Minimal Hepatic Encephalopathy and Mild Cognitive Impairment Worsen Quality of Life in Elderly Patients With Cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Patients with cirrhosis are growing older. The overlap between minimal hepatic encephalopathy (MHE) and predementia mild cognitive impairment (MCI) could affect quality of life (QOL). We investigated the performance of elderly patients with cirrhosis on tests for MHE and MCI and their effects on QOL. METHODS: We recruited outpatients with cirrhosis (n = 109) and without cirrhosis (controls, n = 100), 65 years or older, at 4 centers (derivation cohort). All study participants were assessed for psychometric hepatic encephalopathy score (PHES), EncephalApp score, and QOL. MCI was tested in patients with cirrhosis using the repeatable battery for assessment of neuropsychological status and assigned to the following groups: unimpaired, MCI only, MHE only, and MCI+MHE. We created adjusted norms to detect MHE using PHES and EncephalApp scores from the controls. Findings were validated using data from a separate cohort of 77 patients with cirrhosis (mean age, 69.49 ± 4.36 y; 72% men) at the same study sites. RESULTS: Controls were older but were more educated, performed better cognitively, and had better QOL. Among patients with cirrhosis, age, education, model for end-stage liver disease score, EncephalApp score, and QOL were similar, but PHES and repeatable battery for assessment of neuropsychological status differed among sites. In the derivation cohort, the presence of MHE, with or without MCI, was associated with poor QOL, which was lowest in the MCI+MHE group. When we adjusted for age, sex, and education, 49% of patients with cirrhosis had MHE based on the EncephalApp and 8% had MHE based on the PHES. A similar pattern (49% MHE based on EncephalApp and 6% MHE based on PHES) was found in a validation cohort. CONCLUSIONS: In a multicenter study of patients with cirrhosis (>65 y) and controls, the presence of MHE, regardless of MCI, was associated with poor cognition and QOL. We created adjusted norms that defined the high sensitivity of EncephalApp for the detection of MHE in older individuals and validated it in a separate cohort.

Machine Learning for Short-Term Mortality in Acute Decompensation of Liver Cirrhosis: Better than MELD Score.

Prediction of short-term mortality in patients with acute decompensation of liver cirrhosis could be improved. We aimed to develop and validate two machine learning (ML) models for predicting 28-day and 90-day mortality in patients hospitalized with acute decompensated liver cirrhosis. We trained two artificial neural network (ANN)-based ML models using a training sample of 165 out of 290 (56.9%) patients, and then tested their predictive performance against Model of End-stage Liver Disease-Sodium (MELD-Na) and MELD 3.0 scores using a different validation sample of 125 out of 290 (43.1%) patients. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) for predicting 28-day mortality for the ML model was 0.811 (95%CI: 0.714- 0.907; p < 0.001), while the AUC for the MELD-Na score was 0.577 (95%CI: 0.435-0.720; p = 0.226) and for MELD 3.0 was 0.600 (95%CI: 0.462-0.739; p = 0.117). The area under the ROC curve (AUC) for predicting 90-day mortality for the ML model was 0.839 (95%CI: 0.776- 0.884; p < 0.001), while the AUC for the MELD-Na score was 0.682 (95%CI: 0.575-0.790; p = 0.002) and for MELD 3.0 was 0.703 (95%CI: 0.590-0.816; p < 0.001). Our study demonstrates that ML-based models for predicting short-term mortality in patients with acute decompensation of liver cirrhosis perform significantly better than MELD-Na and MELD 3.0 scores in a validation cohort.

Evolving thresholds for liver transplantation in hepatocellular carcinoma: A Western experience.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Once considered an experimental treatment with dismal survival rates, liver transplantation for HCC entered a new era with the establishment of the Milan criteria over 20 years ago. In the modern post-Milan-criteria era, 5-year survival outcomes are now upwards of 70% in select patients. Liver transplantation (LT) is now considered the optimal treatment for patients with moderate to severe cirrhosis and HCC, and the rates of transplantation in the United States are continuing to rise. Several expanded selection criteria have been proposed for determining which patients with HCC should be candidates for undergoing LT with similar overall and recurrence-free survival rates to patients within the Milan criteria. There is also a growing experience with downstaging of patients who fall outside conventional LT criteria at the time of HCC diagnosis with the goal of tumor shrinkage via locoregional therapies to become a candidate for transplantation. The aim of this review article is to characterize the various patient selection criteria for LT, discuss balancing organ stewardship with outcome measures in HCC patients, present evidence on the role of downstaging for large tumors, and explore future directions of LT for HCC.

Who gets a lung transplant? Assessing the psychosocial decision-making process for transplant listing.

In the United States, there is a significant shortage of available donor organs. This requires transplant professionals to hold simultaneous, yet divergent roles as (1) advocates for patients who are in need of a lifesaving transplant, and (2) responsible stewards in the allocation of scarce donor organs. In order to balance these roles, most transplant teams utilize a committee based decision-making process to select suitable candidates for the transplant waiting list. These committees use medical and psychosocial criteria to guide their decision to list a patient. Transplant regulatory bodies have established medical standards for identifying appropriate medical candidates for transplantation. However, transplant regulatory bodies have not developed policies to standardize psychosocial criteria for listing patients. This affords transplant centers the autonomy to develop their own psychosocial criteria for determining which patients will be placed on the transplant waiting list. This lack of a standardized policy has resulted in inconsistent psychosocial practices amongst transplant centers nationwide. Since there has been no formal review of the inconsistency in psychosocial policy and practice, this paper seeks to explore the non-standardized psychosocial approach to organ transplant listing. The authors review factors that are relevant to the standardization of the psychosocial decision-making process, including shared decision-making, clinician judgment, bias in decision-making and moral distress in transplant staff. We conclude with a discussion about the impact of these issues on psychosocial practices in solid organ transplantation.