ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Diagnostic paracentesis is recommended for patients with cirrhosis admitted to the hospital, but adherence is suboptimal with unclear impact on clinical outcomes. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the outcomes of early vs delayed diagnostic paracentesis among hospitalized patients with cirrhosis and ascites. METHODS: We searched multiple databases for studies comparing early vs delayed diagnostic paracentesis among hospitalized patients with cirrhosis and ascites. The pooled odds ratio (OR) and mean difference with confidence intervals (CIs) for proportional and continuous variables were calculated using the random-effects model. Early diagnostic paracentesis was defined as receiving diagnostic paracentesis within 12-24 hours of admission. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were length of hospital stay, acute kidney injury, and 30-day readmission. RESULTS: Seven studies (n = 78,744) (n = 45,533 early vs n = 33,211 delayed diagnostic paracentesis) were included. Early diagnostic paracentesis was associated with lower in-hospital mortality (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.46-0.82, P = 0.001), length of hospital stay (mean difference -4.85 days; 95% CI -6.45 to -3.20; P < 0.001), and acute kidney injury (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.42-0.92, P = 0.02) compared with delayed diagnostic paracentesis, with similar 30-day readmission (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.52-2.39, P = 0.79). Subgroup analysis revealed consistent results for in-hospital mortality whether early diagnostic paracentesis performed within 12 hours (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.32-0.79, P = 0.003, I2 = 0%) or within 24 hours of admission (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45-0.98, P = 0.04, I2 = 82%). Notably, the mortality OR was numerically lower when diagnostic paracentesis was performed within 12 hours, and the results were precise and homogenous ( I2 = 0%). DISCUSSION: Findings from this meta-analysis suggest that early diagnostic paracentesis is associated with better patient outcomes. Early diagnostic paracentesis within 12 hours of admission may be associated with the greatest mortality benefit. Data from large-scale randomized trials are needed to validate our findings, especially if there is a greater mortality benefit for early diagnostic paracentesis within 12 hours.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Emergency department (ED)-based care is required for cirrhosis management, yet the burden of cirrhosis-related ED healthcare utilization is understudied. We aimed to describe ED utilization within a statewide health system and compare the outcomes of high ED use (HEDU) vs non-HEDU in individuals with cirrhosis. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed charts of adults with cirrhosis who presented to any of 16 EDs within the Indiana University Health system in 2021. Patient characteristics, features of the initial ED visit, subsequent 90-day healthcare use, and 360-day outcomes were collected. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify predictors HEDU status which was defined as ≥2 ED visits within 90 days after the index ED visit. RESULTS: There were 2,124 eligible patients (mean age 61.3 years, 53% male, and 91% White). Major etiologies of cirrhosis were alcohol (38%), metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (27%), and viral hepatitis (21%). Cirrhosis was newly diagnosed in the ED visit for 18.4%. Most common reasons for ED visits were abdominal pain (21%), shortness of breath (19%), and ascites/volume overload (16%). Of the initial ED visits, 20% (n = 424) were potentially avoidable. The overall 90-day mortality was 16%. Within 90 days, there were 366 HEDU (20%). Notable variables independently associated with HEDU were model for end-stage liver disease-sodium (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.044, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.005-1.085), prior ED encounter (aOR 1.520, 95% CI 1.136-2.034), and avoidable initial ED visit (aOR 1.938, 95% CI 1.014-3.703). DISCUSSION: Abdominal pain, shortness of breath, and ascites/fluid overload are the common presenting reasons for ED visits for patients with cirrhosis. Patients with cirrhosis presenting to the ED experience a 90-day mortality rate of 16%, and among those who initially visited the ED, 20% were HEDU. We identified several variables independently associated with HEDU. Our observations pave the way for developing interventions to optimize the care of patients with cirrhosis presenting to the ED and to lower repeated ED visits.
ABSTRACT
Background & Aims: The hospital frailty risk score (HFRS) identifies older patients at risk of poor outcomes and may have value in cirrhosis. We compared the Charlson (CCI), Elixhauser (ECI), and cirrhosis (CirCom) comorbidity indices with the HFRS in predicting outcomes for cirrhosis hospitalisations. Methods: Using the National Inpatient Sample (quarter 4 of 2015-2019), we analysed cirrhosis hospitalisations. For each index, we described the prevalence of comorbid conditions and inpatient mortality. We compared the ability of CCI, ECI, CirCom, and HFRS to predict inpatient mortality. Raw and adjusted models predicting inpatient mortality were compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and the Akaike information criterion. Results: The cohort's (N = 626,553) median age was 61 years (IQR 52-68 years), 60% were male, cirrhosis was caused by alcohol in 43%, and 38% had ascites. The median comorbidity scores are as follows: ECI 4 (IQR 3-6), CCI 5 (IQR 4-8), and HFRS 5.6 (IQR 3.0-8.6). The most common CirCom score was 0 + 0 (44%). Across the range of values of each index, we observed different mortality ranges: CCI 1.9-13.1%, ECI 3.2-8.7%, CirCom 4.9-13.8%, and HFRS 1.0-15.2%. An adjusted model with HFRS had the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve in predicting mortality (HFRS 0.782 vs. ECI 0.689, CCI 0.695, and CirCom 0.692). We observed substantial variation in mortality with HFRS within each level of CCI, ECI, and CirCom. For example, for ECI 4, mortality increased from 0.6 to 16.4%, as HFRS increased from 0 to 15. Conclusions: Comorbidity indices predict inpatient cirrhosis mortality, but HFRS performs better than CCI, ECI, and CirCom. HFRS is an ideal tool for measuring comorbidity burden and disease severity risk adjustment in cirrhosis-related administrative database studies. Impact and Implications: We compared commonly used comorbidity indices to a more recently described risk score (hospital frailty risk score [HFRS]) in patients with cirrhosis using a national sample of hospital records. Comorbid conditions are common in hospitalised patients with cirrhosis. There is significant variability in mortality across the range of each index. HFRS outperforms the Charlson comorbidity index, Elixhauser comorbidity index, and CirCom (cirrhosis-specific comorbidity scoring system) in predicting inpatient mortality. HFRS is a valuable index for risk adjustment in inpatient administrative database studies.