Liver transplant evaluation for fulminant liver failure due to acute hepatitis A infection: Case series and literature review.

Hepatitis A virus can cause liver damage ranging from mild illness to fulminant hepatic failure, constituting 0.35% of all cases of fulminant liver failure. While rates of spontaneous remission are higher for hepatitis A, recent outbreaks attributable to vaccine shortages in highly populated urban cities plagued by insufficient affordable housing and inaccessible sanitation, and changes in the epidemiology of viral strains have resulted in increased hospitalizations and deaths. While the prognosis for patients with FHF has improved since the introduction of transplantation, the decision to transplant is often difficult to reach. We present five patients with HAV and subsequent FHF, one of whom successfully received a liver transplant. We have reviewed all published cases of HAV FHF in the literature and report ten patients, seven of whom received liver transplantation. There are few predictive models that attempt to distinguish between fulminant hepatitis A and spontaneous recovery. Patients found to have positive hepatitis A IgM, encephalopathy, worsening LFT's and coagulation should be monitored closely and referred to transplant centers urgently for management.

Acute Liver Failure: Diagnosis and Management.

Acute liver failure is life threatening liver injury with coagulopathy and hepatic encephalopathy within 26 weeks and generally, in the absence of preexisting liver disease. Fulminant liver failure occurs when hepatic encephalopathy occurs within 8 weeks of jaundice. The majority of patients with ALF are women with the median age of 38 years. In the United States, drug induced liver injury including acetaminophen causes the majority of ALF cases. The etiology of ALF should be determined, if possible, because many causes have a specific treatment. The mainstay for ALF is supportive care and liver transplantation, if necessary. There are multiple prognostic criteria available. Prognosis can be poor and patients should be referred to a liver transplantation center as soon as possible.

Sofosbuvir plus simeprevir treatment of recurrent genotype 1 hepatitis C after liver transplant.

BACKGROUND: Patients with recurrent hepatitis C (HCV) infection post-liver transplant can be difficult to treat safely and effectively. A prior (COSMOS) study in patients with non-transplant HCV, using sofosbuvir plus simeprevir, had high efficacy and tolerability in treating patients with HCV genotype 1, even prior non-responders to interferon therapy and those with cirrhosis. Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy of sofosbuvir and simeprevir in patients with genotype 1 HCV post-liver transplant. METHODS: In this prospective, observational study, patients received sofosbuvir 400 mg plus simeprevir 150 mg daily for 12 wk without ribavirin. The primary end point was a sustained virologic response 12 wk after the end of therapy. RESULTS: Forty-two patients completed the treatment. Twenty-six percent started the treatment ≤ 6 months post-liver transplant. Nineteen percent of the included patients had cirrhosis, 14% with decompensation. At week 4 on the treatment, 21% of patients had detectable virus but at the end of the treatment, 100% were undetectable. Twelve weeks after the end of the treatment, 95% of the patients had undetectable hepatitis C. The regimen was generally well tolerated. CONCLUSION: The oral regimen of sofosbuvir plus simeprevir without ribavirin is efficacious and well tolerated in the treatment of patients with genotype 1 hepatitis C post-liver transplant.

Delayed referral for liver transplant evaluation worsens outcomes in chronic liver disease patients requiring inpatient transplant evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Indications to refer patients with cirrhosis for liver transplant evaluation (LTE) include hepatic decompensation or a model for end stage liver disease (MELD-Na) score ≥ 15. Few studies have evaluated how delaying referral beyond these criteria affects patient outcomes. AIM: To evaluate clinical characteristics of patients undergoing inpatient LTE and to assess the effects of delayed LTE on patient outcomes (death, transplantation). METHODS: This is a single center retrospective cohort study assessing all patients undergoing inpatient LTE (n = 159) at a large quaternary care and liver transplant center between 10/23/2017-7/31/2021. Delayed referral was defined as having prior indication (decompensation, MELD-Na ≥ 15) for LTE without referral. Early referral was defined as referrals made within 3 mo of having an indication based on practice guidelines. Logistic regression and Cox Hazard Regression were used to evaluate the relationship between delayed referral and patient outcomes. RESULTS: Many patients who require expedited inpatient LTE had delayed referrals. Misconceptions regarding transplant candidacy were a leading cause of delayed referral. Ultimately, delayed referrals negatively affected overall patient outcome and an independent predictor of both death and not receiving a transplant. Delayed referral was associated with a 2.5 hazard risk of death. CONCLUSION: Beyond initial access to an liver transplant (LT) center, delaying LTE increases risk of death and reduces risk of LT in patients with chronic liver disease. There is substantial opportunity to increase the percentage of patients undergoing LTE when first clinically indicated. It is crucial for providers to remain informed about the latest guidelines on liver transplant candidacy and the transplant referral process.

