Critical shortfalls in the management of PBC: Results of a UK-wide, population-based evaluation of care delivery.

Background & Aims: Guidelines for the management of primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) were published by the British Society of Gastroenterology in 2018. In this study, we assessed adherence to these guidelines in the UK National Health Service (NHS). Methods: All NHS acute trusts were invited to contribute data between 1 January 2021 and 31 March 2022, assessing clinical care delivered to patients with PBC in the UK. Results: We obtained data for 8,968 patients with PBC and identified substantial gaps in care across all guideline domains. Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) was used as first-line treatment in 88% of patients (n = 7,864) but was under-dosed in one-third (n = 1,964). Twenty percent of patients who were UDCA-untreated (202/998) and 50% of patients with inadequate UDCA response (1,074/2,102) received second-line treatment. More than one-third of patients were not assessed for fatigue (43%; n = 3,885) or pruritus (38%; n = 3,415) in the previous 2 years. Fifty percent of all patients with evidence of hepatic decompensation were discussed with a liver transplant centre (222/443). Appropriate use of second-line treatment and referral for liver transplantation was significantly better in specialist PBC treatment centres compared with non-specialist centres (p <0.001). Conclusions: Poor adherence to guidelines exists across all domains of PBC care in the NHS. Although specialist PBC treatment centres had greater adherence to guidelines, no single centre met all quality standards. Nationwide improvement in the delivery of PBC-related healthcare is required. Impact and implications: This population-based evaluation of primary biliary cholangitis, spanning four nations of the UK, highlights critical shortfalls in care delivery when measured across all guideline domains. These include the use of liver biopsy in diagnosis; referral practice for second-line treatment and/or liver transplant assessment; and the evaluation of symptoms, extrahepatic manifestations, and complications of cirrhosis. The authors therefore propose implementation of a dedicated primary biliary cholangitis care bundle that aims to minimise heterogeneity in clinical practice and maximise adherence to key guideline standards.

British Society of Gastroenterology Best Practice Guidance: outpatient management of cirrhosis - part 3: special circumstances.

The prevalence of cirrhosis has risen significantly over recent decades and is predicted to rise further. Widespread use of non-invasive testing means cirrhosis is increasingly diagnosed at an earlier stage. Despite this, there are significant variations in outcomes in patients with cirrhosis across the UK, and patients in areas with higher levels of deprivation are more likely to die from their liver disease. This three-part best practice guidance aims to address outpatient management of cirrhosis, in order to standardise care and to reduce the risk of progression, decompensation and mortality from liver disease. Part 1 addresses outpatient management of compensated cirrhosis: screening for hepatocellular cancer, varices and osteoporosis, vaccination and lifestyle measures. Part 2 concentrates on outpatient management of decompensated disease including management of ascites, encephalopathy, varices, nutrition as well as liver transplantation and palliative care. In this, the third part of the guidance, we focus on special circumstances encountered in managing people with cirrhosis, namely surgery, pregnancy, travel, managing bleeding risk for invasive procedures and portal vein thrombosis.

British Society of Gastroenterology Best Practice Guidance: outpatient management of cirrhosis - part 1: compensated cirrhosis.

The prevalence of cirrhosis has risen significantly over recent decades and is predicted to rise further. Widespread use of non-invasive testing means cirrhosis is increasingly diagnosed at an earlier stage. Despite this, there are significant variations in outcomes in patients with cirrhosis across the UK, and patients in areas with higher levels of deprivation are more likely to die from their liver disease. This three-part best practice guidance aims to address outpatient management of cirrhosis, in order to standardise care and to reduce the risk of progression, decompensation and mortality from liver disease. Here, in part one, we focus on outpatient management of compensated cirrhosis, encompassing hepatocellular cancer surveillance, screening for varices and osteoporosis, vaccination and lifestyle measures. We also introduce a compensated cirrhosis care bundle for use in the outpatient setting. Part two concentrates on outpatient management of decompensated disease including management of ascites, encephalopathy, varices, nutrition as well as liver transplantation and palliative care. The third part of the guidance covers special circumstances encountered in managing people with cirrhosis: surgery, pregnancy, travel, managing bleeding risk for invasive procedures and portal vein thrombosis.

