Psychosocial assessment in liver transplantation (LT): an analysis of short-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Our research showed that patients with alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD) had more severe liver disease than those without a diagnosis of ALD yet were less likely to be selected for transplant listing due to their increased psychosocial vulnerability. This study aims to answer whether this vulnerability translates to worse short-term outcomes after transplant listing. METHODS: A total of 187 patients were approved for liver transplant listing and are included in the present retrospective study. We collected dates of transplantation, retransplantation, death, and pathologic data for evidence of rejection, and reviewed alcohol biomarkers and documentation for evidence of alcohol use. RESULTS: The ALD cohort had higher Stanford Integrated Psychosocial Assessment for Transplant (SIPAT) scores (39.4 vs. 22.5, p <0.001) and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD)-Na scores (25.0 vs. 18.5, p <0.001) compared with the non-ALD cohort. Forty-nine (59.7%) subjects with ALD and 60 (57.1%, p =0.71) subjects without ALD subsequently received a liver transplant. Overall mortality was similar between the 2 groups (20.7% ALD vs. 21.0% non-ALD, p =0.97). Neither the SIPAT score (HR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.96-1.00, p =0.11) nor MELD-Na score (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95-1.02, p =0.40) were associated with mortality. Patients with ALD were more likely to have alcohol biomarkers tested both before (84.1% vs. 24.8% non-ALD, p <0.001) and after liver transplantation (74.0% vs. 16.7% non-ALD, p <0.001). SIPAT score was associated with alcohol use after listing (OR: 1.03, 95% CI: 1.0-1.07, p =0.04), although a return to alcohol use was not associated with mortality (HR: 1.60, 95% CI: 0.63-4.10, p =0.33). CONCLUSION: Patients with ALD had higher psychosocial risk compared with patients without a diagnosis of ALD who were placed on the waitlist, but had similar short-term outcomes including mortality, transplantation, and rejection. Although a high SIPAT score was predictive of alcohol use, in the short-term, alcohol use after transplant listing was not associated with mortality.

Psychosocial Assessment Rather Than Severity of Liver Failure Dominates Selection for Liver Transplantation in Patients With Alcohol-Related Liver Disease.

The Stanford Integrated Psychosocial Assessment for Transplant (SIPAT) is a validated interview tool to assess psychosocial well-being in candidates for solid organ transplants, with higher scores indicating greater vulnerability. We hypothesized that patients with alcohol-related liver disease (ALD) undergoing liver transplantation (LT) evaluation would have higher SIPAT scores than candidates with non-ALD, but that only patients with ALD who have low scores would be selected. We analyzed retrospectively consecutive adults undergoing LT evaluation from June 2018 to December 2019. Comparisons between patients with ALD and patients with non-ALD were made using the nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test plus a multivariate analysis to determine independent predictors for approval. In the study cohort of 358 patients, there were 199 (56%) patients with ALD with a mean age of 55 years, and 133 (67%) were men. There were 159 (44%) patients with non-ALD with a mean age of 57 years, and 95 (60%) were men. Mean Model for End-Stage Liver Disease-sodium scores were similar for selected versus not selected patients with ALD (25 versus 25.6) and selected versus not selected patients with non-ALD (18.3 versus 17.4), although the ALD group had substantially higher Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores. Patients with ALD had higher mean SIPAT composite and individual domain scores compared with their non-ALD counterparts. SIPAT scores were not affected by age or sex. Proportionately more candidates with non-ALD were selected compared to candidates with ALD (68% versus 42%; P < 0.001; odds ratio for approval of non-ALD versus ALD, 2.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.8-4.7; P < 0.001). Composite SIPAT scores were lower in the selected versus nonselected in both ALD and non-ALD groups, although the SIPAT scores were significantly higher in selected patients with ALD (median, 39) than selected patients with non-ALD (median, 23; P = 0.001). Psychosocial assessment has a greater influence than acuity of liver failure on the selection of patients with ALD for LT listing, whereas psychosocial assessment has a minor influence on the selection of non-ALD candidates.

Multidisciplinary Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Improves Access to Therapy and Patient Survival.

