Development of predisposition, injury, response, organ failure model for predicting acute kidney injury in acute on chronic liver failure.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: There is limited data on predictors of acute kidney injury in acute on chronic liver failure. We developed a PIRO model (Predisposition, Injury, Response, Organ failure) for predicting acute kidney injury in a multicentric cohort of acute on chronic liver failure patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data of 2360 patients from APASL-ACLF Research Consortium (AARC) was analysed. Multivariate logistic regression model (PIRO score) was developed from a derivation cohort (n=1363) which was validated in another prospective multicentric cohort of acute on chronic liver failure patients (n=997). RESULTS: Factors significant for P component were serum creatinine[(≥2 mg/dL)OR 4.52, 95% CI (3.67-5.30)], bilirubin [(<12 mg/dL,OR 1) vs (12-30 mg/dL,OR 1.45, 95% 1.1-2.63) vs (≥30 mg/dL,OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.3-5.2)], serum potassium [(<3 mmol/LOR-1) vs (3-4.9 mmol/L,OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.05-1.97) vs (≥5 mmol/L,OR 4.34, 95% CI 1.67-11.3)] and blood urea (OR 3.73, 95% CI 2.5-5.5); for I component nephrotoxic medications (OR-9.86, 95% CI 3.2-30.8); for R component,Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome,(OR-2.14, 95% CI 1.4-3.3); for O component, Circulatory failure (OR-3.5, 95% CI 2.2-5.5). The PIRO score predicted acute kidney injury with C-index of 0.95 and 0.96 in the derivation and validation cohort. The increasing PIRO score was also associated with mortality (P<.001) in both the derivation and validation cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: The PIRO model identifies and stratifies acute on chronic liver failure patients at risk of developing acute kidney injury. It reliably predicts mortality in these patients, underscoring the prognostic significance of acute kidney injury in patients with acute on chronic liver failure.

Extrahepatic portal vein obstruction and portal vein thrombosis in special situations: Need for a new classification.

Extrahepatic portal vein obstruction is a vascular disorder of liver, which results in obstruction and cavernomatous transformation of portal vein with or without the involvement of intrahepatic portal vein, splenic vein, or superior mesenteric vein. Portal vein obstruction due to chronic liver disease, neoplasm, or postsurgery is a separate entity and is not the same as extrahepatic portal vein obstruction. Patients with extrahepatic portal vein obstruction are generally young and belong mostly to Asian countries. It is therefore very important to define portal vein thrombosis as acute or chronic from management point of view. Portal vein thrombosis in certain situations such as liver transplant and postsurgical/liver transplant period is an evolving area and needs extensive research. There is a need for a new classification, which includes all areas of the entity. In the current review, the most recent literature of extrahepatic portal vein obstruction is reviewed and summarized.

After proper optimization of carvedilol dose, do different child classes of liver disease differ in terms of dose tolerance and response on a chronic basis?

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Literature regarding safe doses of carvedilol is limited, and safe doses across different Child classes of chronic liver disease are not clear. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 102 consecutive cirrhotic patients with significant portal hypertension were included in this study. Hepatic venous pressure gradient was measured at baseline and 3 months after dose optimization. RESULTS: A total of 102 patients (63 males, 39 females) with a mean age of 58.3 ± 6.6 years were included. Among these patients, 42.2% had Child Class A, 31.9% had Class B, and 26.6% had Child Class C liver disease. The mean baseline hepatic venous pressure gradient was 16.75 ± 2.12 mmHg, and after dose optimization and reassessment of hepatic venous pressure gradient at 3 months, the mean reduction in the hepatic venous pressure gradient was 5.5 ± 1.7 mmHg and 2.8 ± 1.6 mmHg among responders and nonresponders respectively. The mean dose of carvedilol was higher in nonresponders (19.2 ± 5.7 mg) than responders (18.75 ± 5.1 mg). However, this difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). The univariate analysis determined that the absence of adverse events, the absence of ascites, and low baseline cardiac output were significantly associated with chronic response, whereas, the etiology, Child class, variceal size (large vs small), and gender were not. On multivariate analysis, the absence of any adverse event was determined to be an independent predictor of chronic response (OR 11.3, 95% CI; 1.9-67.8). CONCLUSION: The proper optimization of the dose of carvedilol, when administered chronically, may enable carvedilol treatment to achieve a greater response with minimum side effects among different Child classes of liver disease.