Advanced non-alcoholic steatohepatitis cirrhosis: A high-risk population for pre-liver transplant portal vein thrombosis

AIMTo examine if liver transplant recipients with high-risk non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) are at increased risk for pre-transplant portal venous thrombosis. METHODSData on all liver transplants in the United States from February 2002 through September 2014 were analyzed. Recipients were sorted into three distinct groups: High-risk (age > 60, body mass index > 30 kg/m2, hypertension and diabetes), low-risk and non-NASH cirrhosis. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed. RESULTSThirty-five thousand and seventy-two candidates underwent liver transplantation and of those organ recipients, 465 were transplanted for high-risk and 2775 for low-risk NASH. Two thousand six hundred and twenty-six (7.5%) recipients had pre-transplant portal vein thrombosis; 66 (14.2%) of the high-risk NASH group had portal vein thrombosis vs 328 (11.8%) of the low-risk NASH group. In general, all NASH recipients were less likely to be male or African American and more likely to be obese. In adjusted multivariable regression analyses, high-risk recipients had the greatest risk of pre-transplant portal vein thrombosis with OR = 2.11 (95%CI: 1.60-2.76, P CONCLUSIONLiver transplant candidates with high-risk NASH are at the greatest risk for portal vein thrombosis development prior to transplantation. These candidates may benefit from interventions to decrease their likelihood of clot formation and resultant downstream hepatic decompensating events. Prospective study is needed.

Portal vein thrombosis, mortality and hepatic decompensation in patients with cirrhosis: A meta-analysis

AIM: To determine the clinical impact of portal vein thrombosis in terms of both mortality and hepatic decompensations(variceal hemorrhage, ascites, portosystemic encephalopathy) in adult patients with cirrhosis.METHODS: We identified original articles reported through February 2015 in MEDLINE, Scopus, Science Citation Index, AMED, the Cochrane Library, and relevant examples available in the grey literature. Two independent reviewers screened all citations for inclusion criteria and extracted summary data. Random effects odds ratios were calculated to obtain aggregate estimates of effect size across included studies, with 95%CI.RESULTS: A total of 226 citations were identified and reviewed, and 3 studies with 2436 participants were included in the meta-analysis of summary effect. Patients with portal vein thrombosis had an increased risk of mortality(OR = 1.62, 95%CI: 1.11-2.36, P = 0.01). Portal vein thrombosis was associated with an increased risk of ascites(OR = 2.52, 95%CI: 1.63-3.89, P < 0.001). There was insufficient data available to determine the pooled effect on other markers of decompensation including gastroesophageal variceal bleeding or hepatic encephalopathy. CONCLUSION: Portal vein thrombosis appears to increase mortality and ascites, however, the relatively small number of included studies limits more generalizable conclusions. More trials with a direct comparison group are needed.

Vasopressin use in critically ill cirrhosis patients with catecholamine-resistant septic shock: The CVICU cohort

AIM To examine patient-centered outcomes with vasopressin(AVP) use in patients with cirrhosis with catecholaminerefractory septic shock. METHODS We conducted a single center, retrospective cohort study enrolling adult patients with cirrhosis treated for catecholamine-resistant septic shock in the intensive care unit(ICU) from March 2011 through December 2013. Other etiologies of shock were excluded. Multivariable regression models were constructed for seven and 28-d mortality comparing AVP as a second-line therapy to a group of all other vasoactive agents. RESULTS Forty-five consecutive patients with cirrhosis were treated for catecholamine-resistant septic shock; 21 received AVP while the remaining 24 received another agent [phenylephrine(10), dopamine(6), norepinephrine(4), dobutamine(2), milrinone(2)]. In general,no significant differences in baseline demographics, etiology of cirrhosis, laboratory values, vital signs or ICU mortality/severity of illness scores were observed with the exception of higher MELD scores in the AVP group(32.4, 95%CI: 28.6-36.2 vs 27.1, 95%CI: 23.6-30.6, P = 0.041). No statistically significant difference was observed in unadjusted 7-d(52.4% AVP vs 58.3% and P = 0.408) or 28-d mortality(81.0% AVP vs 87.5% non-AVP, P = 0.371). Corticosteroid administration was associated with lower 28-d mortality(HR = 0.37, 95%CI: 0.16-0.86, P = 0.021) independent of AVP use. CONCLUSION AVP is similar in terms of patient centered outcomes of seven and 28-d mortality, in comparison to all other vasopressors when used as a second line vasoactive agent in catecholamine resistant septic shock. Large-scale prospective study would help to refine current consensus standards and provide further support to our findings.