Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background and AimsInternational Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 codes may correspond to cirrhosis diagnosis. However, these codes have not been as well studied as ICD-9 codes. We aimed to evaluate the positive predictive value (PPV) and specificity of ICD-10 codes for cirrhosis.MethodsWe conducted a single-center retrospective study of patients in Michigan Medicine (Ann Arbor, MI, USA). We evaluated patients with at least one of 28 ICD-10 codes for cirrhosis and randomly selected controls for the presence of cirrhosis and/or portal hypertensive complications.ResultsAmong 1317 patients with at least one ICD-10 code consistent with cirrhosis and/or portal hypertension, 796 had confirmed cirrhosis. After excluding ICD-10 codes found in < 10 patients, we evaluated the PPV of the 19 remaining codes. Of these, 15 had a high PPV for cirrhosis (> 80%), including codes for cirrhosis itself, gastroesophageal varices, hepatic encephalopathy, and other portal hypertensive complications. Specificity of ICD codes for cirrhosis for these 15 codes was high (> 94% for all). PPV and specificity were high across liver disease etiologies. Among patients without portal hypertension, PPVs of ICD-10 codes for cirrhosis were lower but still > 80% for the most common codes. PPVs of most codes for portal hypertensive complications were > 70%. Defining cirrhosis based on the presence of any of the 15 codes resulted in a PPV of 86% and by two different codes, a PPV 94%.ConclusionsICD-10 codes for cirrhosis can accurately identify patients with cirrhosis with or without portal hypertensive complications.

IntroductionPatients with clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH) are recommended to be treated with non-selective beta-blockers (ie, carvedilol) to prevent the first hepatic decompensation event by the renewing Baveno VII consensus. CSPH is defined by hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG)≥10 mm Hg; however, the HVPG measurement is not widely adopted due to its invasiveness. Liver stiffness (LS)≥25 kPa can be used as a surrogate of HVPG≥10 mm Hg to rule in CSPH with 90% of the positive predicting value in majority aetiologies of patients. A compelling argument is existing for using LS≥25 kPa to diagnose CSPH and then to initiate carvedilol in patients with compensated cirrhosis, and about 5%–6% of patients under this diagnosis criteria may not be benefited from carvedilol and are at risk of lower heart rate and mean arterial pressure. Randomised controlled trial on the use of carvedilol to prevent liver decompensation in CSPH diagnosed by LS remains to elucidate. Therefore, we aimed to investigate if compensated cirrhosis patients with LS≥25 kPa may benefit from carvedilol therapy.Methods and analysisThis study is a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial. We will randomly assign 446 adult compensated cirrhosis patients with LS≥25 kPa and without any previous decompensated event and without high-risk gastro-oesophageal varices. Patients are randomly divided into two groups, with 223 subjects in group A and 223 subjects in group B. Group A is a carvedilol intervention group, while group B is a placebo group. All patients in both groups will receive aetiology therapies and are followed up at an interval of 6 months. The 3-year incidences of decompensated events of cirrhosis-related and liver-related death are the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes include development of each complication of portal hypertension individually (ascites, variceal bleeding or overt hepatic encephalopathy), development of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis and other bacterial infections, development of new varices, growth of small varices to large varices, delta changes in LS and spleen stiffness, change in hepatic dysfunction assessed by Child-Pugh and model for end-stage liver disease score, change in platelet count, development of hepatocellular carcinoma, development of portal vein thrombosis and adverse events with a 3-year follow-up. A predefined interim analysis will be performed to ensure that the calculation is reasonable.Ethics and disseminationThe study protocol has been approved by the ethics committees of the Sixth People’s Hospital of Shenyang (2023-05-003-01) and independent ethics committee for clinical research of Zhongda Hospital, affiliated to Southeast University (2023ZDSYLL433-P01). The results from this trial will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and will be presented at international conferences.Trial registration numberChiCTR2300073864.

