The CLIF-C ACLFs at ACLF diagnosis is superior to the MELDs and MELD-Nas in predicting mortality. The CLIF-C ACLFs is a clinically relevant, validated scoring system that can be used sequentially to stratify the risk of mortality in ACLF patients.

No abstract

No abstract

LT is feasible in cirrhotic patients with ACLF. However, we have shown that ACLF is a significant and independent predictor of 90-day mortality. We propose a score that can identify candidate cirrhotic patients in whom LT might be associated with futile LT.

Non-tumoral portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is present at liver transplantation in 5% to 26% of cirrhotic patients, and the prevalence of complex PVT as defined here (grade 4 Yerdel, and grade 3,4 Jamieson and Charco) has been reported in 0% to 2.2%. Adequate portal inflow is mandatory to ensure graft and patient survival after liver transplantation. With time, the proposed classifications of non-tumoral chronic PVT have evolved from being anatomy-based, to also incorporating functional parameters. However, none of the currently proposed classifications are directed towards decision-making, regarding the choice of inflow to the graft during transplantation and the outcomes thereof. The present scoping review i) addresses the limits of the currently available classifications in terms of surgical decisiveness, ii) clarifies the concept of physiological or non-physiological portal inflow reconstruction, and subsequently, iii) proposes a new classification of non-tumoral PVT in candidates for liver transplantation; to help tailor the surgical strategy to an individual patient, in order to provide portal inflow to the graft together with control of prehepatic portal hypertension whenever feasible.

The aim of this proof-of-concept study was to evaluate if trained dogs could discriminate between sweat samples from symptomatic COVID-19 positive individuals (SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive) and those from asymptomatic COVID-19 negative individuals. The study was conducted at 2 sites (Paris, France, and Beirut, Lebanon), followed the same training and testing protocols, and involved six detection dogs (three explosive detection dogs, one search and rescue dog, and two colon cancer detection dogs). A total of 177 individuals were recruited for the study (95 symptomatic COVID-19 positive and 82 asymptomatic COVID-19 negative individuals) from five hospitals, and one underarm sweat sample per individual was collected. The dog training sessions lasted between one and three weeks. Once trained, the dog had to mark the COVID-19 positive sample randomly placed behind one of three or four olfactory cones (the other cones contained at least one COVID-19 negative sample and between zero and two mocks). During the testing session, a COVID-19 positive sample could be used up to a maximum of three times for one dog. The dog and its handler were both blinded to the COVID-positive sample location. The success rate per dog (i.e., the number of correct indications divided by the number of trials) ranged from 76% to 100%. The lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the estimated success rate was most of the time higher than the success rate obtained by chance after removing the number of mocks from calculations. These results provide some evidence that detection dogs may be able to discriminate between sweat samples from symptomatic COVID-19 individuals and those from asymptomatic COVID-19 negative individuals. However, due to the limitations of this proof-of-concept study (including using some COVID-19 samples more than once and potential confounding biases), these results must be confirmed in validation studies.

No abstract

Pneumonia is common among patients undergoing LT and is a major cause of morbidity. A restrictive pattern on preoperative pulmonary testing and a higher international normalized ratio measured prior LT were associated with more risk of postoperative pneumonia.