An Assessment of the Psychosocial Evaluation for Early Liver Transplantation in Patients With Acute Alcoholic Hepatitis in the Context of Alcohol Use Disorder, a Case-Control Study.

Background: Severe acute alcoholic hepatitis (AAH) has an extremely poor prognosis with a high short term mortality rate. As a result, many centers, including our own, have allowed transplant patients to be listed for transplantation prior to achieving 6-months of sobriety. Several scoring systems, designed to target patients with a minimal period of sobriety, have been proposed to identify patients with alcohol use disorder (AUD), who would be predisposed to relapse after liver transplantation. We investigated whether these scoring systems corroborated the results of the non-structured selection criteria used by our center regarding decision to list for transplant. Methods: We conducted a retrospective case-control study of 11 patients who underwent early liver transplantation for AAH matched with 11 controls who were declined secondary to low insight into AUD. Blinded raters confirmed the severity of the diagnosis of DSM-5 and scored the patients on a variety of structured psychometric scales used to predict alcohol relapse. These included the High Risk for Alcohol Relapse Scale (HRAR), Stanford Integrated Psychosocial Assessment Tool (SIPAT), Alcohol Relapse Risk Assessment (ARRA), Hopkins Psychosocial Scale (HPSS), Michigan Alcoholism Prognosis Score (MAPS), Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test -Consumption (AUDIT-C), and Sustained Alcohol Use Post-Liver Transplant (SALT) scales. All patients who underwent transplantation were followed for harmful and non-harmful drinking until the end of the study period. Results: The transplant recipients had significantly favorable MAPS, HRAR, SIPAT, ARRA, and HPSS scores with cutoffs that matched their previous research. The SALT and AUDIT-C scores were not predictive of our selection of patients for transplantation. Despite an expedited evaluation and no significant period of sobriety, our case cohort had a 30% relapse to harmful drinking after an average of 6.6 years (5-8.5 years) of follow-up. Discussion: Despite the rapid assessment and the short to no period of sobriety, the patient cohort demonstrated a 30% relapse to harmful drinking, consistent with the 20% to 30% relapse to drinking rate reported after liver transplantation for all forms of alcoholic liver disease. Average scores from MAPS, HRAR, SIPAT, ARRA, and HPSS corroborated our current stratification procedures, with lower mean risk scores found in the transplanted group. Conclusion: Patients with AUD and severe AAH who obtain new insight into their disease and posses other favorable psychosocial factors have low rates of AUD relapse post-liver-transplantation. The psychosocial selection criteria for patients with alcoholic hepatitis in our institution are consistent with 4 of the 5 scoring systems investigated in their prediction of sobriety post-transplant.

Scoring systems to assess relapse risk in alcohol use disorder presenting for early liver transplantation: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Early liver transplantation (LT) is considered for patients with alcohol use disorder (AUD) despite limited sober time when acute mortality risk from liver disease is high. The objective of this paper is to find psychosocial tools that do not rely on extended sober time and predict alcohol relapse post-LT. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of Pubmed, Embase, and Scopus for studies testing psychosocial tools that used numeric scoring to predict post-LT alcohol relapse. Tools that afforded points for length of sobriety were excluded. Each study was analyzed for its clinical context, post-LT relapse outcomes and predictive validity. RESULTS: Five scoring systems across fourteen samples showed varied validity in predicting post-LT alcohol relapse. Relapse to any alcohol use after LT revealed an average relapse rate of 23%. Most scoring systems were understudied but four of five provided cut-off scores with high negative predictive values for relapse. CONCLUSION: Scoring systems may have a place in candidate selection but the data on cut-off scores and predictability are still lacking for their use alone in high stakes LT selection. Larger studies with prospective scoring and standardized follow ups for relapse post-LT will better allow the predictive validity of these psychosocial tools to be compared.

Do psychiatric disorders affect patient reported outcomes and clinical outcomes post total hip and knee arthroplasty?

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the role of major psychiatric illness on patient outcomes after total joint arthroplasty. METHODS: Patients with a diagnosis of a major psychiatric disorder undergoing total joint arthroplasty were retrospectively matched one-to-one with a cohort without such a diagnosis. Major psychiatric disorder in the registry was identified by diagnosis of anxiety, mood, or a psychotic disorder. Primary outcome of interest included perioperative Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Secondary outcomes included EuroQol-5D, adverse events, length of stay, 30-day readmission, and discharge destination. RESULTS: Total number of patients were 1828. The total hip arthroplasty (37.80 ± 17.91, p = 0.023) and the total knee arthroplasty psychiatric group (43.38 ± 18.41, p = 0.050) had significantly lower pre-operative WOMAC scores. At 3 months, the total hip arthroplasty (76.74 ± 16.94, p = 0.036) and total knee arthroplasty psychiatric group (71.09 ± 18.64, p < 0.01) again had significantly lower 3-month post-operative WOMAC score compared to the control groups. However, outcomes at 1 year were difficult to interpret, as patients with major psychiatric conditions had an extremely high loss to follow-up. Compared to the control groups, the total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty psychiatric group had an increased length of stay by 1.43 days (p < 0.01) and 0.77 days, respectively (p = 0.05). Similarly, the psychiatric groups were discharged directly home less often (total hip arthroplasty 86.9%, p = 0.024 and total knee arthroplasty 87.6%, p = 0.022) than the control groups. CONCLUSION: Patients with the diagnosis of a major psychiatric illness have an increased length of stay and are more likely to require a rehabilitation facility, compared to the control groups. Arguably, of utmost importance, there is a very high rate of loss to follow-up within the psychiatric groups. As such, we recommend these patients should be treated for their diagnosis prior to total joint arthroplasty. Furthermore, importance of clinical follow-up should be emphasized carefully.