Thromboelastography versus standard coagulation testing in the assessment and reversal of coagulopathy among cirrhotics: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The utility of thromboelastography/thromboelastometry currently has unvalidated clinical benefit in the assessment and reversal of coagulopathy among cirrhotic patients as compared to standard coagulation testing. A novel systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in order to assess pooled outcome data among patients receiving thromboelastography/thromboelastometry as compared to standard coagulation testing. As compared to standard coagulation testing, there was a significant reduction in the number of patients requiring pRBC, platelet, and fresh frozen plasma transfusions among thromboelastography/thromboelastometry group with pooled OR 0.53 (95% CI 0.32-0.85; P = 0.009), 0.29 (95% CI 0.12-0.74; P = 0.009), and 0.19 (95% CI 0.12-0.31; P < 0.00001), respectively. Similarly, there was a significant reduction in number of pRBC, platelet, and fresh frozen plasma units transfused in the thromboelastography/thromboelastometry group with pooled MD -1.53 (95% CI -2.86 to -0.21; P = 0.02), -0.57 (95% CI -1.06 to -0.09; P = 0.02), and -2.71 (95% CI -4.34 to -1.07; P = 0.001), respectively. There were significantly decreased total bleeding events with pooled OR 0.54 (95% CI 0.31-0.94; P = 0.03) and amount of intraoperative bleeding during liver transplantation with pooled MD -1.46 (95% CI -2.49 to -0.44; P = 0.005) in the thromboelastography/thromboelastometry group. Overall, there was no significant difference in mortality between groups with pooled OR 0.91 (95% CI 0.63-1.30; P = 0.60). As compared to standard coagulation testing, a thromboelastography/thromboelastometry-guided approach to the assessment and reversal of cirrhotic coagulopathy improves overall number of patients exposed to blood product transfusions, quantity of transfusions, and bleeding events.

Effect of Early Everolimus-Facilitated Reduction of Tacrolimus on Efficacy and Renal Function in De Novo Liver Transplant Recipients: 24-Month Results for the North American Subpopulation.

BACKGROUND: A recent randomized phase III study of 719 de novo liver transplant recipients showed that early everolimus plus reduced-dose tacrolimus (EVR + rTAC) led to significantly better kidney function than standard TAC (TAC-C), without compromising efficacy. In that study, patients from North America (n = 211) had increased risk factors for posttransplant renal insufficiency at study start, relative to patients from Europe and rest of world (eg, worse renal function, more diabetes, older age). METHODS: A post hoc analysis was performed to assess whether these regional disparities affected study outcomes in North American patients. RESULTS: In this subpopulation, estimated glomerular filtration rates at randomization were higher in TAC-C over EVR + rTAC (76.4 vs 69.3 mL/min per 1.73 m). Mean changes in estimated glomerular filtration rate values (mL/min per 1.73 m) favored EVR + rTAC over TAC-C at months 12 (+3.7 vs -4.5; P = 0.032), 24 (+2.7 vs -6.6; P = 0.042), and 36 (+4.3 vs -8.1; P = 0.059). The composite efficacy endpoint of treated biopsy-proven acute rejection, graft loss, or death was 10.9%, 14.1%, and 14.1% for EVR + rTAC and 13.1%, 17.2%, and 19.3% for TAC-C at months 12, 24, and 36, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although the North American cohort had more comorbidities, results were consistent with the overall population for efficacy and renal function.

A multicenter evaluation of utility of chest computed tomography and bone scans in liver transplant candidates with stages I and II hepatoma.

OBJECTIVE: To determine utility of practice of chest computed tomography (CCT) and bone scan (BS) in patients with early-stage hepatoma evaluated for transplantation (LT). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Consensus-based policy mandates routine CCT and BS in LT candidates with hepatoma. No data exist either to support or refute this policy. METHODS: From January 1999 to December 2002, stages I and II hepatoma patients evaluated at 4 centers were included. Scan interpretation was positive, indeterminate, or negative. Outcomes of evaluation and transplantation were compared between groups based on scans. Total charges incurred were derived from mean of charges at the centers. RESULTS: One hundred seventeen stages I and II patients were evaluated. None had positive scans, 78 had negative, 29 had at least 1 indeterminate, and 10 did not have 1 or both scans. Twelve patients were declined listing, 6 from progression of hepatoma but none from CCT or BS findings. Two listed patients were delisted for progression of the hepatoma. Proportion of patients listed, transplanted, clinical and pathologic stage of hepatoma, and recurrence after LT were similar in groups with negative and indeterminate scans. Indeterminate scans led to 6 invasive procedures, 1 patient died of complications of a mediastinal biopsy, and none of the 6 showed metastases. Charges of $2933 were generated per patient evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: Positive yield of routine CCT and BS in patients with hepatoma is very low despite substantial charges and potential complications. CCT and BS performed only when clinically indicated will be a more cost-effective and safer approach.

The new liver allocation system: moving toward evidence-based transplantation policy.

In 1999, the Institute of Medicine suggested that instituting a continuous disease severity score that de-emphasizes waiting time could improve the allocation of cadaveric livers for transplantation. This report describes the development and initial implementation of this new plan. The goal was to develop a continuous disease severity scale that uses objective, readily available variables to predict mortality risk in patients with end-stage liver disease and reduce the emphasis on waiting time. Mechanisms were also developed for inclusion of good transplant candidates who do not have high risk of death but for whom transplantation may be urgent. The Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) and Pediatric End-Stage Liver Disease (PELD) scores were selected as the basis for the new allocation policy because of their high degree of accuracy for predicting death in patients having a variety of liver disease etiologies and across a broad spectrum of liver disease severity. Except for the most urgent patients, all patients will be ranked continuously under the new policy by their MELD/PELD score. Waiting time is used only to prioritize patients with identical MELD/PELD scores. Patients who are not well served by the MELD/PELD scores can be prioritized through a regionalized peer review system. This new liver allocation plan is based on more objective, verifiable measures of disease severity with minimal emphasis on waiting time. Application of such risk models provides an evidenced-based approach on which to base further refinements and improve the model.