British Society of Gastroenterology Best Practice Guidance: outpatient management of cirrhosis - part 2: decompensated cirrhosis.

There are two distinct phases in the natural history of cirrhosis: compensated disease (corresponding to Child Pugh A and early Child Pugh B disease), where the patient may be largely asymptomatic, progressing with increasing portal hypertension and liver dysfunction to decompensated disease (corresponding to Child Pugh late B-C), characterised by the development of overt clinical signs, including jaundice, hepatic encephalopathy (HE), ascites, renal dysfunction and variceal bleeding. The transition from compensated cirrhosis to decompensated cirrhosis (DC) heralds a watershed in the nature and prognosis of the disease. DC is a systemic disease, characterised by multiorgan/system dysfunction, including haemodynamic and immune dysfunction. In this second part of our three-part series on the outpatient management of cirrhosis, we address outpatient management of DC, including management of varices, ascites, HE, nutrition, liver transplantation and palliative care. We also introduce an outpatient DC care bundle. For recommendations on screening for osteoporosis, hepatocellular carcinoma surveillance and vaccination see part one of the guidance. Part 3 of the guidance focusses on special circumstances encountered in patients with cirrhosis, including surgery, pregnancy, travel, management of bleeding risk for invasive procedures and portal vein thrombosis.

Guidance document: risk assessment of patients with cirrhosis prior to elective non-hepatic surgery.

As a result of the increasing incidence of cirrhosis in the UK, more patients with chronic liver disease are being considered for elective non-hepatic surgery. A historical reluctance to offer surgery to such patients stems from general perceptions of poor postoperative outcomes. While this is true for those with decompensated cirrhosis, selected patients with compensated early-stage cirrhosis can have good outcomes after careful risk assessment. Well-recognised risks include those of general anaesthesia, bleeding, infections, impaired wound healing, acute kidney injury and cardiovascular compromise. Intra-abdominal or cardiothoracic surgery are particularly high-risk interventions. Clinical assessment supplemented by blood tests, imaging, liver stiffness measurement, endoscopy and assessment of portal pressure (derived from the hepatic venous pressure gradient) can facilitate risk stratification. Traditional prognostic scoring systems including the Child-Turcotte-Pugh and Model for End-stage Liver Disease are helpful but may overestimate surgical risk. Specific prognostic scores like Mayo Risk Score, VOCAL-Penn and ADOPT-LC can add precision to risk assessment. Measures to mitigate risk include careful management of varices, nutritional optimisation and where possible addressing any ongoing aetiological drivers such as alcohol consumption. The role of portal decompression such as transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunting can be considered in selected high-risk patients, but further prospective study of this approach is required. It is of paramount importance that patients are discussed in a multidisciplinary forum, and that patients are carefully counselled about potential risks and benefits.

The National Audit of Primary Biliary Cholangitis (PBC) in the United Kingdom: Defining the Audit Dataset and Data Collection System.

Primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) is a debilitating chronic liver disease that progresses to cirrhosis with attendant complications in a substantial proportion of patients. It is a major cause of liver-related morbidity and mortality in the United Kingdom (UK). The British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) published guidelines on PBC management, which included key audit standards. Therefore, we propose the first UK-wide audit of the management of PBC, sanctioned by the BSG and the British Association for Study of the Liver (BASL), to benchmark NHS trusts and health boards against these audit standards as a guide to targeted improvement in the delivery of PBC-related health care.

