Patients with ACLF (76.6%, RR: 2.3) and ICU-admission (70.4%, RR: 1.6) had the highest mortality. The risk was maximum for pulmonary FIs (79.4%, RR: 1.8), followed by peritoneal FIs (68.3%, RR: 1.7) and fungemia (55%, RR: 1.7). The mortality was higher in FIs than in bacterial (RR: 1.7) or no infections (RR: 2.9). Estimate asymmetry was evident (p < 0.05). Up to 8 clusters and 5 outlier studies were identified on ML, and the estimate-heterogeneity was eliminated by excluding such studies.

CONCLUSIONS

A substantially worse prognosis, poorer than bacterial infections in cirrhosis patients with FIs, indicates an unmet need for improving fungal diagnostics and therapeutics in this population. ACLF and ICU admission should be included in the host criteria for defining IFIs.