Frailty Changes After Liver Transplantation. Results From a Spanish Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study.

Introduction: Until now, there has been limited evidence, primarily from US cohorts, focusing on frailty as a patient-oriented outcome after liver transplantation (LT). Our study aimed to explore the relationship between pre- and post-LT frailty in a multicenter European cohort of outpatients with cirrhosis undergoing LT. Methods: We conducted a prospective analysis of data from 180 LT recipients recruited between 2018 and 2020 from 5 Spanish centers. Participants underwent objective and subjective frailty assessments using the Liver Frailty Index (LFI) and the Subjective Clinician Assessment (SCA) pretransplant and at 3- and/or 6-mo posttransplant. Results: The median pretransplant LFI was 3.9, showing minimal change at 3 mo (3.8; P = 0.331) and improvement at 6-mo post-LT (3.6; P = 0.001). Conversely, the SCA significantly improved early post-LT: at 3 mo, poor SCA decreased from 11% to 1%, and good SCA increased from 54% to 89% (P < 0.001), remaining stable between 3- and 6-mo post-LT. Multivariable analysis revealed that each 0.1 increase in pretransplant LFI correlated with a reduced probability of being robust at 3-mo (odds ratio [OR] = 0.75; P < 0.001) and 6-mo post-LT (OR = 0.74; P < 0.001). There was poor concordance between SCA and LFI, with SCA underestimating frailty both pre- and post-LT (Kappa < 0.20). Conclusion: In our European cohort, incomplete improvement of physical frailty was observed, with <20% achieving robust physical condition within 6-mo post-LT. The pretransplant LFI strongly predicted posttransplant frailty. As the SCA tends to overestimate physical function, we recommend using both subjective and objective tools for frailty assessment in LT candidates and recipients.

Waiting time dictates impact of frailty: A Spanish multicenter prospective study.

Background & Aims: Frailty is prevalent in liver transplant (LT) candidates. It is considered an independent predictor of adverse outcomes pre- and post-transplant according to data obtained in the United States. We aimed to externally validate the liver frailty index (LFI) in a multicenter cohort of LT candidates. Methods: Outpatients with cirrhosis were prospectively recruited from five Spanish centers (2018-2020). Patients were defined as "frail" by an optimal cut-off of LFI ≥4.5. Patients were followed for at least 6 months to study associations of pre-LT frailty with pre- and post-transplant mortality, length of hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stays, risk of early (<30 days) and late (30-90 days) post-transplant complications, retransplantation and cardiovascular events. Results: Of 212 patients included, 45 patients (21%) were frail pre-LT, and the median LFI was 3.9 (IQR 3.5-4.4). After a median waiting time of 78 days, 2% died or were delisted for clinical worsening. The LFI at baseline was not predictive of mortality/delisting in LT candidates in univariable or multivariable analyses after adjusting for age and MELD-Na score (hazard ratio 1.48; p = 0.586). In contrast, compared to non-frail patients, frail LT candidates had a significantly higher length of hospital stay (9 vs. 13 days; p = 0.001) and rate of early (<30 days) post-transplant complications (55% vs. 100%; p = 0.021). Conclusions: In the context of a short LT waiting time, frailty does not impact pretransplant mortality and/or delisting. In contrast, LT frailty is predictive of higher post-transplant complication rates and length of hospital stay. Whether strategies aimed at pre- and/or re-habilitation are beneficial in settings with short waiting times needs to be confirmed in prospective studies. Impact and implications: Literature is scarce on the actual impact of physical frailty on adverse outcomes in the liver transplant scenario outside North America. Evidence-based justification to extend the use of objective frailty tools in the decision-making processes in other liver transplant settings is needed. This study is the first to evaluate the predictive value of the liver frailty index in outpatients in the European liver transplant setting, showing that in a low MELD, high access system, frailty does not impact pretransplant mortality and/or delisting but is predictive of higher complication rates and longer post-transplant length of stay. In practical ways, physicians should consider physical frailty as a vital sign to be measured systematically and routinely during clinic visits; researchers are encouraged to initiate prospective studies to evaluate the benefit of applying strategies aimed at pre- and or re-habilitation in liver transplant settings with short waiting times.

Milan-out Criteria and Worse Intention-to-Treat Outcome Postliver Transplantation.

Milan criteria are widely used for liver transplantation selection in hepatocellular carcinoma but have been recognized to be too restrictive. Milan-out criteria are increasingly being adopted. Our aim was to analyze if liver transplantation waitlisted Milan-out hepatocellular carcinoma patients have different outcome than Milan patients. METHODS: Retrospective study including all consecutive patients with hepatocellular carcinoma admitted in the waiting list for liver transplantation between January 2012 and January 2015. We included 177 patients, 146 of which eventually transplanted. Downstaging was achieved in the Milan-out cases (n = 29) before waitlisting. RESULTS: From diagnosis to last follow-up, 29% patients died. Survival at 1 and 5 years from diagnosis was 93% and 75%, respectively in the within Milan group compared with 91% and 61% in the Milan-out group (P = 0.03). Treatment failure occurred in 20% of cases due to tumor progression in the waiting list (44%), death on the waiting list (20%), and hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence postliver transplantation (9%). Milan-out criteria was the only variable predictive of treatment failure remaining in the multivariate analysis with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.7 (HR, 1.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-4.55; P = 0.010) and HR of 1.43 (1.23-6.5) in the hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Milan-out criteria are associated with a higher intention-to-treat liver transplantation failure from time of inclusion in the waiting list. However, survival rates are still >50% at 5 years of follow-up.

Hemorragia digestiva alta como complicación de un adenoma de glándulas de Brunner. Una presentación inusual / Upper gastrointestinal bleeding as a complication of Brunner's gland adenoma. An unusual presentation

No disponible

Infarto agudo de miocardio en paciente con diagnóstico reciente de enfermedad de Crohn / Acute myocardial infarction in a patient with a recent diagnosis of Crohn's disease

No disponible

Withdrawal of Azathioprine in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients Who Sustain Remission: New Risk Factors for Relapse.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of immunosuppressants for sustaining remission and preventing flares of IBD are well known. However, optimal timing for withdrawal has not been determined. AIMS: The objective of this study was to calculate the risk of relapse and predictors after withdrawal of azathioprine (AZA) monotherapy in patients who sustain deep remission. METHODS: This was a multicenter observational study of patients with IBD in remission whose immunosuppressant had been withdrawn. We recorded demographic variables, disease data, laboratory values, and the results of imaging tests performed at withdrawal and, in patients who relapsed, time to relapse and the efficacy of reintroducing the drug. RESULTS: Ninety-five patients were included (35 UC and 60 CD). The mean duration of AZA treatment was 87 and 77 months for UC and CD, respectively. Endoscopic remission was evaluated in 23 patients with UC and 35 with CD. After AZA withdrawal, 91% patients with UC and 67% with CD received high doses of salicylates. A total of 26 patients relapsed. The cumulative relapse rate at 5 years was 46% for CD and UC. AZA was reintroduced in 19 patients, of whom 14 responded. Predictors of relapse were corticosteroid dependence, early introduction of AZA (CD), and late introduction of AZA (UC). CONCLUSIONS: Almost half of the patients in whom AZA was withdrawn were in remission at 5 years. The candidates for withdrawal could be better identified based on corticosteroid dependence, previous surgery, timing of initiation, and indication for AZA.