A comparison of magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) to biomarker testing for staging fibrosis in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).

Background: Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is the world's most prevalent chronic liver disease. In advanced stages, it is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) and scoring panels Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) and NAFLD Fibrosis Score (NFS) are useful noninvasive alternatives to liver biopsy for fibrosis staging. Our study aimed to determine how well MRE corresponds with both FIB-4 and NFS at different stages of fibrosis. Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review of patients age ≥18 with NAFLD as their only known liver disease who underwent MRE within six months of a lab draw. MRE stratified patients into fibrosis stages using kPa values. FIB-4 categorized patients as Advanced Fibrosis Excluded, Further Investigation Needed or Advanced Fibrosis Likely. NFS categorized them as F0-2, Indeterminate or F3-4. MRE fibrosis staging was compared to FIB-4 and NFS for both ruling out advanced fibrosis and identifying advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis. Results: Overall, 193 patients met inclusion criteria. Our statistical analysis included calculating positive predictive values (PPVs) and negative predictive values (NPVs), which are the proportions of positive and negative fibrosis screening results that correspond to positive and negative MRE results respectively. NPV for FIB-4 (0.84) and NFS (0.89) in the 'rule out advanced fibrosis' category signify that 84% and 89% of respective biomarker scores correspond to MRE in early stage disease. The PPV for FIB-4 and NFS in the 'identify advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis' category signify 63% and 72% of respective biomarker scores correspond to MRE in late stage disease. Conclusions: FIB-4 and NFS scores indicating little to no fibrosis correspond extremely well with MRE, while scores suggesting advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis correspond less convincingly. MRE shows promise as an effective alternative to liver biopsy, however our study suggests FIB-4 and NFS alone may be sufficient for fibrosis staging, particularly in early stage NAFLD.

Deprescription of aspirin for primary prevention is uncommon at discharge in hospitalised patients with gastrointestinal bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend against aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular events in individuals with a history of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). It is unknown how often patients on primary prevention aspirin hospitalised with GIB have aspirin discontinued at discharge. AIMS: To determine the rate of aspirin deprescription and explore long-term outcomes in patients taking aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular events. METHODS: We evaluated all patients hospitalised at Yale-New Haven Hospital between January 2014 and October 2021 with GIB who were on aspirin for primary prevention. Our primary endpoint was the frequency of aspirin deprescription at discharge. Our secondary endpoints were post-discharge hospitalisations for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or GIB. Time-to-event analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier curves and the log-rank test. RESULTS: We identified 320 patients with GIB on aspirin for primary prevention: median age was 72 (interquartile range [IQR] 61-81) years and 297 (92.8%) were on aspirin 81 mg daily. Only 25 (9.0%) patients surviving their hospitalisation were deprescribed aspirin at discharge. Among 260 patients with follow-up (median 1103 days; IQR 367-1670), MACE developed post-discharge in 2/25 (8.0%) with aspirin deprescription versus 37/235 (15.7%) with aspirin continuation (log-rank p = 0.28). 0/25 patients with aspirin deprescription had subsequent hospitalisation for GIB versus 17/235 (7.2%) who continued aspirin (log-rank p = 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: Aspirin for primary cardiovascular prevention was rarely deprescribed at discharge in patients hospitalised with GIB. Processes designed to ensure appropriate deprescription of aspirin are crucial to improve adherence to guidelines, thereby improving the risk-benefit ratio in patients at high risk of subsequent GIB hospitalisations with minimal increased risk of MACE.

Predictors of 30-day readmission following pancreatic surgery: A retrospective review.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatectomies have been identified as procedures with an increased risk of readmission. In surgical patients, readmissions within 30 days of discharge are usually procedure-related. We sought to determine predictors of 30-day readmission following pancreatic resections in a large healthcare system. METHODS: We retrospectively collected information from the records of 383 patients who underwent pancreatic resections from 2004-2013. To find the predictors of readmission in the 30 days after discharge, we performed a univariate screen of possible variables using the Fisher's exact test for categorical variables and the Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables. Multivariate analysis was used to determine the independent factors. RESULTS: Fifty-eight (15.1%) patients were readmitted within 30 days of discharge. Of the patients readmitted, the most common diagnoses at readmission were sepsis (17.2%), and dehydration (8.6%). Multivariate logistic regression found that the development of intra-abdominal fluid collections (OR = 5.32, P < 0.0001), new thromboembolic events (OR = 4.08, P = 0.016), and pre-operative BMI (OR = 1.06, P = 0.040) were independent risk factors of readmission within 30 days of discharge. CONCLUSION: Our data demonstrate that factors predictive of 30-day readmission are a combination of patient characteristics and the development of post-operative complications. Targeted interventions may be used to reduce the risk of readmission.