Propranolol has been used as prophylaxis for variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis. More recent data suggest that carvedilol may be more effective for reducing the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) than propranolol. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the hemodynamic response to carvedilol compared with propranolol. A total of 110 patients with a baseline HVPG value >12 mm Hg were allocated randomly to receive either carvedilol or propranolol. The HVPG measurement was repeated after 6 weeks of daily medication. The primary end point was a ≥20% fall in HVPG compared with baseline or <12 mm Hg. The difference in the proportion of responders in the carvedilol (49.1%) vs. propranolol (30.9%) groups did not reach statistical significance in the intention-to-treat analysis (P=0.08). However, among patients with a model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score ≥15, carvedilol resulted in a significantly greater response than that of propranolol (7/12, 58.3% vs. 0/10, 0%; P=0.005). Similarly, carvedilol was superior to propranolol in patients with Child-Pugh score ≥9 (46.2 vs. 0%; P=0.046). The presence of ascites also had a significant influence on the response rate (51.5 vs. 24.2%; P=0.042). A MELD score ≥15 was the only significant predictor of response among these post hoc groups after adjusting for multiple comparisons (P=0.005). Severe adverse events were higher in the carvedilol group although drug-associated adverse events were not different. Overall, carvedilol offered no clear advantage over propranolol but it may be more effective in advanced cirrhotic patients with a MELD score≥15 in reducing the portal pressure gradient. However, this potential benefit may come with a cost of increased risk of side-effects and outcome data over a longer term is needed to understand the relative risk benefit.

Background The widely accepted view that portal hypertension (PHT) is a contraindication to hepatectomy for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is being increasingly challenged. The long‐term survival outcomes and safety of partial hepatectomy versus interventional treatment using ablation with or without pre‐ablation transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) in patients with HBV‐related HCC within the Milan criteria and with clinically significant PHT were compared in this study. Methods This open‐label randomized clinical trial was conducted on consecutive patients with clinically PHT and hepatitis B virus (HBV)‐related HCC with tumors which were within the Milan criteria. These patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either partial hepatectomy or interventional treatment between December 2012 and June 2018. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints included recurrence‐free survival (RFS) and therapeutic safety. Results Each of the 2 groups had 80 patients. The 1‐, 3‐ and 5‐year OS rates in the partial hepatectomy group and the interventional treatment group were 95.0%, 86.2%, 69.5% versus 93.8%, 77.5%, 64.9%, respectively (P = 0.325). The corresponding RFS rates were 78.8%, 55.0%, 46.2% versus 71.3%, 52.5%, 45.0%, respectively (P = 0.783). The partial hepatectomy group had a higher complication rate compared to the interventional group (67.5% vs. 20%, P < 0.001). However, the differences were mainly in Clavien‐Dindo Grade I complications (P < 0.001), while not significant in Grade II/III/IV/V (All P > 0.05). Conclusions This study shows that partial hepatectomy treatment did not meet prespecified significance for improved OS and RFS compared to interventional treatment for patients with HBV‐related HCC within the Milan criteria and with clinically significant PHT. However, partial hepatectomy is still a safe procedure and should be considered as a treatment option rather than a contraindication.

Portal hypertension, the most important complication with cirrhosis of the liver, is a serious disease. Sorafenib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor is validated in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Because angiogenesis is a pathological hallmark of portal hypertension, the goal of our study was to determine the effect of sorafenib on portal venous flow and portosystemic collateral circulation in patients receiving sorafenib therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Porto-collateral circulations were evaluated using a magnetic resonance technique prior sorafenib therapy, and at day 30. All patients under sorafenib therapy had a decrease in portal venous flow of at least 36%. In contrast, no specific change was observed in the azygos vein or the abdominal aorta. No portal venous flow modification was observed in the control group. Sorafenib is the first anti-angiogenic therapy to demonstrate a beneficial and reversible decrease of portal venous flow among cirrhotic patients.

NCX-1000 (2(acetyloxy) benzoic acid-3(nitrooxymethyl)phenyl ester) is an nitric oxide (NO)-releasing derivative of ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA), which showed selective vasodilatory effect on intrahepatic circulation in animal models of cirrhosis. This study was aimed at testing the efficacy and tolerability of this compound in patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension. This was a single-center, phase-2a, randomized (4:1), double-blind, parallel-group, dose-escalating study. Patients received progressive oral doses of NCX-1000 or placebo up to 2 g t.i.d. or maximum tolerated doses for 16 days. Efficacy on fasting and postprandial hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) at baseline and after treatment was assessed. Hepatic blood flow (HBF) and arterial blood pressure were also measured. Eleven patients (nine NCX-1000 and two placebo) were enrolled and completed the trial. After NCX-1000 treatment, HVPG did not change (16.7+/-3.8 vs. 17.1+/-3.8 mm Hg; P=0.596), and HBF decreased significantly (904+/-310 vs. 1,129+/-506 ml/min; P=0.043). The postprandial increase in portal pressure and HBF was not modified by NCX-1000. There was no significant effect on diastolic blood pressure, but systolic blood pressure was reduced by the treatment in a dose-dependent manner (121+/-11 mm Hg after NCX-1000 vs. 136+/-7 mm Hg at baseline; P=0.003). Seven non-serious adverse events were experienced by four patients (one on placebo). In patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension, NCX-1000 administration was safe, but it was not able to reduce portal pressure. A significant reduction of systolic blood pressure and HBF was observed in the treatment arm, suggesting that the drug had systemic effects and lacked selective release of NO at the intrahepatic circulation.

