Influence of Lateralization and Distalization on Joint Function after Primary Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty.

The purpose of this study was to investigate how lateralization shoulder angle (LSA) and distalization shoulder angle (DSA) are related to clinical and kinematic outcomes after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Thirty-three patients were evaluated at least six months postoperatively. The Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), Constant Murley Score (CMS), Simple Shoulder Test (SST), and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) were used. Shoulder kinematics was evaluated with a stereophotogrammetric system. LSA and DSA inter-rater reliability was analysed through the interclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Stepwise forward linear regression analysis was conducted between LSA and DSA with clinical scales and kinematic measures, between which a correlation analysis was conducted. The inter-rater reliability for LSA (mean ICC = 0.93) and DSA (mean ICC = 0.97) results were good to excellent. Greater LSA values were associated with higher peaks of internal rotation (p = 0.012, R2 = 0.188) and range of motion (ROM) (p = 0.037, R2 = 0.133). SANE (p = 0.009), CMS (p = 0.031), and SST (0.026) were positively correlated to external rotation, while VAS (p = 0.020) was negatively related. Abduction peaks were positively related to CMS (p = 0.011) and SANE (p = 0.037), as well as abduction ROM (SANE, p = 0.031; CMS, p = 0.014).

Allograft Prosthesis Composite (APC) for Proximal Humeral Bone Loss: Outcomes and Perspectives.

(1) Background: Allograft prosthetic composite (APC) represents one of the techniques used for reconstruction in large proximal humeral bone deficits. The present systematic review aimed at summarizing the state of the art of the technique and analyzing its outcomes. (2) Methods: The PRISMA guidelines were followed to perform this systematic review. A systematic electronic search was performed using PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases. All the studies analyzing the rates of allograft prosthesis composite were pooled, and the data were extracted and analyzed. (3) Results: A total of 10 studies were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review for a total of 239 patients. The rate of patient satisfaction with surgery was reported in 7 studies with a mean of 86.4% ± 13.64. The mean constant score was 45.7 ± 3.51, the mean ASES score was 63.58 ± 8.37, and the mean SST was 4.6 ± 1.04. The mean revision rate observed was 10.32% ± 3.63 and the mean implant survival was 83.66% ± 14.98. (4) Conclusions: Based on the currently available data, allograft prosthesis composite represents a valuable option for the reconstruction of proximal humeral deficits. All studies analyzed showed the favorable impact of this surgical technique on clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction.

Intensive care management of acute-on-chronic liver failure.

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is a clinical syndrome defined by an acute deterioration of the liver function associated with extrahepatic organ failures requiring intensive care support and associated with a high short-term mortality. ACLF has emerged as a major cause of mortality in patients with cirrhosis and chronic liver disease. ACLF has a unique pathophysiology in which systemic inflammation plays a key role; this provides the basis of novel therapies, several of which are now in clinical trials. Intensive care unit (ICU) therapy parallels that applied in the general ICU population in some organ failures but has peculiar differential characteristics in others. Critical care management strategies and the option of liver transplantation (LT) should be balanced with futility considerations in those with a poor prognosis. Nowadays, LT is the only life-saving treatment that can radically improve the long-term prognosis of patients with ACLF. This narrative review will provide insights on the current understanding of ACLF with emphasis on intensive care management.

Economic Impact of European Liver and Intestine Transplantation Association (ELITA) Recommendations for Hepatitis B Prophylaxis After Liver Transplantation.

The European Liver and Intestine Transplant Association, ELITA, promoted a Consensus Conference involving 20 experts across the world which generated updated guidelines on HBV prophylaxis in liver transplant candidates and recipients. This study explores the economic impact associated with the implementation of the new ELITA guidelines. To this aim, a condition-specific cohort simulation model has been developed to compare new and historical prophylaxis, including only pharmaceutical cost and using the European perspective. The target population simulated in the model included both prevalent and incident cases, and consisted of 6,133 patients after the first year, that increased to 7,442 and 8,743 patents after 5 and 10 years from its implementation. The ELITA protocols allowed a cost saving of around € 235.65 million after 5 years and € 540.73 million after 10 years; which was mainly due to early HIBG withdrawal either after the first 4 weeks or after the first year post Liver Transplantation (LT) depending on the virological risk at transplantation. Results were confirmed by sensitivity analyses. The money saved by the implementation of the ELITA guidelines would allow healthcare decision makers and budget holders to understand where costs could be reduced and resources re-allocated to different needs.

