Quality measures in pre-liver transplant care by the Practice Metrics Committee of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

The liver transplantation (LT) evaluation and waitlisting process is subject to variations in care that can impede quality. The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) Practice Metrics Committee (PMC) developed quality measures and patient-reported experience measures along the continuum of pre-LT care to reduce care variation and guide patient-centered care. Following a systematic literature review, candidate pre-LT measures were grouped into 4 phases of care: referral, evaluation and waitlisting, waitlist management, and organ acceptance. A modified Delphi panel with content expertise in hepatology, transplant surgery, psychiatry, transplant infectious disease, palliative care, and social work selected the final set. Candidate patient-reported experience measures spanned domains of cognitive health, emotional health, social well-being, and understanding the LT process. Of the 71 candidate measures, 41 were selected: 9 for referral; 20 for evaluation and waitlisting; 7 for waitlist management; and 5 for organ acceptance. A total of 14 were related to structure, 17 were process measures, and 10 were outcome measures that focused on elements not typically measured in routine care. Among the patient-reported experience measures, candidates of LT rated items from understanding the LT process domain as the most important. The proposed pre-LT measures provide a framework for quality improvement and care standardization among candidates of LT. Select measures apply to various stakeholders such as referring practitioners in the community and LT centers. Clinically meaningful measures that are distinct from those used for regulatory transplant reporting may facilitate local quality improvement initiatives to improve access and quality of care.

The diagnostic yield of exome sequencing in liver diseases from a curated gene panel.

Exome sequencing (ES) has been used in a variety of clinical settings but there are limited data on its utility for diagnosis and/or prediction of monogenic liver diseases. We developed a curated list of 502 genes for monogenic disorders associated with liver phenotypes and analyzed ES data for these genes in 758 patients with chronic liver diseases (CLD). For comparison, we examined ES data in 7856 self-declared healthy controls (HC), and 2187 patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Candidate pathogenic (P) or likely pathogenic (LP) variants were initially identified in 19.9% of participants, most of which were attributable to previously reported pathogenic variants with implausibly high allele frequencies. After variant annotation and filtering based on population minor allele frequency (MAF ≤ 10-4 for dominant disorders and MAF ≤ 10-3 for recessive disorders), we detected a significant enrichment of P/LP variants in the CLD cohort compared to the HC cohort (X2 test OR 5.00, 95% CI 3.06-8.18, p value = 4.5e-12). A second-level manual annotation was necessary to capture true pathogenic variants that were removed by stringent allele frequency and quality filters. After these sequential steps, the diagnostic rate of monogenic disorders was 5.7% in the CLD cohort, attributable to P/LP variants in 25 genes. We also identified concordant liver disease phenotypes for 15/22 kidney disease patients with P/LP variants in liver genes, mostly associated with cystic liver disease phenotypes. Sequencing results had many implications for clinical management, including familial testing for early diagnosis and management, preventative screening for associated comorbidities, and in some cases for therapy. Exome sequencing provided a 5.7% diagnostic rate in CLD patients and required multiple rounds of review to reduce both false positive and false negative findings. The identification of concordant phenotypes in many patients with P/LP variants and no known liver disease also indicates a potential for predictive testing for selected monogenic liver disorders.

Risk Factors for 30-Day Unplanned Readmission After Hepatectomy: Analysis of 438 Pediatric Patients from the ACS-NSQIP-P Database.

BACKGROUND: Hepatic resections are uncommon in children. Most studies reporting complications of these procedures and risk factors associated with unplanned readmissions are limited to retrospective data from single centers. We investigated risk factors for 30-day unplanned readmission after hepatectomy in children using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement-Pediatric database. METHODS: The database was queried for patients aged 0-18 years who underwent hepatectomy for the treatment of liver lesions from 2012 to 2018. Chi-squared tests were performed to evaluate for potential risk factors for unplanned readmissions. A multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify independent predictors for unplanned 30-day readmissions. RESULTS: Among 438 children undergoing hepatectomy, 64 (14.6%) had unplanned readmissions. The median age of the hepatectomy cohort was 1 year (0-17); 55.5% were male. Patients readmitted had significantly higher rates of esophageal/gastric/intestinal disease (26.56% vs. 14.97%; p=0.022), current cancer (85.94% vs. 75.67%; p=0.012), and enteral and parenteral nutritional support (31.25% vs. 17.65%; p=0.011). Readmitted patients had significantly higher rates of perioperative blood transfusion (67.19% vs. 52.41%; p=0.028), organ/space surgical site infection (10.94% vs. 1.07%; p<.001), sepsis (15.63% vs. 3.74%; p<.001), and total parenteral nutrition at discharge (9.09% vs. 2.66%; p=0.041). Organ/space surgical site infection was an independent risk factor for unplanned readmission (OR=9.598, CI [2.070-44.513], p=0.004) by multivariable analysis. CONCLUSION: Unplanned readmissions after liver resection are frequent in pediatric patients. Organ/space surgical site infections may identify patients at increased risk for unplanned readmission. Strategies to reduce these complications may decrease morbidity and costs associated with unplanned readmissions.

Durable Clinical and Immunologic Advantage of Living Donor Liver Transplantation in Children.

BACKGROUND: Despite high survival in pediatric living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), only 10% of liver transplants in children in the United States are from living donors, reflecting reluctance to embrace this approach. In addition to optimal timing and graft quality, LDLT may offer immunologic benefit because most donors are haploidentical parents. We sought to quantify the benefit of LDLT compared to deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) using granular clinical and immunologic outcomes over the long term. METHODS: A retrospective cohort of children (age <18 years) surviving 1 year or longer posttransplant was evaluated to determine the impact of donor type on graft survival and immunologic outcomes. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-one children (177 DDLT and 64 LDLT) were assessed. In multivariable analysis, LDLT was associated with a lower rate of acute cellular rejection (hazard ratio [HR], 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.29-0.98; P = 0.04), a lower rate of chronic rejection (HR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.03-0.56; P = 0.007), better graft survival on monotherapy immunosuppression at 3 years posttransplant (87.7% vs 46.7%; odds ratio, 7.41; 95% CI, 2.80-19.66; P < 0.001), and a lower rate of graft loss (HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.10-0.88; P = 0.03). Graft type was not an independent predictor of posttransplant mortality (LDLT HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.16-2.01; P = 0.38). Maternal graft LDLT was associated with a lower rate of acute cellular rejection (HR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.03-0.64; P = 0.01) and posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder (HR, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.004-0.44; P = 0.008) compared with paternal grafts. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the potential benefit of LDLT, particularly with maternal grafts, for pediatric liver transplant recipients on multiple clinical parameters over long-term follow-up.