Extracorporeal liver support in severe alcoholic hepatitis

The severity of alcoholic hepatitis (AH) which may coexist with cirrhosis varies greatly, from asymptomatic forms which are detected in alcoholic patients without any sign of liver disease, except laboratory abnormalities, to severe forms characterised by deep jaundice, ascites, hepatic encephalopathy and low prothrombin index. In hospitalized patients the mortality could be as high as 75%. The elevated number of therapeutic proposals reported for more than forty years reveals the lack of efficacy of a particular modality. Even in the most favorable trials, the survival is already very poor and in some cases related to the development of renal failure or hepatorenal syndrome. There are some motivating reports concerning albumin dialysis as a support treatment in patients with severe AH, either alone or in combination with other pharmacological therapies. The favorable effects of albumin dialysis in patients with severe AH suggest that the procedure used alone or in combination with other therapies may have a role in this clinical condition. This will be particularly relevant to offer an alternative therapy in these patients, thus being a potential bridge to recovery or to be listed for liver transplantation.

Diagnosis, prevention and treatment of hepatorenal syndrome in cirrhosis

Hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) is a serious complication of end-stage liver disease, occurring mainly in patients with advanced cirrhosis and ascites, who have marked circulatory dysfunction,1 as well as in patients with acute liver failure.2 In spite of its functional nature, HRS is associated with a poor prognosis,3 4 and the only effective treatment is liver transplantation. During the 56th Meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the International Ascites Club held a Focused Study Group (FSG) on HRS for the purpose of reporting the results of an international workshop and to reach a consensus on a new definition, criteria for diagnosis and recommendations on HRS treatment. A similar workshop was held in Chicago in 1994 in which standardised nomenclature and diagnostic criteria for refractory ascites and HRS were established.5 The introduction of innovative treatments and improvements in our understanding of the pathogenesis of HRS during the previous decade led to an increasing need to undertake a new consensus meeting. This paper reports the scientific rationale behind the new definitions and recommendations. The international workshop included four issues debated by four panels of experts (see Acknowledgements). The issues were: (1) evidence-based HRS pathogenesis; (2) treatment of HRS using vasoconstrictors; (3) other HRS treatments using transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent-shunt (TIPS) and extracorporeal albumin dialysis (ECAD); and (4) new definitions and diagnostic criteria for HRS and recommendations for its treatment.

Prognostic Importance of the Cuse of Renal Failure in Patients With Cirrhosis

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The prognostic value of the different causes of renal failure in cirrhosis is not well established. This study investigated the predictive value of the cause of renal failure in cirrhosis. METHODS: Five hundred sixty-two consecutive patients with cirrhosis and renal failure (as defined by serum creatinine 1.5 mg/dL on 2 successive determinations within 48 hours) hospitalized over a 6-year period in a single institution were included in a prospective study. The cause of renal failure was classified into 4 groups: renal failure associated with bacterial infections, renal failure associated with volume depletion, hepatorenal syndrome (HRS), and parenchymal nephropathy. The primary end point was survival at 3 months. RESULTS: Four hundred sixty-three patients (82.4%) had renal failure that could be classified in 1 of 4 groups. The most frequent was renal failure associated with infections (213 cases; 46%), followed by hypovolemia-associated renal failure (149; 32%), HRS (60; 13%), and parenchymal nephropathy (41; 9%). The remaining patients had a combination of causes or miscellaneous conditions. Prognosis was markedly different according to cause of renal failure, 3-month probability of survival being 73% for parenchymal nephropathy, 46% for hypovolemia-associated renal failure, 31% for renal failure associated with infections, and 15% for HRS (P .0005). In a multivariate analysis adjusted for potentially confounding variables, cause of renal failure was independently associated with prognosis, together with MELD score, serum sodium, and hepatic encephalopathy at time of diagnosis of renal failure. CONCLUSIONS: A simple classification of patients with cirrhosis according to cause of renal failure is useful in assessment of prognosis and may help in decision making in liver transplantation.

Prognostic Importance of the Cuse of Renal Failure in Patients With Cirrhosis

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The prognostic value of the different causes of renal failure in cirrhosis is not well established. This study investigated the predictive value of the cause of renal failure in cirrhosis. METHODS: Five hundred sixty-two consecutive patients with cirrhosis and renal failure (as defined by serum creatinine 1.5 mg/dL on 2 successive determinations within 48 hours) hospitalized over a 6-year period in a single institution were included in a prospective study. The cause of renal failure was classified into 4 groups: renal failure associated with bacterial infections, renal failure associated with volume depletion, hepatorenal syndrome (HRS), and parenchymal nephropathy. The primary end point was survival at 3 months. RESULTS: Four hundred sixty-three patients (82.4%) had renal failure that could be classified in 1 of 4 groups. The most frequent was renal failure associated with infections (213 cases; 46%), followed by hypovolemia-associated renal failure (149; 32%), HRS (60; 13%), and parenchymal nephropathy (41; 9%). The remaining patients had a combination of causes or miscellaneous conditions. Prognosis was markedly different according to cause of renal failure, 3-month probability of survival being 73% for parenchymal nephropathy, 46% for hypovolemia-associated renal failure, 31% for renal failure associated with infections, and 15% for HRS (P .0005). In a multivariate analysis adjusted for potentially confounding variables, cause of renal failure was independently associated with prognosis, together with MELD score, serum sodium, and hepatic encephalopathy at time of diagnosis of renal failure. CONCLUSIONS: A simple classification of patients with cirrhosis according to cause of renal failure is useful in assessment of prognosis and may help in decision making in liver transplantation.

El donante vivo (trasplante) hepático en la cultura japonesa

El trasplante hepático de donante vivo (THDV) se ha convertido en una alternativa aceptada al trasplante de donante cadáver, siendo realizado en Europa, Asia y EEUU. En Japón, el THDV representa un alto porcentaje de toda la actividad de trasplante hepático llevada a cabo. En Europa, sólo el 3,5%. ¿Puede condicionar la cultura y la religión el tipo de trasplante? ¿Qué diferencias existen en materia de donación y trasplante hepático entre Japón y Europa? ¿El THDV es una práctica ética? Objetivos: Comparar diferencias en materia de ley y donación entre la cultura japonesa y la cultura occidental; así como describir el THDV en ambas culturas. Especificar los “pros” y “contras” del THDV y conocer qué dilemas éticos aparecen en torno a la donación en vivo. Material y métodos: La tipología de trabajo realizada es una revisión bibliográfica. Las bases de datos consultadas fueron: Pubmed, Web of Knowledge, CINAHL y ProQuest Health & Medical Complete. Los descriptores empleados fueron: “brain-death”, “law”, “ethical”, “liver”, “living-donor”, “transplantation”, “Japan” and “Europe”. Conclusiones: La ley de trasplantes japonesa y europea es similar, por tanto, se demuestra que la cultura y religión condicionan el tipo de trasplante. Sin embargo, se ha detectado que la educación puede llegar, también, a ser un punto clave. Las técnicas quirúrgicas en THDV empleadas en Japón y Europa son distintas. En cambio, los resultados a largo plazo son similares. Es una técnica segura, con un riesgo mínimo para el donante y múltiples ventajas para el receptor. El trasplante de donante vivo vulnera dos principios éticos: benificiencia y no maleficiencia. A pesar de ello, se eximen estos principios de manera excepcional si se respeta la autonomía del donante y si se actúa sin ninguna intención maleficiente.