Is Routine Prophylaxis Against Pneumocystis jirovecii Needed in Liver Transplantation? A Retrospective Single-Centre Experience and Current Prophylaxis Strategies in Spain

In liver transplant (LT) recipients, Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PJP) is most frequently reported before 1992 when immunosuppressive regimens were more intense. It is uncertain whether universal PJP prophylaxis is still applicable in the contemporary LT setting. We aimed to examine the incidence of PJP in LT recipients followed at our institution where routine prophylaxis has never been practiced and to define the prophylaxis strategies currently employed among LT units in Spain. All LT performed from 1990 to October 2019 were retrospectively reviewed and Spanish LT units were queried via email to specify their current prophylaxis strategy. During the study period, 662 LT procedures were carried out on 610 patients. Five cases of PJP were identified, with only one occurring within the first 6 months. The cumulative incidence and incidence rate were 0.82% and 0.99 cases per 1000 person transplant years. All LT units responded, the majority of which provide prophylaxis (80%). Duration of prophylaxis, however, varied significantly. The low incidence of PJP in our unprophylaxed cohort, with most cases occurring beyond the usual recommended period of prophylaxis, questions a one-size-fits-all approach to PJP prophylaxis. A significant heterogeneity in prophylaxis strategies exists among Spanish LT centres.Funding: This study was supported by the Health Research Institute Marqués de Valdecilla. IDIVAL. Santander. NEXT VAL17/07 grant to José Ignacio Fortea Ormaechea

Clinical validation of risk scoring systems to predict risk of delayed bleeding after EMR of large colorectal lesions

[Background and Aims]: The Endoscopic Resection Group of the Spanish Society of Endoscopy (GSEED-RE) model and the Australian Colonic Endoscopic Resection (ACER) model were proposed to predict delayed bleeding (DB) after EMR of large superficial colorectal lesions, but neither has been validated. We validated and updated these models.[Methods]: A multicenter cohort study was performed in patients with nonpedunculated lesions ≥20 mm removed by EMR. We assessed the discrimination and calibration of the GSEED-RE and ACER models. Difficulty performing EMR was subjectively categorized as low, medium, or high. We created a new model, including factors associated with DB in 3 cohort studies.[Results]: DB occurred in 45 of 1034 EMRs (4.5%); it was associated with proximal location (odds ratio [OR], 2.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.31-6.16), antiplatelet agents (OR, 2.51; 95% CI, .99-6.34) or anticoagulants (OR, 4.54; 95% CI, 2.14-9.63), difficulty of EMR (OR, 3.23; 95% CI, 1.41-7.40), and comorbidity (OR, 2.11; 95% CI, .99-4.47). The GSEED-RE and ACER models did not accurately predict DB. Re-estimation and recalibration yielded acceptable results (GSEED-RE area under the curve [AUC], .64 [95% CI, .54-.74]; ACER AUC, .65 [95% CI, .57-.73]). We used lesion size, proximal location, comorbidity, and antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy to generate a new model, the GSEED-RE2, which achieved higher AUC values (.69-.73; 95% CI, .59-.80) and exhibited lower susceptibility to changes among datasets.[Conclusions]: The updated GSEED-RE and ACER models achieved acceptable prediction levels of DB. The GSEED-RE2 model may achieve better prediction results and could be used to guide the management of patients after validation by other external groups. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT 03050333.)Research support for this study was received from “La Caixa/Caja Navarra” Foundation (ID 100010434;project PR15/11100006)

A Scoring System to Determine Risk of Delayed Bleeding After Endoscopic Mucosal Resection of Large Colorectal Lesions.

After endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of colorectal lesions, delayed bleeding is the most common serious complication, but there are no guidelines for its prevention. We aimed to identify risk factors associated with delayed bleeding that required medical attention after discharge until day 15 and develop a scoring system to identify patients at risk. We performed a prospective study of 1214 consecutive patients with nonpedunculated colorectal lesions 20 mm or larger treated by EMR (n = 1255) at 23 hospitals in Spain, from February 2013 through February 2015. Patients were examined 15 days after the procedure, and medical data were collected. We used the data to create a delayed bleeding scoring system, and assigned a weight to each risk factor based on the β parameter from multivariate logistic regression analysis. Patients were classified as being at low, average, or high risk for delayed bleeding. Delayed bleeding occurred in 46 cases (3.7%, 95% confidence interval, 2.7%-4.9%). In multivariate analysis, factors associated with delayed bleeding included age ≥75 years (odds ratio [OR], 2.36; P The risk of delayed bleeding after EMR of large colorectal lesions is 3.7%. We developed a risk scoring system based on 6 factors that determined the risk for delayed bleeding (receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.77). The factors most strongly associated with delayed bleeding were right-sided lesions, aspirin use, and mucosal defects not closed by hemoclips. Patients considered to be high risk (score, 8-10) had a 40% probability of delayed bleeding