Faculty Bibliography

Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is a common complication of cirrhosis sometimes implicated in hepatic decompensation. There are no consistent epidemiologic data to suggest an increased risk of thrombotic complications in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH); however, research suggests an increased risk of thrombosis. Our aim was to examine the independent association between NASH cirrhosis and PVT in patients who underwent liver transplantation (LT) in a cross-sectional study. Data on all LTs occurring in the United States between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2012 were obtained from the United Network for Organ Sharing. Multivariable models were constructed to assess the statistical associations and risk factors for the development of PVT. A total of 33,368 patients underwent transplantation. Of these, 2096 (6.3%) had PVT. Of the patients with PVT, 12.0% had NASH. When we compared these patients to a composite of all other causes of cirrhosis, an increased prevalence of PVT was again found, with 10.1% having PVT at the time of transplantation versus 6.0% without NASH (P < 0.001). The strongest risk factor independently associated with a diagnosis of PVT in a multivariable analysis was NASH cirrhosis (odds ratio, 1.55; 95% confidence interval, 1.33-1.81; P < 0.001). NASH cirrhosis appears to predispose a patient to PVT independently of other risk factors. These epidemiological findings provide support for the idea that NASH is a prothrombotic state, and they should lead to more research in treatment and prevention in this population.

BACKGROUND:Hyperbilirubinemia is a common side effect of protease inhibitors used to treat chronic hepatitis C (HCV), and most patients do not experience without clinically overt hepatotoxicity. The safety of second-wave protease inhibitors, including simeprevir, has not been well studied in patients with advanced cirrhosis. MATERIALS & METHODS/METHODS:We report two cases of suspected drug-induced liver injury leading to hepatic decompensation in patients with advanced HCV cirrhosis treated with the combination of simeprevir and sofosbuvir on a compassionate basis. Both patients developed marked hyperbilirubinemia out of proportion to their aminotransferases, despite clearance of hepatitis C RNA. RUCAM scoring was probable and possible, respectively. While other factors may have contributed to the liver injury, including infection and concurrent administration of other medications, we believe that the potentially deleterious hepatic effects of simeprevir on transporters or other key functional components were the main reason for their decompensation. CONCLUSIONS:Protease inhibitors should be used with caution, if at all, in patients with cirrhosis, especially in those with the most advanced disease. We await newer, safer, direct-acting antiviral therapies for such patients, especially those on our transplant list.

Recent advances in the understanding of the coagulopathy in chronic liver disease have provided a strong support for anticoagulation as a new therapeutic paradigm for patients with cirrhosis. Laboratory studies indicate that the net effect of changes in hemostasis in many patients with chronic liver disease is a hypercoagulable status. In turn, clinical thrombosis is increasingly recognized as a complication of liver disease. When occurring within the liver, thrombosis may even progress the disease course. Exciting preliminary data regarding the potential of low-molecular-weight heparin to slow down the progression of liver disease indicate that this class of drugs may improve outcome without a major increase in bleeding risk. However, this new era for antithrombotic therapy in chronic liver disease is still hindered by a persistent false notion that patients with cirrhosis are "auto-anticoagulated" by their underlying liver disease. In addition, there is insufficient clinical evidence on safety and efficacy of anticoagulant therapy in cirrhosis and the studies conducted so far are limited by small sample sizes, uncontrolled treatment arms, or by their retrospective nature. Finally, a lack of knowledge on how or when to monitor antithrombotic treatment to optimize the risk-benefit ratio has restricted a widespread application of anticoagulant treatment in clinical management algorithms. Nonetheless, by systematically covering possibilities and pitfalls, this review highlights the potential of antithrombotic therapy to improve the quality of life and the clinical outcome of patients with chronic liver disease.

UNLABELLED:The Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) allocation system for liver transplantation provides "exceptions" for diseases such as hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). It was the aim of this study to assess equipoise between exception candidates and nonexception candidates on the waiting list and to assess if the exception system contributes to steadily increasing regional MELD at transplant. In all, 78,595 adult liver transplant candidates between January 2005 and December 2012 were analyzed. Yearly trends in waiting list characteristics and transplantation rates were analyzed for statistical association with MELD exceptions. Regional variations in these associations and the effect of exceptions on regional MELD scores at transplant were also analyzed. 27.29% of the waiting list was occupied by candidates with exceptions. Candidates with exceptions fared much better on the waiting list compared to those without exceptions in mean days waiting (HCC 237 versus non-HCC 426), transplantation rates (HCC 79.05% versus non-HCC 40.60%), and waiting list death rates (HCC 4.49% versus non-HCC 24.63%). Strong regional variation in exception use occurred but exceptions were highly correlated with waiting list death rates, transplantation rates, and MELD score at removal in all regions. In a multivariate model predicting MELD score at transplant within regions, the percentage of HCC MELD exceptions was the strongest independent predictor of regional MELD score at transplant. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Liver transplant candidates with MELD exceptions have superior outcomes compared to nonexception candidates and the current MELD exception system is largely responsible for steadily increasing MELD scores at transplant independent of geography.