Carvedilol versus endoscopic band ligation for secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding-long-term follow-up of a randomised control trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Carvedilol reduces rates of variceal bleeding and rebleeding by lowering portal pressure. However, an associated pleiotropic survival benefit has been proposed. We aimed to assess long-term survival in a cohort of patients previously randomised to receive either carvedilol or endoscopic band ligation (EBL) following oesophageal variceal bleeding (OVB). METHODS: The index study randomised 64 cirrhotic patients with OVB between 2006 and 2011 to receive either carvedilol or EBL. Follow-up was undertaken to April 2020 by review of electronic patient records. The primary outcome was survival. Other outcomes including variceal rebleeding and liver decompensation events were compared. RESULTS: 26 out of 33 participants received carvedilol in the follow-up period and 28 out of 31 attended regular EBL sessions. The median number of follow-up days for all patients recruited was 1459 (SE = 281.74). On the intention to treat analysis, there was a trend towards improved survival in the carvedilol group (p = 0.09). On per-protocol analysis, carvedilol use was associated with improved long-term survival (p = 0.005, HR 3.083, 95% CI 1.397-6.809), fewer liver-related deaths (0% vs 22.57%, p = 0.013, OR ∞, 95%CI 1.565-∞) and fewer admissions with decompensated liver disease (12% vs 64.29%, p = 0.0002, OR 13.2, 95% CI 3.026-47.23) compared to the EBL group. There was no statistically significant difference in variceal rebleeding rates. CONCLUSION: Following OVB in cirrhotic patients, carvedilol use is associated with survival benefit, fewer liver-related deaths and fewer hospital admissions with decompensated liver disease. Further studies are needed to validate this finding.

Liver transplantation for alcohol-related liver disease in the UK: revised UK Liver Advisory Group recommendations for referral.

Liver disease, of which liver cirrhosis is the most advanced stage, constitutes the fourth most common cause of life-years lost in men and women younger than 75 years in England, where mortality rates from liver disease have increased by 25% in the past decade. Alcohol consumption is the most common modifiable risk factor for disease progression in these individuals, but within the UK, there is substantial variation in the distribution, prevalence, and outcome of alcohol-related liver disease, and no equity of access to tertiary transplantation services. These revised recommendations were agreed by an expert panel convened by the UK Liver Advisory Group, with the purpose of providing consensus on referral for transplant assessment in patients with alcohol-related disease, and clarifying the terminology and definitions of alcohol use in liver injury. By standardising clinical management in these patients, it is hoped that there will be an improvement in the quality of care and better access to liver transplant assessment for patients with alcohol-related liver disease in the UK.

Non-invasive alloimmune risk stratification of long-term liver transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Management of long-term immunosuppression following liver transplantation (LT) remains empirical. Surveillance liver biopsies in combination with transcriptional profiling could overcome this challenge by identifying recipients with active alloimmune-mediated liver damage despite normal liver tests, but this approach lacks applicability. Our aim was to investigate the utility of non-invasive tools for the stratification of stable long-term survivors of LT, according to their immunological risk and need for immunosuppression. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional multicentre study of 190 adult LT recipients assessed to determine their eligibility to participate in an immunosuppression withdrawal trial. Patients had stable liver allograft function and had been transplanted for non-autoimmune non-replicative viral liver disease >3 years before inclusion. We performed histological, immunogenetic and serological studies and measured the intrahepatic transcript levels of an 11-gene classifier highly specific for T cell-mediated rejection (TCMR). RESULTS: In this cohort, 35.8% of patients harboured clinically silent fibro-inflammatory liver lesions (13.7% had mild damage and 22.1% had moderate-to-severe damage). The severity of liver allograft damage was positively associated with TCMR-related transcripts, class II donor-specific antibodies (DSAs), ALT, AST, and liver stiffness measurement (LSM), and negatively correlated with serum creatinine and tacrolimus trough levels. Liver biopsies were stratified according to their TCMR transcript levels using a cut-off derived from biopsies with clinically significant TCMR. Two multivariable prediction models, integrating ALT+LSM or ALT+class II DSAs, had a high discriminative capacity for classifying patients with or without alloimmune damage. The latter model performed well in an independent cohort of 156 liver biopsies obtained from paediatric liver recipients with similar inclusion/exclusion criteria. CONCLUSION: ALT, class II DSAs and LSM are valuable tools to non-invasively identify stable LT recipients without significant underlying alloimmunity who could benefit from minimisation of immunosuppression. LAY SUMMARY: A large proportion of liver transplant patients with normal liver tests have inflammatory liver lesions, which in 17% of cases are molecularly indistinguishable from those seen at the time of rejection. ALT, class II donor-specific antibodies and liver stiffness are useful in identifying patients with this form of subclinical rejection. We propose these markers as a useful tool to help clinicians determine if the immunosuppression administered is adequate.