Location and allocation: Inequity of access to liver transplantation for patients with severe acute-on-chronic liver failure in Europe.

There is growing evidence that liver transplantation (LT) is the most effective treatment for acute-on-chronic liver failure grade-3 (ACLF-3). This study examines whether and how this evidence translates into practice by analyzing the variability in intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, listing strategies, and LT activity for patients with ACLF-3 across transplantation centers in Europe. Consecutive patients who were admitted to the ICU with ACLF-3, whether or not they were listed and/or transplanted with ACLF-3, between 2018 and 2019 were included across 20 transplantation centers. A total of 351 patients with ACLF-3 were included: 33 had been listed prior to developing ACLF-3 and 318 had not been listed at the time of admission to the ICU. There was no correlation between the number of unlisted patients with ACLF-3 admitted to the ICU and the number listed or transplanted while in ACLF-3 across centers. By contrast, there was a correlation between the number of patients listed and the number transplanted while in ACLF-3. About 21% of patients who were listed while in ACLF-3 died on the waiting list or were delisted. The percentage of LT for patients with ACLF-3 varied from 0% to 29% for those transplanted with decompensated cirrhosis across centers (average = 8%), with an I2 index of 68% (95% confidence interval, 49%-80%), showing substantial heterogeneity among centers. The 1-year survival for all patients with ACLF-3 was significantly higher in centers that listed and transplanted more patients with ACLF-3 (>10 patients) than in centers that listed and transplanted fewer: 36% versus 20%, respectively (p = 0.012). Patients with ACLF-3 face inequity of access to LT across Europe. Waitlisting strategies for patients with ACLF-3 influence their access to LT and, ultimately, their survival.

Performance of the model for end-stage liver disease score for mortality prediction and the potential role of etiology.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Although the discriminative ability of the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score is generally considered acceptable, its calibration is still unclear. In a validation study, we assessed the discriminative performance and calibration of 3 versions of the model: original MELD-TIPS, used to predict survival after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS); classic MELD-Mayo; and MELD-UNOS, used by the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS). We also explored recalibrating and updating the model. METHODS: In total, 776 patients who underwent elective TIPS (TIPS cohort) and 445 unselected patients (non-TIPS cohort) were included. Three, 6 and 12-month mortality predictions were calculated by the 3 MELD versions: discrimination was assessed by c-statistics and calibration by comparing deciles of predicted and observed risks. Cox and Fine and Grey models were used for recalibration and prognostic analyses. RESULTS: In the TIPS/non-TIPS cohorts, the etiology of liver disease was viral in 402/188, alcoholic in 185/130, and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis in 65/33; mean follow-up±SD was 25±9/19±21 months; and the number of deaths at 3-6-12 months was 57-102-142/31-47-99, respectively. C-statistics ranged from 0.66 to 0.72 in TIPS and 0.66 to 0.76 in non-TIPS cohorts across prediction times and scores. A post hoc analysis revealed worse c-statistics in non-viral cirrhosis with more pronounced and significant worsening in the non-TIPS cohort. Calibration was acceptable with MELD-TIPS but largely unsatisfactory with MELD-Mayo and -UNOS whose performance improved much after recalibration. A prognostic analysis showed that age, albumin, and TIPS indication might be used to update the MELD. CONCLUSIONS: In this validation study, the performance of the MELD score was largely unsatisfactory, particularly in non-viral cirrhosis. MELD recalibration and candidate variables for an update to the MELD score are proposed. LAY SUMMARY: While the discriminative performance of the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score is credited to be fair to good, its calibration, the correspondence of observed to predicted mortality, is still unsettled. We found that application of 3 different versions of the MELD in 2 independent cirrhosis cohorts yielded largely imprecise mortality predictions particularly in non-viral cirrhosis. Thus, we propose a recalibration and suggest candidate variables for an update to the model.

