D. Roccarina

Bacterial Infections Change Natural History of Cirrhosis Irrespective of Liver Disease Severity

Objectives:We assessed the prognostic significance of infections in relation to current prognostic scores and explored if infection could be considered per se a distinct clinical stage in the natural history of cirrhosis.Methods:We included consecutive patients with cirrhosis admitted to a tertiary referral liver unit for at least 48u2009h over a 2-year period. Diagnosis of infection was based on positive cultures or strict established criteria. We used competing risk analysis and propensity score matching for data analysis.Results:501 patients (63% male, 48% alcoholic liver disease, median Model of End-stage Liver Disease (MELD)=17) underwent 781 admissions over the study period. Portal hypertensive bleeding and complicated ascites were the commonest reasons of admission. The incidence of proven bacterial infection was 25.6% (60% community acquired and 40% nosocomial). Survival rates at 3, 6, 12, and 30 months were 83%, 77%, 71%, and 62% in patients without diagnosis of infection, vs. 50%, 46%, 41%, and 34% in patients with diagnosis of infection. Overall survival was independently associated with MELD score (hazards ratio (HR) 1.099), intensive care (ITU) stay (HR 1.967) and bacterial infection (HR 2.226). Bacterial infection was an independent predictor of survival even when patients who died within the first 30 days were excluded from the analysis in Cox regression (HR 2.013) and competing risk Cox models in all patients (HR 1.46) and propensity risk score-matched infected and non-infected patients (HR 1.67).Conclusions:Infection most likely represents a distinct prognostic stage of cirrhosis, which affects survival irrespective of disease severity, even after recovery from the infective episode.

Association Between Portosystemic Shunts and Increased Complications and Mortality in Patients With Cirrhosis

BACKGROUND & AIMSnSpontaneous portosystemic shunts (SPSS) have been associated with hepatic encephalopathy (HE). Little is known about their prevalence among patients with cirrhosis or clinical effects. We investigated the prevalence and characteristics of SPSS in patients with cirrhosis and their outcomes.nnnMETHODSnWe performed a retrospective study of 1729 patients with cirrhosis who underwent abdominal computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging analysis from 2010 through 2015 at 14 centers in Canada and Europe. We collected data on demographic features, etiology of liver disease, comorbidities, complications, treatments, laboratory and clinical parameters, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score, and endoscopy findings. Abdominal images were reviewed by a radiologist (or a hepatologist trained by a radiologist) and searched for the presence of SPSS, defined as spontaneous communications between the portal venous system or splanchnic veins and the systemic venous system, excluding gastroesophageal varices. Patients were assigned to groups with large SPSS (L-SPSS, ≥8 mm), small SPSS (S-SPSS, <8 mm), or without SPSS (W-SPSS). The main outcomes were the incidence of complications of cirrhosis and mortality according to the presence of SPSS. Secondary measurements were the prevalence of SPSS in patients with cirrhosis and their radiologic features.nnnRESULTSnL-SPSS were identified in 488 (28%) patients, S-SPSS in 548 (32%) patients, and no shunt (W-SPSS) in 693 (40%) patients. The most common L-SPSS was splenorenal (46% of L-SPSS). The presence and size of SPSS increased with liver dysfunction: among patients with MELD scores of 6-9, 14% had L-SPSS and 28% had S-SPSS; among patients with MELD scores of 10-13, 30% had L-SPSS and 34% had S-SPSS; among patients with MELD scores of 14 or higher, 40% had L-SPSS and 32% had S-SPSS (P < .001 for multiple comparison among MELD groups). HE was reported in 48% of patients with L-SPSS, 34% of patients with S-SPSS, and 20% of patients W-SPSS (P < .001 for multiple comparison among SPSS groups). Recurrent or persistent HE was reported in 52% of patients with L-SPSS, 44% of patients with S-SPSS, and 37% of patients W-SPSS (Pxa0= .007 for multiple comparison among SPSS groups). Patients with SPSS also had a larger number of portal hypertension-related complications (bleeding or ascites) than those W-SPSS. Quality of life and transplantation-free survival were lower in patients with SPSS vs without. SPSS were an independent factor associated with death or liver transplantation (hazard ratio, 1.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.49) (Pxa0= .008) in multivariate analysis. When patients were stratified by MELD score, SPSS were associated with HE independently of liver function: among patients with MELD scores of 6-9, HE was reported in 23% with L-SPSS, 12% with S-SPSS, and 5% with W-SPSS (P < .001 for multiple comparison among SPSS groups); among those with MELD scores of 10-13, HE was reported in 48% with L-SPSS, 33% with S-SPSS, and 23% with W-SPSS (P < .001 for multiple comparison among SPSS groups); among patients with MELD scores of 14 or more, HE was reported in 59% with L-SPSS, 57% with S-SPSS, and 48% with W-SPSS (Pxa0= .043 for multiple comparison among SPSS groups). Patients with SPSS and MELD scores of 6-9 were at higher risk for ascites (40.5% vs 23%; P < .001) and bleeding (15% vs 9%; Pxa0= .038) than patients W-SPSS and had lower odds of transplant-free survival (hazard ratio 1.71; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-2.51) (Pxa0= .006).nnnCONCLUSIONSnIn a retrospective analysis of almost 2000 patients, we found 60% to have SPSS; prevalence increases with deterioration of liver function. SPSS increase risk for HE and with a chronic course. In patients with preserved liver function, SPSS increase risk for complications and death. ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT02692430.