Guidelines on the management of ascites in cirrhosis.

The British Society of Gastroenterology in collaboration with British Association for the Study of the Liver has prepared this document. The aim of this guideline is to review and summarise the evidence that guides clinical diagnosis and management of ascites in patients with cirrhosis. Substantial advances have been made in this area since the publication of the last guideline in 2007. These guidelines are based on a comprehensive literature search and comprise systematic reviews in the key areas, including the diagnostic tests, diuretic use, therapeutic paracentesis, use of albumin, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent shunt, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis and beta-blockers in patients with ascites. Where recent systematic reviews and meta-analysis are available, these have been updated with additional studies. In addition, the results of prospective and retrospective studies, evidence obtained from expert committee reports and, in some instances, reports from case series have been included. Where possible, judgement has been made on the quality of information used to generate the guidelines and the specific recommendations have been made according to the 'Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE)' system. These guidelines are intended to inform practising clinicians, and it is expected that these guidelines will be revised in 3 years' time.

Adult liver transplantation: A UK clinical guideline - part 1: pre-operation.

Liver transplantation is a highly successful treatment for all types of liver failure, some non-liver failure indications and liver cancer. Most referrals come from secondary care. This first part of a two-part guideline outlines who to refer, and how that referral should be made, including patient details and additional issues such as those relevant to alcohol and drug misuse. The process of liver transplant assessment involves the confirmation of the diagnosis and non-reversibility, an evaluation of comorbidities and exclusion of contraindications. Finally, those making it onto the waiting list require monitoring and optimising. Underpinning this process is a need for good communication between patient, their carers, secondary care and the liver transplant service, synchronised by the transplant coordinator. Managing expectation and balancing the uncertainty of organ availability against the inevitable progression of underlying liver disease requires sensitivity and honesty from all healthcare providers and the assessment of palliative care needs is an integral part of this process.

Adult liver transplantation: UK clinical guideline - part 2: surgery and post-operation.

Survival rates for patients following liver transplantation exceed 90% at 12 months and approach 70% at 10 years. Part 1 of this guideline has dealt with all aspects of liver transplantation up to the point of placement on the waiting list. Part 2 explains the organ allocation process, organ donation and organ type and how this influences the choice of recipient. After organ allocation, the transplant surgery and the critical early post-operative period are, of necessity, confined to the liver transplant unit. However, patients will eventually return to their referring secondary care centre with a requirement for ongoing supervision. Part 2 of this guideline concerns three key areas of post liver transplantation care for the non-transplant specialist: (1) overseeing immunosuppression, including interactions and adherence; (2) the transplanted organ and how to initiate investigation of organ dysfunction; and (3) careful oversight of other organ systems, including optimising renal function, cardiovascular health and the psychosocial impact. The crucial significance of this holistic approach becomes more obvious as time passes from the transplant, when patients should expect the responsibility for managing the increasing number of non-liver consequences to lie with primary and secondary care.

A stepwise thrombolysis regimen in the management of acute portal vein thrombosis in patients with evidence of intestinal ischaemia.

BACKGROUND: Anticoagulation alone in acute, extensive portomesenteric vein thrombosis (PVT) does not always result in spontaneous clot lysis, and leaves the patient at risk of complications including intestinal infarction and portal hypertension. AIM: To develop a new standard of care for patients with acute PVT and evidence of intestinal ischaemia. METHODS: We present a case series of patients with acute PVT and evidence of intestinal ischaemia plus ongoing symptoms despite initial systemic anticoagulation, who were treated with a thrombolysis protocol between 2014 and 2019. This stepwise protocol initially uses low-dose systemic alteplase, and in patients with ongoing abdominal pain, and no evidence of radiological improvement, is followed by local clot dissolution therapy (CDT) through a TIPSS. Outcomes and safety were assessed. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients were included. The mean age was 44.6 (standard deviation [SD] 16.0) years, and 64% had an identifiable prothrombotic risk factor. All patients had intestinal wall oedema and 77% had complete occlusion of all portomesenteric veins. Systemic thrombolysis was started 18.7 (SD 11.2) days after the onset of symptoms. 55% of patients underwent TIPSS insertion for CDT. At the end of treatment, symptoms resolved in 91% of patients and recanalisation in 86%. Only one patient required resection for intestinal ischaemia, and there were no deaths. Major complications occurred in two patients (9%). CONCLUSIONS: Our stepwise protocol is effective, resulting in good recanalisation rates. It can be commenced early while organising transfer to a centre capable of performing local CDT.