COVID-19 in liver transplant candidates: pretransplant and post-transplant outcomes - an ELITA/ELTR multicentre cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Explore the impact of COVID-19 on patients on the waiting list for liver transplantation (LT) and on their post-LT course. DESIGN: Data from consecutive adult LT candidates with COVID-19 were collected across Europe in a dedicated registry and were analysed. RESULTS: From 21 February to 20 November 2020, 136 adult cases with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection from 33 centres in 11 European countries were collected, with 113 having COVID-19. Thirty-seven (37/113, 32.7%) patients died after a median of 18 (10-30) days, with respiratory failure being the major cause (33/37, 89.2%). The 60-day mortality risk did not significantly change between first (35.3%, 95% CI 23.9% to 50.0%) and second (26.0%, 95% CI 16.2% to 40.2%) waves. Multivariable Cox regression analysis showed Laboratory Model for End-stage Liver Disease (Lab-MELD) score of ≥15 (Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score 15-19, HR 5.46, 95% CI 1.81 to 16.50; MELD score≥20, HR 5.24, 95% CI 1.77 to 15.55) and dyspnoea on presentation (HR 3.89, 95% CI 2.02 to 7.51) being the two negative independent factors for mortality. Twenty-six patients underwent an LT after a median time of 78.5 (IQR 44-102) days, and 25 (96%) were alive after a median follow-up of 118 days (IQR 31-170). CONCLUSIONS: Increased mortality in LT candidates with COVID-19 (32.7%), reaching 45% in those with decompensated cirrhosis (DC) and Lab-MELD score of ≥15, was observed, with no significant difference between first and second waves of the pandemic. Respiratory failure was the major cause of death. The dismal prognosis of patients with DC supports the adoption of strict preventative measures and the urgent testing of vaccination efficacy in this population. Prior SARS-CoV-2 symptomatic infection did not affect early post-transplant survival (96%).

Liver transplantation for patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) in Europe: Results of the ELITA/EF-CLIF collaborative study (ECLIS).

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Liver transplantation (LT) has been proposed as an effective salvage therapy even for the sickest patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF). This large collaborative study was designed to assess the current clinical practice and outcomes of patients with ACLF who are wait-listed for LT in Europe. METHODS: This was a retrospective study including 308 consecutive patients with ACLF, listed in 20 centres across 8 European countries, from January 2018 to June 2019. RESULTS: A total of 2,677 patients received a LT: 1,216 (45.4%) for decompensated cirrhosis. Of these, 234 (19.2%) had ACLF at LT: 58 (4.8%) had ACLF-1, 78 (6.4%) had ACLF-2, and 98 (8.1%) had ACLF-3. Wide variations were observed amongst countries: France and Germany had high rates of ACLF-2/3 (27-41%); Italy, Switzerland, Poland and the Netherlands had medium rates (9-15%); and the United Kingdom and Spain had low rates (3-5%) (p <0.0001). The 1-year probability of survival after LT for patients with ACLF was 81% (95% CI 74-87). Pre-LT arterial lactate levels >4 mmol/L (hazard ratio [HR] 3.14; 95% CI 1.37-7.19), recent infection from multidrug resistant organisms (HR 3.67; 95% CI 1.63-8.28), and renal replacement therapy (HR 2.74; 95% CI 1.37-5.51) were independent predictors of post-LT mortality. During the same period, 74 patients with ACLF died on the waiting list. In an intention-to-treat analysis, 1-year survival of patients with ACLF on the LT waiting list was 73% for ACLF-1 or -2 and 50% for ACLF-3. CONCLUSION: The results reveal wide variations in the listing of patients with ACLF in Europe despite favourable post-LT survival. Risk factors for mortality were identified, enabling a more precise prognostic assessment of patients with ACLF. LAY SUMMARY: Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is a severe clinical condition for which liver transplantation is an effective therapeutic option. This study has demonstrated that in Europe, referral and access to liver transplantation (LT) for patients with ACLF needs to be harmonised to avoid inequities. Post-LT survival for patients with ACLF was >80% after 1 year and some factors have been identified to help select patients with favourable outcomes.

Protective Role of Tacrolimus, Deleterious Role of Age and Comorbidities in Liver Transplant Recipients With Covid-19: Results From the ELITA/ELTR Multi-center European Study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Despite concerns that liver transplant (LT) recipients may be at increased risk of unfavorable outcomes from COVID-19 due the high prevalence of co-morbidities, immunosuppression and ageing, a detailed analysis of their effects in large studies is lacking. METHODS: Data from adult LT recipients with laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV2 infection were collected across Europe. All consecutive patients with symptoms were included in the analysis. RESULTS: Between March 1 and June 27, 2020, data from 243 adult symptomatic cases from 36 centers and 9 countries were collected. Thirty-nine (16%) were managed as outpatients while 204 (84%) required hospitalization including admission to the ICU (39 of 204, 19.1%). Forty-nine (20.2%) patients died after a median of 13.5 (10-23) days, respiratory failure was the major cause. After multivariable Cox regression analysis, age >70 (HR, 4.16; 95% CI, 1.78-9.73) had a negative effect and tacrolimus (TAC) use (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.31-0.99) had a positive independent effect on survival. The role of co-morbidities was strongly influenced by the dominant effect of age where comorbidities increased with the increasing age of the recipients. In a second model excluding age, both diabetes (HR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.06-3.58) and chronic kidney disease (HR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.05-3.67) emerged as associated with death CONCLUSIONS: Twenty-five percent of patients requiring hospitalization for COVID-19 died, the risk being higher in patients older than 70 and with medical co-morbidities, such as impaired renal function and diabetes. Conversely, the use of TAC was associated with a better survival thus encouraging clinicians to keep TAC at the usual dose.