AIM/OBJECTIVE: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/CONCLUSIONS: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.

BACKGROUND:Hospitalized patients with cirrhosis are at risk to develop venous thromboembolism. Although current guidelines support the routine administration of thromboprophylaxis to hospitalized patients, there is limited data regarding the safety or efficacy of this practice in hospitalized cirrhosis patients. AIMS/OBJECTIVE:We aimed to determine if administration of thromboprophylaxis was associated with increased complication rates for hospitalized cirrhosis patients. METHODS:Data were collected on patients admitted to the University of Virginia between 2007 and 2010. Study personnel systematically collected data on complications, including gastrointestinal bleed, venous thromboembolism and death directly from the medical record. RESULTS:A total of 235 patients (accounting for 355 discrete hospitalizations in which thromboprophylaxis was administered) met inclusion criteria accounting for 1660 person-days of thromboprophylaxis administered to patients. The mean age at admission was 58 (95% CI 57.1-59.2) years and 217 (61%) were male patients. The mean admission model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score was 16.2 (95% CI 15.5-16.9). The mean hospital length of stay was 6.5 (95% CI 5.9-7.4) days. In patients who received thromboprophylaxis, the mean treatment length was 4.7 days (95% CI 4.2-5.2). There were nine gastrointestinal bleeding events (2.5% of admissions), five venous thromboembolisms (1.4% of admissions), two cases of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (0.5% of admissions) and 14 deaths overall (3.9% of admissions). CONCLUSIONS:The use of thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized cirrhosis patients is not associated with high rates of gastrointestinal bleeding or death.

The complex nature of haemostasis in patients with liver disease can result in bleeding and/or thrombosis. These opposing outcomes, which have multiple contributing factors, can pose diagnostic and therapeutic dilemmas for physicians. With the high rate of haemorrhagic complications in patients with cirrhosis, we examine the various procoagulants available for use in this population. In this Review, we describe the clinical and current rationale for using each of the currently available procoagulants-vitamin K, fresh frozen plasma (FFP), cryoprecipitate, platelets, recombinant factor VIIa (rFVIIa), antifibrinolytics, prothrombin concentrate complexes (PCC), desmopressin and red blood cells. By examining the evidence and use of these agents in liver disease, we provide a framework for targeted, goal-directed therapy with procoagulants.

The human hemostasis system is complex and poorly understood after decades of intense scientific study. Despite multiple defects in routine coagulation laboratory studies in patients with chronic liver disease, there is growing evidence that these patients are effectively "rebalanced" with regard to procoagulant and anticoagulant activity and that most of these patients remain in a tenuous but balanced state of hemostasis. A major difficulty in the assessment of these patients is that there are no established laboratory tests that accurately reflect the changes in both the procoagulant and anticoagulant systems; therefore, routine laboratory testing is misleading to the clinician and may prompt inappropriate or risky therapies with little real benefit to the patient. The international normalized ratio is an example of this type of misleading test. Although the international normalized ratio is inextricably linked to prognosis and severity of protein synthetic dysfunction in acute and chronic liver disease, it is a very poor marker for bleeding risk and should not be used in isolation for this purpose. Coagulation disorders are critical in the management of frequent clinical scenarios such as esophageal variceal bleeding, invasive and percutaneous procedures, portal vein thrombosis, venous thromboembolism, and acute liver failure. This article summarizes the pathophysiology of hemostasis in liver disease, describes the strengths and weaknesses of various laboratory tests in assessment of these patients, and outlines the optimal management of hemostasis for some common clinical scenarios. Further research is needed for proper understanding of hemostasis in liver disease to optimally and safely manage these complex patients.

BACKGROUND:Few studies have described the role of multimodality therapy and the complexity of endoscopic management of pancreatic duct disruption. Our study aim was to analyse and confirm factors associated with the resolution of pancreatic duct disruption. METHODS:Over 6 years, retrospective data on patients with pancreatic duct disruption managed endoscopically were retrieved. Success was defined as resolution of the pancreatic duct disruption at 12 months. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine factors associated with resolution. RESULTS:113 patients (78 male) with a mean age 51.3 year were included. Resolution of the pancreatic duct leak occurred in 80 cases (70.2%). 72 cases received transpapillary pancreatic duct stents, with 51 demonstrating resolution of pancreatic duct leak (71%) cystenterostomy was performed in 68 patients with 51 resolved (75%). In partial duct disruptions, pancreatic duct stenting combined with endoscopic drainage of fluid collections resulted in an increased rate of resolution (80%) compared to complete disruptions treated in a similar manner (57%). In complete pancreatic ductal disruptions, transpapillary pancreatic duct stenting had no additional benefit (9/17, 52.9%) compared to cystenterostomy or percutaneous drainage alone (24/34, 70.6%; P=0.61). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Pancreatic duct disruptions require multimodality treatment, addressing not only the integrity of the pancreatic duct but also any fluid collections associated. Partial ductal disruption should be managed by a bridging stent.