Predictors of Clinical Complications of Cirrhosis


Portal hypertensive

Malignant

Systemic

Ascites

Hepatocellular carcinoma

Sarcopenia

Varices


Cachexia

Hepatorenal syndrome


Fatigue

Hepatic hydrothorax


Psychological distress

Portopulmonary hypertension



Hepatopumonary syndrome



Hepatic encephalopathy






Portal Hypertensive Complications of Cirrhosis


Cirrhosis was responsible for approximately 49,500 deaths in the USA in 2010 and resulted in more years of life lost due to premature mortality than breast cancer, HIV/AIDS, or cardiomyopathy [1]. In cirrhotic patients, the development of clinical complications such as ascites , encephalopathy, or variceal bleeding signifies “decompensated disease” and portends a worse prognosis . The rate of decompensation in previously compensated patients is about 5–7 % per year [2].


Ascites

Ascites is the most common complication of cirrhosis, as approximately 50 % of cirrhotic patients develop ascites within a decade of being diagnosed with cirrhosis [3]. Ascites results from complex vascular consequences of sinusoidal portal hypertension, including endogenous vasoconstriction, renal vasoconstriction, and sodium and water retention. It has been shown to develop when the portal pressure is greater than 12 mmHg [4], and reducing the portal pressure below this threshold is the goal when treating refractory ascites with a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) . The development of ascites is associated with a 50 % mortality within 2 years [5], and ascites refractory to medical therapy is associated with a 50 % mortality within only 6 months [6]. The model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score underestimates the mortality risk of about 25 % of patients with moderate ascites by roughly 4–5 MELD points [7].

Cirrhotic patients carry an increased susceptibility to infection due to serum complement deficiency and reduced neutrophil and macrophage function [810]. With this baseline immunodeficiency, proposed mechanisms such as bacterial overgrowth, increased intestinal permeability, and bacterial translocation [1113] lead to infection of the ascitic fluid, called spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP). SBP demands early recognition, warrants specific evidence-based antibiotic and supportive treatment, and necessitates subsequent antibiotic prophylaxis .


Varices

Elevated portal pressure typically above 12 mmHg leads to the development of varices, formed by portosystemic collaterals commonly in the esophagus, stomach, and rectum. At such high portal pressures, varices are at risk for rupture and hemorrhage, which occurs in 25–40 % of patients with cirrhosis [14]. Each episode of variceal hemorrhage is associated with a 15–20 % mortality at 30 days [15].


Hepatorenal Syndrome (HRS)

Vasoconstriction of the renal circulation and portal hypertension-induced arterial vasodilatation in the splanchnic vascular bed can result in decreased renal perfusion. The consequence of these vascular changes is HRS, characterized by a rise in the serum creatinine in the absence of other causes of acute kidney injury. HRS is classified as type 1 (a twofold increase in creatinine to over 2.5 mg/dL over 2 weeks) or type 2 (renal insufficiency that progresses less rapidly than type 1). Additional features that are typical of HRS include a low rate of urine sodium excretion, a normal urine sediment with minimal proteinuria, and oliguria. The diagnosis of HRS requires deterioration in renal function after withdrawal of diuretics and administration of a weight-based volume expansion challenge with intravenous albumin [16, 17]. HRS is a common complication of advanced cirrhosis and is associated with a poor prognosis, especially for patients with type 1 HRS. HRS develops in as many as 18 % of patients with cirrhosis, and in 39 % of patients with ascites [18]. The prognosis for patients who develop type 1 HRS is grave and is associated with a median survival of less than 1 month without therapy. By 6 months, type 1 HRS is almost universally fatal [18].


Hepatic Hydrothorax

Fluid can accumulate in cirrhotic patients’ thoracic cavity as it does in the peritoneal cavity. Hepatic hydrothorax develops in an estimated 5–10 % of cirrhotic patients in the absence of cardiopulmonary disease. Hepatic hydrothorax results from direct movement of ascitic fluid from the peritoneal cavity into the pleural space through small diaphragmatic defects. It involves the right hemithorax in approximately 85 % of cases [19].

The clinical sequelae of hepatic hydrothorax include cough, dyspnea , and hypoxia, and roughly 20 % of cases are refractory [20]. Infection of the pleural fluid, called spontaneous bacterial empyema, occurs in approximately 15 % of patients with hepatic hydrothorax [21]. The prognosis associated with hepatic hydrothorax has not been well-defined, although infectious complications such as spontaneous bacterial empyema are associated with a mortality as high as 20 % despite treatment [21].