Management of people with early‐ or very early‐stage hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUNDnHepatocellular carcinoma (primary liver cancer) is classified in many ways. The Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) group staging classifies the cancer based on patients life expectancy. People with very early- or early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma have single tumour or three tumours of maximum diameter of 3 cm or less, Child-Pugh status A to B, and performance status 0 (fully functional). Management of hepatocellular carcinoma is uncertain.nnnOBJECTIVESnTo assess the comparative benefits and harms of different interventions used in the treatment of early or very early hepatocellular carcinoma through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the available interventions according to their safety and efficacy. However, it was not possible to assess whether the potential effect modifiers were similar across different comparisons. Therefore, we did not perform the network meta-analysis and instead assessed the benefits and harms of different interventions versus each other or versus sham or no intervention using standard Cochrane methodology.nnnSEARCH METHODSnWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and trials registers to September 2016 to identify randomised clinical trials (RCTs) on hepatocellular carcinoma.nnnSELECTION CRITERIAnWe included only RCTs, irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status, in participants with very early- or early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma, irrespective of the presence of cirrhosis, portal hypertension, aetiology of hepatocellular carcinoma, size and number of the tumours, and future remnant liver volume. We excluded trials including participants who were previously liver transplanted. We considered interventions compared with each other, sham, or no intervention.nnnDATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSISnWe calculated the odds ratio, mean difference, rate ratio, or hazard ratio with 95% confidence intervals using both fixed-effect and random-effects models based on available-participant analysis with Review Manager 5. We assessed the risk of bias according to Cochrane, controlled risk of random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis using Stata, and the quality of the evidence using GRADE.nnnMAIN RESULTSnEighteen trials met the inclusion criteria for this review. Four trials (593 participants; 574 participants included for one or more analyses) compared surgery versus radiofrequency ablation in people with early hepatocellular carcinoma, eligible to undergo surgery. Fourteen trials (2533 participants; 2494 participants included for various analyses) compared different non-surgical interventions in people with early hepatocellular carcinoma, not eligible to undergo surgery. Overall, the quality of evidence was low or very low for all outcomes for both comparisons. Surgery versus radiofrequency ablationThe majority of participants had cirrhotic livers, and the hepatocellular carcinoma was of viral aetiology. The trials did not report the participants portal hypertension status or whether they received adjuvant antiviral treatment or adjuvant immunotherapy. The average follow-up ranged from 29 months to 42 months (3 trials).There was no evidence of a difference in all-cause mortality at maximal follow-up for surgery versus radiofrequency ablation (hazard ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 1.08; 574 participants; 4 trials; I2 = 68). Cancer-related mortality was lower in the surgery group (20/115 (17.4%)) than in the radiofrequency ablation group (43/115 (37.4%)) (odds ratio 0.35, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.65; 230 participants; 1 trial). Serious adverse events (number of participants) was higher in the surgery group (14/60 (23.3%)) than in the radiofrequency ablation group (1/60 (1.7%)) (odds ratio 17.96, 95% CI 2.28 to 141.60; 120 participants; 1 trial). The number of serious adverse events was higher in the surgery group (adjusted rate 11.3 events per 100 participants) than in the radiofrequency ablation group (3/186 (1.6 events per 100 participants)) (rate ratio 7.02, 95% CI 2.29 to 21.46; 391 participants; 2 trials; I2 = 0%). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. One trial was funded by a party with vested interests; three trials were funded by parties without any vested. Non-surgical interventionsThe majority of participants had cirrhotic livers, and the hepatocellular carcinoma was of viral aetiology. Most trials did not report the portal hypertension status of the participants, and none of the trials reported whether the participants received adjuvant antiviral treatment or adjuvant immunotherapy. The average follow-up ranged from 6 months to 37 months (11 trials). Trial participants, who were not eligible for surgery, were treated with radiofrequency ablation, laser ablation, microwave ablation, percutaneous acetic acid injection, percutaneous alcohol injection, a combination of radiofrequency ablation with systemic chemotherapy, a combination of radiofrequency ablation with percutaneous alcohol injection, a combination of transarterial chemoembolisation with percutaneous alcohol injection, or a combination of transarterial chemoembolisation with radiofrequency ablation.The mortality at maximal follow-up was higher in the percutaneous acetic acid injection (hazard ratio 1.77, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.79; 125 participants; 1 trial) and percutaneous alcohol injection (hazard ratio 1.49, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.88; 882 participants; 5 trials; I2 = 57%) groups compared with the radiofrequency ablation group. There was no evidence of a difference in all-cause mortality at maximal follow-up for any of the other comparisons. The proportion of people with cancer-related mortality at maximal follow-up was higher in the percutaneous alcohol injection group (adjusted proportion 16.8%) compared with the radiofrequency ablation group (20/232 (8.6%)) (odds ratio 2.18, 95% CI 1.22 to 3.89; 458 participants; 3 trials; I2 = 0%). There was no evidence of a difference in any of the comparisons that reported serious adverse events (number of participants or number of events). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. Five trials were funded by parties without any vested interest; the source of funding was not available in the remaining trials.nnnAUTHORS CONCLUSIONSnThe evidence was of low or very low quality. There was no evidence of a difference in all-cause mortality at maximal follow-up between surgery and radiofrequency ablation in people eligible for surgery. All-cause mortality at maximal follow-up was higher with percutaneous acetic acid injection and percutaneous alcohol injection than with radiofrequency ablation in people not eligible for surgery. There was no evidence of a difference in all-cause mortality at maximal follow-up for the other comparisons. High-quality RCTs designed to assess clinically important differences in all-cause mortality and health-related quality of life, and having an adequate follow-up period (approximately five years) are needed.

