Electronic Alert System Significantly Increases HBV Screening Rates Before Immunosuppressive Treatments.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) screening rates before starting immunosuppressive treatments are suboptimal. The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of a new electronic alert system in increasing HBV screening rates. METHODS: The electronic alert system, HBVision2, identifies patients at risk of HBV reactivation when a pre-determined International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 code is entered into the hospital's database or immunosuppressive treatment is prescribed. The system evaluates the prior Hepatitis B Surfage Antigen (HBsAg) and anti-Hepatitis B Core Immunglobulin G (HBc IgG) results and sends an alert code to the clinician for screening if serology is not completely available or consult a specialist in case of positive serology. The HBV screening and consultation rates of patients before (control group) and after HBVision2 were retrospectively compared. The clinical course of unscreened and/or unconsulted patients was determined, and the clinical efficacy of HBVision2 in preventing HBVr was predicted. RESULTS: Control group included 815 patients (52.6% male, mean age: 60 ± 12, 82.5% with oncologic malignancy) and study group included 504 patients (56% male, mean age: 60 ± 13, 91.4% with oncologic malignancy). Groups were similar with respect to gender, mean age, and HBVr risk profile of the immunosuppressive treatment protocols. Overall, both HBsAg (from 55.1% to 93.1%) and anti- HBc IgG screening rates significantly increased (from 4.3% to 79.4%) after the electronic alert system (P < .001, for both). Consultation rates of anti-HBc IgG-positive patients significantly increased from 40% to 72.7% (P = .012). HBVr developed in 2 patients (2.6%) who were not screened and/or consulted after the alert system. Alert program prevented the development of HBVr in 10 patients (1.9%) of the study group and decreased the development of HBVr by 80%. CONCLUSION: Electronic alert system significantly improved HBsAg and anti-HBc IgG screening rates before starting immunosuppressive treatment and prevented the development of HBVr to a great extent. However, screening rates are still below optimal and need to be improved.

Higher Complications During the Waiting Period for Interval Cholecystectomy in Patients With Mild Biliary Pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: Although current guidelines recommend cholecystectomy during the same admission in patients with mild acute biliary pancreatitis (ABP), it involves a waiting list most of the time. We aimed to assess the risk of complications and determine predictors during the waiting period for cholecystectomy after the first episode of ABP. METHODS: A prospective observational study was conducted in patients with mild ABP. Follow-ups were done by phone calls or using electronic health records for a maximum of 6 months after discharge or until cholecystectomy. RESULTS: A total of 194 patients were included in the study. Although all patients were referred to surgeons, only 81 (41.8%) underwent cholecystectomy within 6 months after discharge. During the observation period, gallstone-related biliary events (GRBEs) developed in 68 (35.1%) patients, which included biliary colic, recurrent ABP, acute cholecystitis, choledocholithiasis, gallbladder perforation, cholangitis, and liver abscess. The overall readmission rate was 25.2%, with 44.8% occurred within 4 weeks after discharge. The odds ratio of any complication was 1.58 (95% CI, 1.42 to 1.76, P =0.028) and 1.59 (95% CI, 1.42 to 1.78, P =0.009) in the patients who did not have surgery within 2 to 7 days and 8 to 15 days, respectively. A 4-fold increased risk of readmission was detected (95% CI, 1.16 to 13.70, P =0.019) if cholecystectomy was not performed within 31 to 90 days. The patients who developed complications had significantly higher C-reactive protein at admission, longer waiting time, and had 3 or more gallstones on imaging. CONCLUSIONS: Interval cholecystectomy was associated with a high risk of complications during the waiting period in patients with mild ABP.

Graft versus host disease after liver transplantation: A case report.

Graft Versus Host Disease (GVHD) is a severe immunological-clinicopathological condition mediated by healthy T-lymphocytes in donor tissue against the immunosuppressed host tissue and rarely seen after solid organ transplantation (SOT). A 72-year old male patient underwent cadaveric liver transplantation. On day 34 of the postoperative follow-up, the patient developed fever, generalized skin rash and hemorrhagic lesions in the oropharynx. Skin biopsy was consistent with GVHD. Despite high-dose corticosteroid treatment, he died on postoperative day 51. Although it is seen rarely after liver transplantation, GVHD is an important clinical entity for which early diagnosis is critical due to its high rates of mortality.

Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Liver Transplantation: A Single-Center Experience.

BACKGROUND: Liver transplantation (LT) is the best treatment in selected patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Morphologic criteria alone are not sufficient to predict survival. In this study, we investigated the clinical, biochemical, and pathologic factors affecting survival in patients who underwent LT due to HCC. METHODS: Between October 2011 and January 2018, 165 of 749 LT for HCC cases performed at the Memorial Atasehir Hospital were evaluated retrospectively. Survival, demographic characteristics and etiology, preoperative alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) level, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score, prognostic staging, and morphologic and histologic properties were evaluated. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-nine cases of 165 were living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). The mean age was 57.7 ± 7.3 years, the mean follow-up period was 27.8 ± 20 months, and 41 patients (24%) died before follow-up. Recurrence of HCC was detected in 23 (14%) cases. Overall survival was 85%, 71%, and 64% for 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively. In terms of 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival within vs beyond Milan criteria was 90%, 80%, and 76% vs 75%, 66%, and 44%, respectively. In the University of California San Francisco criteria, it was 86%, 76%, and 70% vs 76%, 60%, and 30% compared with 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival. While histopathological poor differentiation and AFP elevation affected the course negatively. Good differentiation did not have a significant effect on survival. It was determined that poor differentiation, lymphovascular invasion, and an increased number of nodules significantly affected survival in both within and beyond cases. CONCLUSION: A transplant decision is controversial in patients with HCC with other than previously defined morphologic criteria. In these cases, AFP level and histologic differentiation determine survival. The results were not satisfactory in both high and/or poorly differentiated cases.

Role of pre-transplant 18F-FDG PET/CT in predicting hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after liver transplantation.

The last two decades have seen a paradigm shift in the selection of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) for liver transplantation. Microvascular invasion and differentiation have been the most significant factors affecting post-transplant recurrence; however, because of inherent disadvantages of pre-transplant biopsy, histological criteria never gained popularity. Recently, the selection criteria evolved from morphological to biological criteria, such as biomarkers and response to loco-regional therapy. With the introduction of multimodality imaging, combination of computed tomography with nuclear medicine imaging, particularly, 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography fulfilled an unmet need and rapidly became a critical component of HCC management. This review article will focus on the use of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography combined with computed tomography in the pre-transplant evaluation of HCC patients with special discussion on its ability to predict HCC recurrence after liver transplantation.