Portopulmonary Hypertension

Portopulmonary hypertension is present in up to 16 % of patients with severe liver disease [22]. It is defined as the presence of portal hypertension in addition to increased pulmonary arterial pressure or pulmonary vascular resistance, with no other identifiable cause for pulmonary hypertension. It typically presents with dyspnea on exertion [23] and can be diagnosed by echocardiography or right-heart catheterization [24]. The mechanisms for the development of portopulmonary hypertension remain incompletely understood, with genetic predisposition, a hyperdynamic circulation, and endogenous humoral substances and cytokines all potentially contributing [2527]. Reports regarding prognosis vary widely, with 5 year survival rates ranging from 10 to 50 % [28].


Hepatopulmonary Syndrome

In contrast to portopulmonary hypertension, hepatopulmonary syndrome (HPS) is a better defined cause of hypoxemia . It is the result of abnormal intrapulmonary vascular dilation combined with increased pulmonary blood flow, leading to anatomical shunting and a diffusion–perfusion abnormality that is correctable by oxygen supplementation [28]. The pulmonary vascular shunts seen in HPS are preferentially perfuse when the patient is upright, leading to the characteristic symptoms of platypnea and orthodeoxia [29]. Estimates of HPS prevalence vary widely, but the presence of HPS worsens prognosis among patients with cirrhosis [30]. Among cirrhotic patients, HPS is an independent risk factor for mortality, with median survival time of roughly 11 months compared to 41 months in cirrhotic patients without HPS [30], and more severe hypoxemia predicts higher posttransplant mortality [31].


Hepatic Encephalopathy

Hepatic encephalopathy (HE) encompasses all the neuropsychiatric abnormalities that develop in the setting of portal hypertension. Overt HE develops in 30–45 % of patients with cirrhosis [32]. Subclinical HE is more subtle and characterized by psychomotor slowing, visuoconstructive disabilities, and attention deficits. It is present in up to 80 % of cirrhotics [33]. HE is precipitated by neurotoxins normally cleared by the liver, but that are shunted around the liver in the presence of portal hypertension-induced portosystemic collaterals, allowing them to influence the central nervous system. Patients hospitalized with HE experience mortality rates of 42 % at 1 year and 23 % at 3 years [34].


Malignant Complications of Cirrhosis


Patients with cirrhosis are at increased risk of developing HCC. Those at the highest risk are patients with chronic hepatitis B and C, which together contribute to approximately 80 % of HCC cases worldwide [35]. Metabolic diseases, rapidly growing in incidence in western populations, are also independent risk factors for the development of HCC [36, 37]. The annual incidence of HCC varies by etiology of liver disease, as well as geography. In the USA in 2005, the annual incidence was 4.9 per 100,000 people [38]. Staging and prognosis of HCC are discussed later in this chapter.


Systemic Complications of Cirrhosis


While portal hypertensive and malignant complications are easily recognized, sarcopenia is the most common systemic complication. Sarcopenia is a loss of skeletal muscle mass and is present in up to 40 % of patients undergoing evaluation for liver transplant (LT) [39]. Its presence adversely affects quality of life and posttransplant outcomes and is an independent predictive risk factor for mortality [39].

Cachexia, in contrast to sarcopenia, is a loss of muscle and fat mass. It is also common among cirrhotic patients. The loss of both muscle and fat mass in cirrhosis is caused in part by complex metabolic dysregulation processes at the cellular and muscular level [40].

In addition to the nutritional consequences of cirrhosis, patients’ disease course is typically complicated by multifactorial fatigue. Psychological distress with anxiety and depression is common, estimated at 23 % of patients undergoing evaluation for LT [41].



Existing Predictors/Prognostic Scores of Complications and Outcomes of Cirrhosis



Child–Turcotte–Pugh Score


The Child–Turcotte–Pugh (CTP) score was originally conceived to predict surgical mortality in patients with portal hypertension [42, 43]. It was subsequently applied to mortality prediction in cirrhotic patients [44]. It organizes five variables [serum total bilirubin, serum albumin, international normalized ratio (INR) , ascites grade, and encephalopathy grade] each into three severity categories with different point values (1–3, with 3 representing the most severe derangement). The total points from each variable are added to determine if a patient is in class A, B, or C, each being associated with an increasingly poor prognosis.

The criticisms of the CTP score include its subjective grading of ascites and encephalopathy. In addition, the CTP score’s discriminatory power is diminished by its few categories, which limits its consideration as a priority score for LT [45].


Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Score


The MELD score is the backbone of the LT allocation system in the USA. It was developed to predict mortality in patients undergoing TIPS for complications of portal hypertension [46], then expanded to predict 3-month mortality in end-stage liver disease [47] and validated in patients on the LT wait list [48]. It uses serum creatinine, serum total bilirubin, and the INR in an equation producing values ranging from 6 to 40. Despite its merits of objective variables and wide discrimination of mortality risks, the MELD score has been scrutinized for its lack of specificity for individual liver diseases and for its sensitivity to laboratory variation [49]. Nonetheless, the MELD score revolutionized the USA LT allocation system.


Hepatic Venous Pressure Gradient


The hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) measurement requires an invasive procedure to directly measure hepatic vein pressure and indirectly measure the portal pressure. The HVPG is used to diagnose portal hypertension, differentiate between portal hypertension secondary to liver disease versus heart disease, and prognosticate on the risk of complications from cirrhosis . It is also used to assess risk of postsurgical hepatic decompensation or death after liver resection [50].


Staging Systems for Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Predictors of Post-Transplant Recurrence


There are two staging systems for HCC: the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) system and the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) system. The BCLC is the most used worldwide and combines tumor characteristics, liver function (CTP score), and patient functionality to describe five stages [51], while the AJCC system uses the traditional TNM (tumor size, regional nodes, and presence of distant metastases) terminology. Details of the AJCC TNM staging system can be found in the AJCC’s cancer staging manual [52].

The Milan criteria are used to define a pre-transplant threshold that predicts acceptable posttransplant HCC recurrence rates. The tumor burden threshold defined by the Milan Criteria as acceptable for LT is one intrahepatic tumor no larger than 5 cm, or no more than three tumors each measuring 3 cm or less. The Milan criteria predict posttransplant 4-year overall survival of 85 % and disease survival of 92 % [53]. Patients with HCC within the Milan criteria can be awarded MELD score exceptions in the US LT allocation system. Modest extension of tumor number and size criteria beyond the Milan criteria has resulted in acceptable posttransplant outcomes [5457]. Two of these expanded criteria, which are not currently used in formal transplant policy for standard priority points, are compared to the Milan Criteria in Table 4.2.


Table 4.2
Comparison of hepatocellular carcinoma liver transplant criteria




























 
Milan criteria

UCSFa criteria

Up-to-seven criteria

Tumor threshold

1 lesion: 5 cm

2–3 lesions: ≤ 3 cm each

1 lesion: 6.5 cm

3–4 lesions: ≤ 4.5 cm each

Total tumor burden: ≤ 8 cm

Sum of total number of lesions and size (cm) of largest lesion ≤ 7

Post-transplant disease-free survival

92 % 4-year disease-free survival [53]

91 % 5-year disease-free survival [55]

Not given

Post-transplant overall survival

85 % 4-year survival [53]

81 % 5-year survival [55]

71 % 5-year survival [57]b


a UCSF University of California San Francisco

b For patients beyond the Milan criteria but within the up-to-seven criteria


Emerging Predictors/Prognostic Scores of Complications and Outcomes of Cirrhosis



Alterations to the MELD Score


The MELD score cannot perform equally for all patients because of the pathophysiological variation in liver diseases. Furthermore, its prognostic ability worsens in its lower range [7, 58]. To address these issues, adjustments to the MELD score have been proposed.

MELDNa is the addition of serum sodium to the MELD score. It predicts mortality better than the MELD score, particularly in the lower range of scores [59, 60]. Criticisms of MELDNa include sensitivity of serum sodium to laboratory processes and variation dependent upon management strategies often employed in patients with cirrhosis [61]. Nonetheless, a similar score incorporating serum sodium, UKELD, is used for LT prioritization in the UK [62].

MELD-XI was developed to address concerns regarding unfair prioritization of patients on vitamin K antagonists because of their nonhepatic INR elevation. In MELD-XI, the INR is removed from the score and resulted in predictive ability for 30-, 60-, 90-, and 180-day mortality similar to that of the MELD score [63]. While MELD-XI may mitigate concerns about INR variability in patients on vitamin K antagonists, for other patients, it could sacrifice any extra value of using the INR.

Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue

Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel

May 30, 2017 | Posted by in GASTROENTEROLOGY | Comments Off on Predictors of Clinical Complications of Cirrhosis

Full access? Get Clinical Tree

Get Clinical Tree app for offline access