This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Summary Background Despite concerns that patients with liver transplants might be at increased risk of adverse outcomes from COVID-19 because of coexisting comorbidities and use of immunosuppressants, the effect of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection on this patient group remains unclear. We aimed to assess the clinical outcomes in these patients. Methods In this multicentre cohort study, we collected data on patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, who were older than 18 years, who had previously received a liver transplant, and for whom data had been submitted by clinicians to one of two international registries (COVID-Hep and SECURE-Cirrhosis) at the end of the patient's disease course. Patients without a known hospitalisation status or mortality outcome were excluded. For comparison, data from a contemporaneous cohort of consecutive patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection who had not received a liver transplant were collected from the electronic patient records of the Oxford University Hospitals National Health Service Foundation Trust. We compared the cohorts with regard to several outcomes (including death, hospitalisation, intensive care unit [ICU] admission, requirement for intensive care, and need for invasive ventilation). A propensity score-matched analysis was done to test for an association between liver transplant and death. Findings Between March 25 and June 26, 2020, data were collected for 151 adult liver transplant recipients from 18 countries (median age 60 years [IQR 47–66], 102 [68%] men, 49 [32%] women) and 627 patients who had not undergone liver transplantation (median age 73 years [44–84], 329 [52%] men, 298 [48%] women). The groups did not differ with regard to the proportion of patients hospitalised (124 [82%] patients in the liver transplant cohort vs 474 [76%] in the comparison cohort, p=0·106), or who required intensive care (47 [31%] vs 185 [30%], p=0·837). However, ICU admission (43 [28%] vs 52 [8%], p<0·0001) and invasive ventilation (30 [20%] vs 32 [5%], p<0·0001) were more frequent in the liver transplant cohort. 28 (19%) patients in the liver transplant cohort died, compared with 167 (27%) in the comparison cohort (p=0·046). In the propensity score-matched analysis (adjusting for age, sex, creatinine concentration, obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and ethnicity), liver transplantation did not significantly increase the risk of death in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection (absolute risk difference 1·4% [95% CI −7·7 to 10·4]). Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that age (odds ratio 1·06 [95% CI 1·01 to 1·11] per 1 year increase), serum creatinine concentration (1·57 [1·05 to 2·36] per 1 mg/dL increase), and non-liver cancer (18·30 [1·96 to 170·75]) were associated with death among liver transplant recipients. Inte...

No abstract

BACKGROUND The coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has posed unprecedented challenges to healthcare systems and it may have heavily impacted patients with liver cancer (LC). This project has evaluated if the schedule of LC screening or procedures has been interrupted /delayed because of the COVID-19 pandemic. MATERIAL AND METHODS An international survey evaluated the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on clinical practice and clinical trials from March 2020 to June 2020, as the first phase of a multicentre, international and observational project. The focus was on patients with hepatocellular carcinoma or intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, cared for around the world during the first COVID-19 pandemic wave. RESULTS Ninety-one centres expressed interest to participate and 76 were included in the analysis, from Europe, South America, North America, Asia and Africa (73.7%, 17.1%, 5.3%, 2.6% and 1.3% per continent, respectively). Eighty-seven per cent of the centres modified their clinical practice: 40.8% the diagnostic procedures, 80.9% the screening program, 50% cancelled curative and/or palliative treatments for LC, and 44.0% cancelled the liver transplantation program. Forty-five out 69 (65.2%) centres in which clinical trials were running modified their treatments in that setting, but 58.1% were able to recruit new patients. The phone call service was modified in 51.4% of centres which had this service prior to COVID-19 pandemic (n=19/37). CONCLUSION The first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic had a tremendous impact on the routine care of patients with LC. Modifications in screening, diagnostic and treatment algorithms may have significantly impaired the outcome of patients. Ongoing data collection and future analyses will report the benefits and disadvantages of the strategies implemented, aiding future decision making.

Many safe and effective severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) vaccinations dramatically reduce risks of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) complications and deaths. We aimed to describe cases of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection among patients with chronic liver disease (CLD) and liver transplant (LT) recipients with at least one prior COVID‐19 vaccine dose. The SECURE‐Liver and COVID‐Hep international reporting registries were used to identify laboratory‐confirmed COVID‐19 in CLD and LT patients who received a COVID‐19 vaccination. Of the 342 cases of lab‐confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 infections in the era after vaccine licensing, 40 patients (21 with CLD and 19 with LT) had at least one prior COVID‐19 vaccination, including 12 who were fully vaccinated (≥2 weeks after second dose). Of the 21 patients with CLD (90% with cirrhosis), 7 (33%) were hospitalized, 1 (5%) was admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), and 0 died. In the LT cohort (n = 19), there were 6 hospitalizations (32%), including 3 (16%) resulting in mechanical ventilation and 2 (11%) resulting in death. All three cases of severe COVID‐19 occurred in patients who had a single vaccine dose within the last 1‐2 weeks. In contemporary patients with CLD, rates of symptomatic infection, hospitalization, ICU admission, invasive ventilation, and death were numerically higher in unvaccinated individuals. Conclusion: This case series demonstrates the potential for COVID‐19 infections among patients with CLD and LT recipients who had received the COVID‐19 vaccination. Vaccination against SARS‐CoV‐2 appears to result in favorable outcomes as attested by the absence of mechanical ventilation, ICU, or death among fully vaccinated patients.

No abstract

Electrolyte and acid-base disturbances are frequent in patients with end-stage liver disease; the underlying physiopathological mechanisms are often complex and represent a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge to the physician. Usually, these disorders do not develop in compensated cirrhotic patients, but with the onset of the classic complications of cirrhosis such as ascites, renal failure, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis and variceal bleeding, multiple electrolyte, and acid-base disturbances emerge. Hyponatremia parallels ascites formation and is a well-known trigger of hepatic encephalopathy; its management in this particular population poses a risky challenge due to the high susceptibility of cirrhotic patients to osmotic demyelination. Hypokalemia is common in the setting of cirrhosis: multiple potassium wasting mechanisms both inherent to the disease and resulting from its management make these patients particularly susceptible to potassium depletion even in the setting of normokalemia. Acid-base disturbances range from classical respiratory alkalosis to high anion gap metabolic acidosis, almost comprising the full acid-base spectrum. Because most electrolyte and acid-base disturbances are managed in terms of their underlying trigger factors, a systematic physiopathological approach to their diagnosis and treatment is required.

The pocket ultrasound device (PUD) is a new tool that may be of use in the early detection of ascites. Abdominal ultrasound-guided paracentesis has been reported to decrease the rate of complications due to the procedure, but must be performed in a healthcare setting; this new tool may be a useful on an ambulatory basis. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic usefulness of the PUD in the diagnosis of ascites and the safety of guided paracentesis. We conducted a retrospective study that included adult patients suspected of having ascites and in whom an evaluation was performed with the PUD to identify it. Concordance with abdominal ultrasound (AUS) was determined with the Kappa coefficient. Sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp) and likelihood ratios (LR) were determined and compared with physical examination, AUS, computed tomography and procurement of fluid by paracentesis. Complications resulting from the guided paracentesis were analyzed. 89 participants were included and 40 underwent a paracentesis. The PUD for ascites detection had 95.8 % Se, 81.8 % Sp, 5.27 +LR and 0.05 -LR. It had a concordance with AUS of 0.781 (p < 0.001). Technical problems during the guided paracentesis were present in only two participants (5 %) and three patients (7.5 %) developed minor complications that required no further intervention. There were no severe complications or deaths. This study suggests that the PUD is a reliable tool for ascites detection as a complement to physical examination and appears to be a safe method to perform guided paracentesis.