Resolution of Severe Graft Steatosis Before Living-Donor Liver Transplant After 86 Pounds of Weight Loss.

Living-donor liver transplant allows for expedited transplant, with outcomes shown to be superior compared with deceased-donor liver transplant due to earlier intervention, with reduced hospital costs. However, they only comprise about 5% of liver transplants nationally. This is due to a limited pool of willing donors and donor exclusions for medical and psycho-social reasons. The leading reason for why potential living liver donors are not eligible is nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Donor hepatic steatosis limits the number of potential living-donor liver transplants because it is associated with perioperative complications in both donors and recipients. Here, we describe a 37-year-old male potential living donor who presented with hepatic steatosis based on preoperative imaging. Over a 1-year period, he was able to completely reverse his hepatic steatosis by losing about 86 pounds (from 279 to 193 pounds), reducing his body mass index from 40 to 28.55 kg/m². Computed tomography and biopsy results after his weight loss showed that he had no hepatic steatosis, allowing him to become a living donor for his mother. Postoperative periods for both the donor and recipient were uncomplicated. This case suggests that the pool of living liver donors could be expanded through dietary and behavior modifications, thus increasing the number of potential living donors and providing potential recipients with more transplant options. Enlarging this pool of donors will also improve transplant outcomes for donors and recipients and lower overall health care costs compared with deceased-donor liver transplant.

Treatment of Acute Graft-versus-Host Disease in Liver Transplant Recipients.

Acute graft-versus-host disease (aGvHD) is a rare complication of liver transplantation associated with high morbidity and mortality. Death typically occurs due to complications related to severe infection, shock, and multiorgan failure. The clinical presentation involves dysfunction of multiple organ systems with overlapping symptoms that often results in a diagnostic delay. As there are a limited number of cases reported in the literature, there are no clear guidelines for treatment. Many different therapeutic measures have been utilized that target various immune system pathways, but steroids remain the first line of therapy. We report on two patients who developed aGvHD after liver transplantation who were treated with ruxolitinib, a novel Janus kinase 1/2 (JAK) inhibitor that has been shown to improve outcomes in steroid refractory cases of aGvHD after allogenic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. We reviewed the literature to discuss various therapeutic options currently available for aGvHD after liver transplantation.

Hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence pattern following liver transplantation and a suggested surveillance algorithm.

PURPOSE: This study aims to evaluate the recurrence pattern of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) following liver transplantation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 54 patients underwent liver transplantation for HCC; 9 patients developed biopsy-proven recurrent HCC (16.6%). The site of HCC recurrence along with other factors was analyzed. RESULTS: Seven patients were diagnosed with HCC prior to liver transplantation and 2 patients had incidental HCC in the explanted liver. Two patients had locoregional recurrence, 4 patients had distant metastasis, and 3 patients had synchronous locoregional recurrence and distant metastasis. CONCLUSION: A significant proportion of HCC recurrence following liver transplantation is extrahepatic.

Use of a standardized patient exercise to assess core competencies during fellowship training.

BACKGROUND: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires fellows in many specialties to demonstrate attainment of 6 core competencies, yet relatively few validated assessment tools currently exist. We present our initial experience with the design and implementation of a standardized patient (SP) exercise during gastroenterology fellowship that facilitates appraisal of all core clinical competencies. METHODS: Fellows evaluated an SP trained to portray an individual referred for evaluation of abnormal liver tests. The encounters were independently graded by the SP and a faculty preceptor for patient care, professionalism, and interpersonal and communication skills using quantitative checklist tools. Trainees' consultation notes were scored using predefined key elements (medical knowledge) and subjected to a coding audit (systems-based practice). Practice-based learning and improvement was addressed via verbal feedback from the SP and self-assessment of the videotaped encounter. RESULTS: Six trainees completed the exercise. Second-year fellows received significantly higher scores in medical knowledge (55.0 ± 4.2 [standard deviation], P  =  .05) and patient care skills (19.5 ± 0.7, P  =  .04) by a faculty evaluator as compared with first-year trainees (46.2 ± 2.3 and 14.7 ± 1.5, respectively). Scores correlated by Spearman rank (0.82, P  =  .03) with the results of the Gastroenterology Training Examination. Ratings of the fellows by the SP did not differ by level of training, nor did they correlate with faculty scores. Fellows viewed the exercise favorably, with most indicating they would alter their practice based on the experience. CONCLUSIONS: An SP exercise is an efficient and effective tool for assessing core clinical competencies during fellowship training.