Portal hypertension in polycystic liver disease patients does not affect wait-list or immediate post-liver transplantation outcomes.

AIM: To establish the impact of portal hypertension (PH) on wait-list/post-transplant outcomes in patients with polycystic liver disease (PCLD) listed for liver transplantation. METHODS: A retrospective single-centre case controlled study of consecutive patients listed for liver transplantation over 12 years was performed from our centre. PH in the PCLD cohort was defined by the one or more of following parameters: (1) presence of radiological or endoscopic documented varices from our own centre or the referral centre; (2) splenomegaly (> 11 cm) on radiology in absence of splenic cysts accounting for increased imaging size; (3) thrombocytopenia (platelets < 150 × 109/L); or (4) ascites without radiological evidence of hepatic venous outflow obstruction from a single cyst. RESULTS: Forty-seven PCLD patients (F: M = 42: 5) were listed for liver transplantation (LT) (single organ, n = 35; combined liver-kidney transplantation, n = 12) with 19 patients (40.4%) having PH. When comparing the PH group with non-PH group, the mean listing age (PH group, 50.6 (6.4); non-PH group, 47.1 (7.4) years; P = 0.101), median listing MELD (PH group, 12; non-PH group, 11; P = 0.422) median listing UKELD score (PH group, 48; non-PH group, 46; P = 0.344) and need for renal replacement therapy (P = 0.317) were similar. In the patients who underwent LT alone, there was no difference in the duration of ICU stay (PH, 3 d; non-PH, 2 d; P = 0.188), hospital stay length (PH, 9 d; non-PH, 10 d; P = 0.973), or frequency of renal replacement therapy (PH, 2/8; non-PH, 1/14; P = 0.121) in the immediate post-transplantation period. CONCLUSION: Clinically apparent portal hypertension in patients with PCLD listed for liver transplantation does not appear to have a major impact on wait-list or peri-transplant morbidity.

Subclinical spontaneous bacterial peritonitis at the time of liver transplantation does not impact on outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: Liver transplant recipients are often screened for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis during the immediate preoperative evaluation to determine medical fitness to proceed. However, it is unknown whether subclinical spontaneous bacterial peritonitis impacts on post-transplant outcomes. Our aim was to determine whether subclinical spontaneous bacterial peritonitis detected at the preoperative evaluation influences the decision to proceed, and subsequent postoperative morbidity and mortality. METHODS: This study is a single-centre study of 1231 adults attending for possible first elective single-organ liver transplantation between January 2000 and December 2011. RESULTS: A total of 434 patients underwent ascitic fluid sampling on 460 occasions. Nineteen samples fulfilled the diagnostic criteria for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (4.8%), including one that was culture positive (Candida spp.). Patients with spontaneous bacterial peritonitis had a higher serum bilirubin level than nonspontaneous bacterial peritonitis patients (P=0.018). Out of the 19 patients, 16 (84.2%) with a positive sample proceeded to transplantation on that occasion; the ascitic microscopy result did not influence the decision to proceed in any clinically stable patient. The 30-day post-transplant survival was 93.8% for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis patients and 96.2% for nonspontaneous bacterial peritonitis patients (P=0.478). After adjusting for recipient age, UK Score for Patients with End-Stage Liver Disease (UKELD) and donor risk index, there was no association between a positive tap and death within 30 days (P=0.649). CONCLUSION: Subclinical spontaneous bacterial peritonitis is rare in patients admitted for elective liver transplantation, does not influence the decision to proceed and is not associated with increased post-transplant mortality. Our findings suggest that routine preoperative ascitic fluid sampling is not indicated in clinically stable potential transplant recipients.