The LigaSure vessel sealing system (Valleylab, Boulder, CO) has been tested, with excellent results, in different fields of surgery. However, no study has evaluated the efficiency of the LigaSure in open esophagogastric decongestion and splenectomy in a randomized trial to date. Patients scheduled to undergo esophagogastric decongestion and splenectomy were assigned to the use of either the LigaSure or a conventional clamp-and-tie technique. Primary outcome measures were operating time and intraoperative blood loss. Secondary outcome measures were postoperative drainage volume, complications such as spleen fever, bleeding, portal vein thrombosis, length of incision, pain, and time to discharge. Sixty patients were randomized to the LigaSure (n = 30) and clamp-and-tie (n = 30) groups. The groups were well matched with respect to liver function, associated illnesses, and grading of esophageal varices. Postoperative outcomes in drainage and major complications did not differ between the groups, while operative time and the volume of blood loss were significantly decreased in the LigaSure group compared with the clamp-and-tie group ( P < .001). The use of the LigaSure is safe and effective in vessel division and homeostasis in the esophagogastric decongestion and splenectomy, with statistically significant decreases in operative time and intraoperative blood loss and without significantly modifying postoperative results.

Liver microcirculatory dysfunction is one of the key mechanisms that promotes the progression of chronic liver disease. In this Review, the authors explore the role of liver microcirculatory dysfunction in cirrhotic portal hypertension, the preclinical models used to study liver circulation and potential therapeutics.

Purpose To assess the effect of tezosentan, a parenteral dual ET receptor antagonist, on splanchnic and systemic hemodynamics in patients with cirrhosis. In addition, the safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of tezosentan were evaluated. Methods The population consisted of patients with cirrhosis with clinically significant portal hypertension. This was a randomized, double-blind, multicenter study. The patients were randomized 3:1 to tezosentan (3 mg/h for 2–3 h) or placebo. HVPG, hepatic blood flow (HBF, ICG method), and systemic arterial pressures were measured before and after tezosentan administration. Plasma concentrations of tezosentan and ET-1 were determined peripherally and in the hepatic vein. Results Eighteen patients received tezosentan and six placebo. Baseline clinical, biochemical, and hemodynamic characteristics were balanced between the two groups. There was no significant treatment effect on HVPG. The extraction ratio (0.31), the plasma clearance of ICG (280 ml/min), and the HBF (1,430 ml/min) did not show any relevant changes during the infusion of tezosentan, and there were no differences between placebo- and tezosentan-treated patients. A linear relationship was observed between the maximum-fold increase in ET-1 concentration and the steady-state tezosentan plasma concentration ( r  = 0.82). There was a strong correlation ( r  = 0.88) between plasma clearance of ICG and that of tezosentan (10.2 l/h). Arterial pressure and heart rate did not significantly change in either group. Conclusion In patients with cirrhosis, a 2- to 3-h tezosentan infusion was safe and well tolerated but did not change the HVPG. Tezosentan infusion had no influence on the extraction ratio and plasma clearance of ICG and did not change HBF.

Cirrhosis is an increasing cause of morbidity and mortality in more developed countries, being the 14th most common cause of death worldwide but fourth in central Europe. Increasingly, cirrhosis has been seen to be not a single disease entity, but one that can be subclassified into distinct clinical prognostic stages, with 1-year mortality ranging from 1% to 57% depending on the stage. We review the current understanding of cirrhosis as a dynamic process and outline current therapeutic options for prevention and treatment of complications of cirrhosis, on the basis of the subclassification in clinical stages. The new concept in management of patients with cirrhosis should be prevention and early intervention to stabilise disease progression and to avoid or delay clinical decompensation and the need for liver transplantation. The challenge in the 21st century is to prevent the need for liver transplantation in as many patients with cirrhosis as possible.