Portosystemic shunts versus endoscopic intervention with or without medical treatment for prevention of rebleeding in people with cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND: People with liver cirrhosis who have had one episode of variceal bleeding are at risk for repeated episodes of bleeding. Endoscopic intervention and portosystemic shunts are used to prevent further bleeding, but there is no consensus as to which approach is preferable. OBJECTIVES: To compare the benefits and harms of shunts (surgical shunts (total shunt (TS), distal splenorenal shunt (DSRS), or transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS)) versus endoscopic intervention (endoscopic sclerotherapy or banding, or both) with or without medical treatment (non-selective beta blockers or nitrates, or both) for prevention of variceal rebleeding in people with liver cirrhosis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the CHBG Controlled Trials Register; CENTRAL, in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE Ovid; Embase Ovid; LILACS (Bireme); Science Citation Index - Expanded (Web of Science); and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (Web of Science); as well as conference proceedings and the references of trials identified until 22 June 2020. We contacted study investigators and industry researchers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials comparing shunts versus endoscopic interventions with or without medical treatment in people with cirrhosis who had recovered from a variceal haemorrhage. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. When possible, we collected data to allow intention-to-treat analysis. For each outcome, we estimated a meta-analysed estimate of treatment effect across trials (risk ratio for binary outcomes). We used random-effects model meta-analysis as our main analysis and as a means of presenting results. We reported differences in means for continuous outcomes without a meta-analytic estimate due to high variability in their assessment among all trials. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 27 randomised trials with 1828 participants. Three trials assessed TSs, five assessed DSRSs, and 19 trials assessed TIPSs. The endoscopic intervention was sclerotherapy in 16 trials, band ligation in eight trials, and a combination of band ligation and either sclerotherapy or glue injection in three trials. In eight trials, endoscopy was combined with beta blockers (in one trial plus isosorbide mononitrate). We judged all trials to be at high risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence for all the outcome review results as very low (i.e. the true effects of the results are likely to be substantially different from the results of estimated effects). The very low evidence grading is due to the overall high risk of bias for all trials, and to imprecision and publication bias for some outcomes. Therefore, we are very uncertain whether portosystemic shunts versus endoscopy interventions with or without medical treatment have effects on all-cause mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.13; 1828 participants; 27 trials), on rebleeding (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.50; 1769 participants; 26 trials), on mortality due to rebleeding (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.76; 1779 participants; 26 trials), and on occurrence of hepatic encephalopathy, both acute (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.92; 1649 participants; 24 trials) and chronic (RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.38 to 4.55; 956 participants; 13 trials). No data were available regarding health-related quality of life. Analysing each modality of portosystemic shunts individually (i.e. TS, DSRS, and TIPS) versus endoscopic interventions with or without medical treatment, we are very uncertain if each type of shunt has effect on all-cause mortality: TS, RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.13; 164 participants; 3 trials; DSRS, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.33; 352 participants; 4 trials; and TIPS, RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.31; 1312 participants; 19 trial; on rebleeding: TS, RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.56; 127 participants; 2 trials; DSRS, RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.65; 330 participants; 5 trials; and TIPS, RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.55; 1312 participants; 19 trials; on mortality due to rebleeding: TS, RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.96; 164 participants; 3 trials; DSRS, RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.74; 352 participants; 5 trials; and TIPS, RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.04; 1263 participants; 18 trials; on acute hepatic encephalopathy: TS, RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.70 to 3.92; 115 participants; 2 trials; DSRS, RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.94 to 3.08; 287 participants; 4 trials, TIPS, RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.99; 1247 participants; 18 trials; and chronic hepatic encephalopathy: TS, Fisher's exact test P = 0.11; 69 participants; 1 trial; DSRS, RR 4.87, 95% CI 1.46 to 16.23; 170 participants; 2 trials; and TIPS, RR 1.88, 95% CI 0.93 to 3.80; 717 participants; 10 trials. The proportion of participants with shunt occlusion or dysfunction was overall 37% (95% CI 33% to 40%). It was 3% (95% CI 0.8% to 10%) following TS, 7% (95% CI 3% to 13%) following DSRS, and 47.1% (95% CI 43% to 51%) following TIPS. Shunt dysfunction in trials utilising polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stents was 17% (95% CI 11% to 24%). Length of inpatient hospital stay and cost were not comparable across trials. Funding was unclear in 16 trials; 11 trials were funded by government, local hospitals, or universities. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on whether portosystemic shunts versus endoscopy interventions with or without medical treatment in people with cirrhosis and previous hypertensive portal bleeding have little or no effect on all-cause mortality is very uncertain. Evidence on whether portosystemic shunts may reduce bleeding and mortality due to bleeding while increasing hepatic encephalopathy is also very uncertain. We need properly conducted trials to assess effects of these interventions not only on assessed outcomes, but also on quality of life, costs, and length of hospital stay.