Elastography methods for the non-invasive assessment of portal hypertension

ABSTRACT Introduction: The gold standard to assess the presence and severity of portal hypertension remains the hepatic vein pressure gradient, however the recent development of non-invasive assessment using elastography techniques offers valuable alternatives. In this review, we discuss the diagnostic accuracy and utility of such techniques in patients with portal hypertension due to cirrhosis. Areas covered: A literature search focused on liver and spleen stiffness measurement with different elastographic techniques for the assessment of the presence and severity of portal hypertension and oesophageal varices in people with chronic liver disease. The combination of elastography with parameters such as platelet count and spleen size is also discussed. Expert commentary: Non-invasive assessment of liver fibrosis and portal hypertension is a validated tool for the diagnosis and follow-up of patients. Baveno VI recommended the combination of transient elastography and platelet count for ruling out varices needing treatment in patients with compensated advanced chronic liver disease. Assessment of aetiology specific cut-offs for ruling in and ruling out clinically significant portal hypertension is an unmet clinical need. The incorporation of spleen stiffness measurements in non-invasive algorithms using validated software and improved measuring scales might enhance the non-invasive diagnosis of portal hypertension in the next 5 years.

Management of people with intermediate‐stage hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUNDnThere is significant uncertainty in the treatment of intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma which is defined by the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) as hepatocellular carcinoma stage B with large, multi-nodular, Child-Pugh status A to B, performance status 0 to 2, and without vascular occlusion or extrahepatic disease.nnnOBJECTIVESnTo assess the comparative benefits and harms of different interventions used in the treatment of intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (BCLC stage B) through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the available interventions according to their safety and efficacy. However, we found only one comparison. Therefore, we did not perform the network meta-analysis, and we assessed the comparative benefits and harms of different interventions versus each other, or versus placebo, sham, or no intervention (supportive treatment only) using standard Cochrane methodology.nnnSEARCH METHODSnWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and randomised clinical trials registers to September 2016 to identify randomised clinical trials on hepatocellular carcinoma.nnnSELECTION CRITERIAnWe included only randomised clinical trials, irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status, in participants with intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma, irrespective of the presence of cirrhosis, size, or number of the tumours (provided they met the criteria of intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma), of presence or absence of portal hypertension, of aetiology of hepatocellular carcinoma, and of the future remnant liver volume. We excluded trials which included participants who had previously undergone liver transplantation. We considered any of the various interventions compared with each other or with no active intervention (supportive treatment only). We excluded trials which compared variations of the same intervention: for example, different methods of performing transarterial chemoembolisation.nnnDATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSISnWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We calculated the hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models based on available-participant analysis with Review Manager. We assessed risk of bias according to Cochrane, controlled risk of random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis using Stata, and assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.nnnMAIN RESULTSnThree randomised clinical trials, including 430 participants, met the inclusion criteria for this