Predictive model and risk factors associated with a revised definition of early allograft dysfunction in liver transplant recipients.

INTRODUCTION: Early allograft dysfunction (EAD) is a well-defined clinical syndrome that reflects overall graft function within the first week after transplant. The aim of this study was to further refine the definition for EAD. METHOD: In this study, 1124 patients were included for analysis. Logistic regression was performed to identify markers of liver injury associated with 6-month patient and graft failure. RESULTS: Recursive partitioning identified cut-points for ALT/AST > 3000/6000 IU/dL observed within first week, with bilirubin ≥ 10 mg/dL and INR ≥ 1.6 on postoperative day 7 for the revised EAD model. The incidence of updated EAD was 15% (164/1124). Multivariable analysis identified eight risk factors associated with EAD: % macrosteatosis, donor location, donor weight, nonheart beating donors, type of organ transplanted, recipient-associated hepatocellular carcinoma, severity of postreperfusion syndrome, and the amount of transfused fresh frozen plasma. In the presence of EAD, the incidence of post-transplant renal replacement therapy and dialysis dependence increases. There was a significant association of the presence of EAD with 6-month mortality (12% vs 3%) and 6-month graft failure (8% vs 1%). CONCLUSION: Higher AST/ALT level needed as cutoff in comparison with the old EAD definition.

Overcoming barriers to implementation: Improving incidental coronary calcium reporting on non-EKG gated chest CT scans.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend the reporting of incidental CAC on non-EKG-gated CT scans of the chest. The finding of incidental moderate or severe CAC on non-cardiac non-contrast chest CT correlates with a CAC score ≥ 100 Agatston units, a guideline-based indication for a clinician-patient discussion regarding the initiation of statin therapy. In contemporary practice, whether the presence and severity of incidental CAC are routinely reported on such CT scans of the chest is unknown. METHODS: At a major university hospital, we collected a one-month convenience sample of 297 patients who had chest CT imaging for indications other than lung cancer screening (OICT) and 42 patients who underwent lung cancer chest CT screening (LSCT). We evaluated reporting patterns of incidental CAC in the body and impression of the reports as compared to the overreading of such studies by a board-certified CT chest radiologist. We hypothesized and demonstrated that there was underreporting of incidental CAC on these scans. We then undertook an initiative to educate reporting radiologists on the importance of reporting CAC and implemented a reporting template change to encourage routine reporting. Then we repeated another one-month sample (n= 363 for the OICT and n= 63 for the LSCT groups) to evaluate reporting patterns following our intervention. RESULTS: The presence of incidental moderate and severe CAC was systematically underreported in the OICT group (0 and 4.8 %) and the severity was never mentioned in the impression of reports. In the LSCT group, the presence of incidental moderate and severe CAC was also underreported (66.7 % and 75 %) and the severity of CAC was mentioned 50 % of the time in the impression of the reports. Following the initiation of an educational program and radiology reporting template change, there was a significant increase in reporting of moderate or severe CAC in the OICT group (0 vs. 80.0 %, p < 0.001) and (4.8 vs. 93.5 %, p < 0.001) respectively and a significant increase in the reporting of the severity of incidental CAC for those with severe CAC in the LSCT group (50 vs. 94.1 %, p=0.006). CONCLUSION: Despite guideline recommendations, Incidental CAC was underreported at a large academic center. We implemented a system that significantly improved reporting patterns of incidental CAC. Failure to report incidental CAC represents a missed opportunity to initiate preventive therapies. Hospital systems interested in improving the quality of their radiology reporting procedures should examine their practices to assure that CAC quantification is routinely performed.

Long-Term Cardiac Morbidity and Mortality in Patients With Aortic Valve Disease Following Liver Transplantation: A Case Matching Study.

INTRODUCTION: This retrospective study examined the role of aortic valve (AV) disease in patients who underwent orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) to determine the incidence of postoperative cardiac morbidity and mortality when compared with a matched control group without AV disease. METHODS: Patients were included in the AV group if diagnosed with aortic stenosis (AS) or aortic regurgitation or had received AV replacement prior to OLT. The AV group (n = 53) was matched to a control group (n = 212) with the following preoperative variables: type of organ transplanted, age, gender, race, body mass index, MELD, redo-transplantation, preoperative renal replacement therapy, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, viral hepatitis, diabetes, and coronary artery disease. A 1:4 ratio was utilized to improve the efficiency and power of the analysis. RESULTS: No significant difference in survival or posttransplant cardiac complications (acute coronary syndrome, heart failure, or dysrhythmia) was observed between groups. However, statistically significantly more patients-11% (6/53)-required coronary intervention following OLT in the AV group, whereas 3% (7/212) required coronary intervention (χ2 = 5.8; P = .0156) in the control group. Following OLT, 9% (5/53) in the AV group required surgical or nonsurgical AV intervention, whereas no valvular events were observed in the control group. Event-free survival in the AV group, with an end point defined as AV intervention (n = 5) and death (n = 10), was 92% (49/53) at 1 year, 83% (44/53) at 3 years, and 72% (38/53) at 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with pretransplant AV replacement or AS have significant cardiac complications (myocardial infarction, AV replacement, or cardiac death) in 1 to 3 years post-OLT.