Cardiovascular Assessment of the Liver Transplantation Candidate

Presence of any degree of coronary artery disease among liver transplant candidates is associated with increased rate of post-transplant major adverse cardiac events

The impact of coronary artery disease (CAD) among liver transplant candidates (LTC) on post-LT clinical outcomes remains unclear. The aim of this study is to determine association of presence and severity of CAD on post-LT major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including cardiac-associated mortality. We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of 231 patients who underwent diagnostic coronary angiogram (DCA) during their LT evaluation at a tertiary medical center from 2012-2017. Patients were analyzed based on degree of CAD (no CAD, non-obstructive CAD [< 50% stenosis], obstructive CAD [≥50% stenosis]) per DCA results. MACE were noted at 30 days, 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years post-LT, and Kaplan-Meier curves were used to determine post-LT MACE-free probability. LTC with any CAD, including non-obstructive CAD, had lower MACE-free probability at all post-LT time points (0.94 vs 0.65 at 30 days, P = .001; 0.87 vs 0.59 at 1 year, P = .002; 0.87 vs 0.41 at 3 years, P < .001; 0.87 vs 0.37 at 5 years, P < .001). Identification of and medical intervention for non-obstructive CAD should be considered in all LTC, though further studies are necessary to determine optimal medical interventions to mitigate MACE risk in this cohort.

Appraisal of Cardiac Ejection Fraction With Liver Disease Severity: Implication in Post-Liver Transplantation Mortality

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Enhanced sympathetic nervous activation and peripheral vasodilation in end-stage liver disease (ESLD) may limit the importance of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) as an influential prognosticator. We sought to understand the LVEF and cardiac dimensions in ESLD patients in order to define the LVEF threshold to predict all-cause mortality after liver transplantation (LT).

APPROACH AND RESULTS

Data were collected prospectively from the Asan LT Registry between 2008 and 2016, and outcomes were retrospectively reviewed. LVEF, end-diastolic volume index (EDVI), and end-diastolic elastance (Eed) were measured by preoperative echocardiography. Of 2,799 patients, 452 (16.2%) had LVEF ≤ 60%, with 29 (1.0%) having LVEF < 55% and 269 (9.6%) had LVEF ≥ 70%. Over a median of 5.4-year follow-up, 329 (11.8%) patients died: 104 (3.7%) died within 90 days. LVEF (range, 30%-81%) was directly proportionate to Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores, an index of liver disease severity, in survivors but showed a fixed flat-line pattern in nonsurvivors (interaction P = 0.004 between groups), with lower EDVI (P = 0.013) and higher Eed (P = 0.001) in the MELD ≥ 20 group. Patients with LVEF ≤ 60% had higher 90-day (13% vs. 7.4%; log rank, P = 0.03) and median 5.4-year (26.7% vs. 16.2%; log rank, P = 0.003) mortality rates in the MELD ≥ 20 group, respectively, compared to those with LVEF > 60%. Specifically, in the MELD > 35 group, median 5.4-year mortality rate was 53.3% in patients with LVEF ≤ 60% versus 24% in those with LVEF > 60% (log rank P < 0.001). By contrast, mortality rates of LVEF ≤ 60% and > 60% were similar in the MELD < 20 group (log rank P = 0.817).

CONCLUSIONS

LVEF ≤ 60% is strongly associated with higher post-LT mortality rates in the MELD ≥ 20 group, indicating the need to appraise both LVEF and liver disease severity simultaneously. Enhanced diastolic elastance with low EDVI provides insights into pathogenesis of low LVEF in nonsurvivors with MELD ≥ 20.

Preoperative echocardiographic evaluation of cardiac systolic and diastolic function in liver transplant recipients with diabetes mellitus: a propensity-score matched analysis

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Hospitalizations for Cardiovascular Disease After Liver Transplantation in the United States

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of post-liver transplant death, and variable care patterns may affect outcomes. We aimed to describe epidemiology and outcomes of inpatient CVD care across US hospitals. Using a merged data set from the 2002-2011 Nationwide Inpatient Sample and the American Hospital Association Annual Survey, we evaluated liver transplant patients admitted primarily with myocardial infarction (MI), stroke (cerebrovascular accident [CVA]), congestive heart failure (CHF), dysrhythmias, cardiac arrest (CA), or malignant hypertension. Patient-level data include demographics, Charlson comorbidity index, and CVD diagnoses. Facility-level variables included ownership status, payer-mix, hospital resources, teaching status, and physician/nursing-to-bed ratios. We used generalized estimating equations to evaluate patient- and hospital-level factors associated with mortality. There were 4763 hospitalizations that occurred in 153 facilities (transplant hospitals, n = 80). CVD hospitalizations increased overall by 115% over the decade (P < 0.01). CVA and MI declined over time (both P < 0.05), but CHF and dysrhythmia grew significantly (both P < 0.03); a total of 19% of hospitalizations were for multiple CVD diagnoses. Transplant hospitals had lower comorbidity patients (P < 0.001) and greater resource intensity including presence of cardiac intensive care unit, interventional radiology, operating rooms, teaching status, and nursing density (all P < 0.01). Transplant and nontransplant hospitals had similar unadjusted mortality (overall, 3.9%, P = 0.55; by diagnosis, all P > 0.07). Transplant hospitals had significantly longer overall length of stay, higher total costs, and more high-cost hospitalizations (all P < 0.05). After risk adjustment, transplant hospitals were associated with higher mortality and high-cost hospitalizations. In conclusion, CVD after liver transplant is evolving and responsible for growing rates of inpatient care. Transplant hospitals are associated with poor outcomes, even after risk adjustment for patient and hospital characteristics, which may be attributable to selective referral of certain patient phenotypes but could also be related to differences in quality of care. Further study is warranted.