Longterm Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Liver Transplantation for Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure

AIMS: Recent data have demonstrated greater than 80% one-year survival probability after liver transplantation (LT) for patients with severe acute on chronic liver failure (ACLF). However, long term outcomes and complications are still unknown for this population. Our aim was to compare long-term patient and graft survival among patients transplanted across all grades of ACLF. METHODS: We analyzed the UNOS database, years 2004-2017. Patients with ACLF were identified using the EASL-CLIF criteria. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression methods were used to determine patient and graft survival and associated predictors of mortality in adjusted models. RESULTS: A total of 75,844 patients were transplanted of which 48,854 (64.4%) had no ACLF, 9,337 (12.3%) had ACLF-1, 9,386 (12.4%) had ACLF-2 and 8,267 (10.9%) had ACLF-3. Patients transplanted without ACLF had a greater proportion of hepatocellular carcinoma within (23.8%) and outside (12.7%) Milan criteria. Five-year patient survival after LT was lower in the ACLF-3 patients compared with the other groups (67.7%, p<0.001), although after year 1, the percentage decrease in survival was similar among all groups. Infection was the primary cause of death among all patient groups in the first year. After the first year, infection was the main cause of death in patients transplanted with ACLF-1 (31.1%), ACLF-2 (33.3%) and ACLF-3 (36.7%), whereas malignancy was the predominant cause of death in those transplanted with no ACLF (38.5%). Graft survival probability at 5 years was above 90% among all patient groups. CONCLUSION: Patients transplanted with ACLF-3 have lower 5-year survival as compared to ACLF 0-2 but mortality rates were not significantly different after the first year following LT. Graft survival was excellent across all ACLF groups

Baseline neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio predicts response to corticosteroids and is associated with infection and renal dysfunction in alcoholic hepatitis

Background Treating severe alcoholic hepatitis involves the exposure of patients to corticosteroids for 7 days to assess “response”. Aim To assess the prognostic and therapeutic implications of baseline neutrophil‐to‐lymphocyte ratio (NLR) in patients with severe alcoholic hepatitis. Methods Patients recruited to the STOPAH trial and an independent validation group were analysed retrospectively. Area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) analysis was performed. Kaplan‐Meier analysis was used to assess survival. Log‐rank test and odds ratio (OR) were used for comparative analysis. Results Baseline NLR was available for 789 STOPAH patients. The AUC for NLR was modest for 90‐day outcome (0.660), but was associated with infection, acute kidney injury (AKI) and severity of alcoholic hepatitis. Ninety‐day survival was not affected by prednisolone treatment if NLR 8 but mortality was reduced with prednisolone treatment when the NLR was 5‐8 (21.0% cf. 34.5%; P = 0.012). Prednisolone treatment increased the chance of Lille response if the NLR was ≥ 5 (56.5% cf. 41.1%: P = 0.01; OR 1.86) but increased the risk of day 7 infection (17.3% cf. 7.4%: P = 0.006; OR 2.60) and AKI (20.8% cf. 7.0%: P = 0.008; OR 3.46) if the NLR was > 8. Incorporation of NLR into a modified Glasgow alcoholic hepatitis score (mGAHS) improved the AUC to 0.783 and 0.739 for 28‐day and 90‐day outcome, respectively. Conclusion The NLR is associated with AKI and infection in severe alcoholic hepatitis. The NLR identifies those most likely to benefit from corticosteroids at baseline (NLR 5‐8). The mGAHS has a good predictive value for 28‐ and 90‐day outcomes

Update on extracorporeal liver support

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Extracorporeal liver support (ELS) is a large unmet need in day-to-day hepatology practice. In an era of ever-improving outcomes with liver transplantation for very sick patients with either acute liver failure (ALF) or acute-on-chronic liver failure, the outcomes for similar patients who are ineligible for transplantation remains poor. Providing a bridge to recovery from these catastrophic conditions is the aim of ELS, and we aim to review the evidence to date of different ELS devices as well as look to the future of ELS device development. RECENT FINDINGS: Studies on different ELS devices shave been relatively consistent in their inability to demonstrate a survival benefit; however, recent published evidence has suggested ways in which the three key pillars to ELS – the disease (patient selection), device (ELS system), and dose (intensity) – may be modified to attain a more positive outcome. New devices are grasping these concepts and demonstrating encouraging preclinical results. SUMMARY: ELS devices to studied to date have not been able to significantly improve transplant-free survival. Newer ELS devices are currently in clinical trials and their results are awaited

Longterm Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Liver Transplantation for Acute‐on‐Chronic Liver Failure

AIMS: Recent data have demonstrated greater than 80% one-year survival probability after liver transplantation (LT) for patients with severe acute on chronic liver failure (ACLF). However, long term outcomes and complications are still unknown for this population. Our aim was to compare long-term patient and graft survival among patients transplanted across all grades of ACLF. METHODS: We analyzed the UNOS database, years 2004-2017. Patients with ACLF were identified using the EASL-CLIF criteria. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression methods were used to determine patient and graft survival and associated predictors of mortality in adjusted models. RESULTS: A total of 75,844 patients were transplanted of which 48,854 (64.4%) had no ACLF, 9,337 (12.3%) had ACLF-1, 9,386 (12.4%) had ACLF-2 and 8,267 (10.9%) had ACLF-3. Patients transplanted without ACLF had a greater proportion of hepatocellular carcinoma within (23.8%) and outside (12.7%) Milan criteria. Five-year patient survival after LT was lower in the ACLF-3 patients compared with the other groups (67.7%, p<0.001), although after year 1, the percentage decrease in survival was similar among all groups. Infection was the primary cause of death among all patient groups in the first year. After the first year, infection was the main cause of death in patients transplanted with ACLF-1 (31.1%), ACLF-2 (33.3%) and ACLF-3 (36.7%), whereas malignancy was the predominant cause of death in those transplanted with no ACLF (38.5%). Graft survival probability at 5 years was above 90% among all patient groups. CONCLUSION: Patients transplanted with ACLF-3 have lower 5-year survival as compared to ACLF 0-2 but mortality rates were not significantly different after the first year following LT. Graft survival was excellent across all ACLF groups