BACKGROUND: Given the complexity of managing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), it is widely accepted that a multidisciplinary team approach (tumor boards) offers the best approach to individualize therapy. The aim of this study was to determine utilization of therapies and outcomes for patients with HCC, comparing those managed through our multidisciplinary tumor board (MDTB) to those who were not. METHODS: A database analysis of all patients with HCC managed through our MDTB, from 2007 until 2011, was performed. A database of all patients with HCC from 2002 to 2011, not managed through MDTB, was similarly created. RESULTS: A total of 306 patients with HCC, from 2007 to 2011 were managed through our MDTB, in comparison with 349 patients, from 2002 to 2011 who were not. There were no significant differences in baseline demographic data or model for end-stage liver disease at presentation. Patients managed through MDTB were more likely to present at an earlier tumor stage and with lower serum alpha fetoprotein (AFP) (P=0.007). The odds of receiving any treatment for HCC was higher in patients managed through MDTB (odds ratio, 2.80; 95% confidence interval, 1.71-4.59; P<0.0001) independent of model for end-stage liver disease score, serum AFP, and tumor stage. There was significantly greater survival of patients managed through MDTB (19.1±2.5 vs. 7.6±0.9 mo, P<0.0001). Independent predictors for improved survival included management through MDTB, receipt of any HCC treatment, lower serum AFP, receipt of liver transplant, and T2 tumor stage. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HCC managed through a MDTB had significantly higher rates of receipt of therapy and improved survival compared with those who were not.

Colonoscopy training in gastroenterology fellowships: determining competence.

BACKGROUND: Although 140 colonoscopies is the recommended minimal requirement for gastroenterology fellows, it is unclear whether this minimum is a surrogate for competence. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether 140 colonoscopies is an adequate threshold to determine > or =90% colonoscopy performance independence. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis on a database constructed for quality control/improvement. SETTING: Gastroenterology fellowship training program at a veterans hospital. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients who underwent colonoscopy primarily for symptoms, previous polyps, or family history of cancer (a minority were performed for screening only) from April 2007 to September 2008. This study involved 11 gastroenterology fellows who performed 770 colonoscopies during 18 individual month-long rotations. INTERVENTION: Assessment of various procedure-related parameters. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Determining when > or =90% independence in colonoscopy performance was reached. RESULTS: Total colonoscopy time, time to cecal intubation, withdrawal time, and independent completion rates all significantly improved when first and third years of training were compared (P < .001 for all comparisons). The adenoma detection rate did not change between years of training. Independent completion was achieved in > or =90% of cases for all fellows after 500 colonoscopies, whereas no fellow reached a > or =90% independent colonoscopy completion rate after 140 colonoscopies. LIMITATIONS: Number of participants, single center. CONCLUSIONS: Becoming a competent colonoscopist requires repeated practice. Our study suggests that, although there is variability between a trainee's ability to become colonoscopy independent, 500 colonoscopies are likely required to ensure reliable (> or =90%) independent completion rates. Competency requires more than a single parameter.

How will patients be selected for transplantation in the future?

1. The model for end-stage liver disease has become a selection tool for recipients for liver transplantation. 2. The present selection / allocation system does not recognize distinctions in "donor organ quality." 3. Many studies have shown that donor factors such as age, gender, fat content, and heart beating versus non-heart beating status influence outcome of the liver transplantation. 4. Efforts to increase organ donation are likely to provide more "expanded-criteria donors." 5. Future selection practices may attempt to match specific recipients to specific donors.

Summary report of a national conference: Evolving concepts in liver allocation in the MELD and PELD era. December 8, 2003, Washington, DC, USA.

A national conference was held to review and assess data gathered since implementation of MELD and PELD and determine future directions. The objectives of the conference were to review the current system of liver allocation with a critical analysis of its strengths and weaknesses. Conference participants used an evidence-based approach to consider whether predicted outcome after transplantation should influence allocation, to discuss the concept of minimal listing score, to revisit current and potential expansion of exception criteria, and to determine whether specific scores should be used for automatic removal of patients on the waiting list. After review of data from the first 18 months since implementation, association and society leaders, and surgeons and hepatologists with wide regional representation were invited to participate in small group discussions focusing on each of the main objectives. At the completion of the meeting, there was agreement that MELD has had a successful initial implementation, meeting the goal of providing a system of allocation that emphasizes the urgency of the candidate while diminishing the reliance on waiting time, and that it has proven to be a powerful tool for auditing the liver allocation system. It was also agreed that the data regarding the accuracy of PELD as a predictor of pretransplant mortality were less conclusive and that PELD should be considered in isolation. Recommendations for the transplant community, based on the analysis of the MELD data, were discussed and are presented in the summary document.

Organ allocation: model for end-stage liver disease, Child-Turcotte-Pugh, Mayo risk score, or something else.

The discovery of a single test of liver function has been a goal of hepatologists for many years. The great complexity of the liver and its many diverse functions, however, has prevented such an accomplishment. An analogy can be made with the way one currently uses liver tests where several individual tests are combined into a profile. This article presents evidence that confirms the same concept: Only by combining several clinical and laboratory measures can we predict the prognosis of liver disease patients. End-stage liver disease and pediatric end-stage liver disease models are valuable additions to the prognostic armamentarium; however, these models are not perfect and some important indications for liver transplant today cannot be included because their main issue is not disease severity.