review; however, data from two trials with 412 participants could be included in only one primary outcome (i.e. mortality). All three trials were at high risk of bias. All three trials included supportive care as cointervention. The comparisons included in the two trials reporting on mortality were: systemic chemotherapy with sorafenib versus no active intervention; and transarterial chemoembolisation plus systemic chemotherapy with sorafenib versus transarterial chemoembolisation alone. The trials did not report the duration of follow-up; however, it appeared that the participants were followed up for a period of about 18 to 30 months. The majority of the participants in the trials had cirrhotic livers. The trials included participants with intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma arising from viral and non-viral aetiologies. The trials did not report the portal hypertension status of the participants. The mortality was 50% to 70% over a median follow-up period of 18 to 30 months. There was no evidence of difference in mortality at maximal follow-up between systemic chemotherapy versus no chemotherapy (hazard ratio 0.85, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.18; participants = 412; studies = 2; I2 = 0%; very low quality evidence). A subgroup analysis performed by stratifying the analysis by the presence or absence of transarterial chemoembolisation as cointervention did not alter the results. None of the trials reported on serious adverse events other than mortality, health-related quality of life, recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma, or length of hospital stay. One of the trials providing data was funded by the pharmaceutical industry, the other did not report the source of funding, and the trial with no data for the review was also funded by the pharmaceutical industry. We found two ongoing trials.nnnAUTHORS CONCLUSIONSnCurrently, there is no evidence from randomised clinical trials that people with intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma would benefit from systemic chemotherapy with sorafenib either alone or when transarterial chemoembolisation was used as a cointervention (very low quality evidence). We need high-quality randomised clinical trials designed to measure differences in clinically important outcomes (e.g. all-cause mortality or health-related quality of life).

Non-invasive Prediction of High-risk Varices in Patients with Primary Biliary Cholangitis and Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis

BACKGROUND: Baveno-VI guidelines recommend that patients with compensated cirrhosis with liver stiffness by transient elastography (LSM-TE) <20 kPa and platelets >150,000/mm3 do not need an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) to screen for varices, since the risk of having varices needing treatment (VNT) is <5%. It remains uncertain if this tool can be used in patients with cholestatic liver diseases (ChLDs): primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) and primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC). These patients may have a pre-sinusoidal component of portal hypertension that could affect the performance of this rule. In this study we evaluated the performance of Baveno-VI, expanded Baveno-VI (LSM-TE <25 kPa and platelets >110,000/mm3), and other criteria in predicting the absence of VNT. METHODS: This was a multicenter cross-sectional study in four referral hospitals. We retrospectively analyzed data from 227 patients with compensated advanced chronic liver disease (cACLD) due to PBC (n = 147) and PSC (n = 80) that had paired EGD and LSM-TE. We calculated false negative rate (FNR) and number of saved endoscopies for each prediction rule. RESULTS: Prevalence of VNT was 13%. Baveno-VI criteria had a 0% FNR in PBC and PSC, saving 39 and 30% of EGDs, respectively. In PBC the other LSM-TE-based criteria resulted in FNRs >5%. In PSC the expanded Baveno criteria had an adequate performance. In both conditions LSM-TE-independent criteria resulted in an acceptable FNR but saved less EGDs. CONCLUSIONS: Baveno-VI criteria can be applied in patients with cACLD due to ChLDs, which would result in saving 30–40% of EGDs. Expanded criteria in PBC would lead to FNRs >5%.