Longterm Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Liver Transplantation for Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure.

Recent data have demonstrated >80% 1-year survival probability after liver transplantation (LT) for patients with severe acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF). However, longterm outcomes and complications are still unknown for this population. Our aim was to compare longterm patient and graft survival among patients transplanted across all grades of ACLF. We analyzed the United Network for Organ Sharing database for the years 2004-2017. Patients with ACLF were identified using the European Association for the Study of the Liver-Chronic Liver Failure criteria. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression methods were used to determine patient and graft survival and associated predictors of mortality in adjusted models. A total of 56,801 patients underwent transplantation of which 31,024 (54.6%) had no ACLF, 8757 (15.4%) had ACLF grade 1, 9039 (15.9%) had ACLF grade 2, and 7891 (14.1%) had ACLF grade 3. The 5-year patient survival after LT was lower in the ACLF grade 3 patients compared with the other groups (67.7%; P < 0.001), although after year 1, the percentage decrease in survival was similar among all groups. Infection was the primary cause of death among all patient groups in the first year. Infection was the primary cause of death among all patient groups in the first year. After the first year, infection was the main cause of death in patients transplanted with ACLF grade 1 (32.1%), ACLF grade 2 (33.9%), and ACLF grade 3 (37.6%), whereas malignancy was the predominant cause of death in those transplanted with no ACLF (28.5%). In conclusion, patients transplanted with ACLF grade 3 had lower 5-year survival as compared with patients with ACLF grades 0-2, but mortality rates were not significantly different after the first year following LT. Graft survival was excellent across all ACLF groups.

High rates of 30-day mortality in patients with cirrhosis and COVID-19.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) poses a major health threat to healthy individuals and those with comorbidities, but its impact on patients with cirrhosis is currently unknown. Herein, we aimed to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on the clinical outcome of patients with cirrhosis. METHODS: In this multicentre retrospective study, patients with cirrhosis and a confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection were enrolled between 1st and 31th March 2020. Clinical and biochemical data at diagnosis of COVID-19 and at the last outpatient visit were obtained through review of medical records. RESULTS: Fifty patients with cirrhosis and confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were enrolled (age 67 years, 70% men, 38% virus-related, 52% previously compensated cirrhosis). At diagnosis, 64% of patients presented fever, 42% shortness of breath/polypnea, 22% encephalopathy, 96% needed hospitalization or a prolonged stay if already in hospital. Respiratory support was necessary in 71%, 52% received antivirals, 80% heparin. Serum albumin significantly decreased, while bilirubin, creatinine and prothrombin time significantly increased at COVID-19 diagnosis compared to last available data. The proportion of patients with a model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score ≥15 increased from 13% to 26% (p = 0.037), acute-on-chronic liver failure and de novo acute liver injury occurred in 14 (28%) and 10 patients, respectively. Seventeen patients died after a median of 10 (4-13) days from COVID-19 diagnosis, with a 30-day-mortality rate of 34%. The severity of lung and liver (according to CLIF-C, CLIF-OF and MELD scores) diseases independently predicted mortality. In patients with cirrhosis, mortality was significantly higher in those with COVID-19 than in those hospitalized for bacterial infections. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 is associated with liver function deterioration and elevated mortality in patients with cirrhosis. LAY SUMMARY: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) poses a major health threat to healthy individuals and those with comorbidities. Herein, we assessed its impact on patients with cirrhosis. Infection with COVID-19 was associated with liver function deterioration and elevated mortality in patients with cirrhosis.