Aim To assess and compare the feasibility and prognostic value of various frailty assessment tools among decompensated cirrhosis inpatients. Methods Our prospective observational registry included consecutive patients admitted for cirrhosis between June 2017 and July 2018. Exclusion criteria were intensive-care unit admission, hepatocellular carcinoma outside of the Milan criteria, and other malignancies. Frailty at baseline was assessed with the Liver Frailty Index (LFI), Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), Fried Frailty Score (FFS), and Short Physical Performance Battery test (SPPB). The follow-up lasted for at least 180 days. Results The study enrolled 168 patients (35.1% women, median age 57.9 years). The most frequent primary etiology was alcohol-related liver disease (78.6%). The Median Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) was 16. The 80th percentile of frailty scores was LFI>5.4, CFS>4, FFS>3, and SPPB<5, and it identified patients with higher mortality. LFI and CFS had the highest numerical prognostic value for in-hospital, and 90- and 180-day mortality. In a bivariate analysis of the risk of death or liver transplantation, the combination of MELD and LFI had the highest concordance (0.771 ± 0.04). In a multivariate model, MELD score (HR 1.17, 95% CI 1.12-1.22), overt encephalopathy (2.39, 1.27-4.48), infection at baseline (2.32, 1.23-4.34), and numerical LFI (1.41, 1.02-1.95) were independent predictors of overall mortality. Conclusion Frailty assessment using the evaluated tools is feasible among hospitalized cirrhotic patients, identifying those with worse prognosis. CFS had the highest applicability and accuracy for the initial assessment and LFI for the initial and follow-up assessments.

Chronic liver disease management is a comprehensive approach requiring multi-professional expertise and well-orchestrated healthcare measures thoroughly organized by responsible medical units. Contextually, the corresponding multi-faceted chain of healthcare events is likely to be severely disturbed or even temporarily broken under the force majeure conditions such as global pandemics. Consequently, the chronic liver disease is highly representative for the management of any severe chronic disorder under lasting pandemics with unprecedented numbers of acutely diseased persons who, together with the chronically sick patient cohorts, have to be treated using the given capacity of healthcare systems with their limited resources. Current study aimed at exploring potentially negative impacts of the SARS CoV-2 outbreak on the quality of the advanced chronic liver disease (ACLD) management considering two well-classified parameters, namely, (1) the continuity of the patient registrations and (2) the level of mortality rates, comparing pre-COVID-19 statistics with these under the current pandemic in Slovak Republic. Altogether 1091 registrations to cirrhosis registry (with 60.8% versus 39.2% males to females ratio) were included with a median age of 57 years for patients under consideration. Already within the very first 3 months of the pandemic outbreak in Slovakia (lockdown declared from March 16, 2020, until May 20, 2020), the continuity of the patient registrations has been broken followed by significantly increased ACLD-related death rates. During this period of time, the total number of new registrations decreased by about 60% (15 registrations in 2020 versus 38 in 2018 and 38 in 2019). Corresponding mortality increased by about 52% (23 deaths in 2020 versus 10 in 2018 and 12 in 2019). Based on these results and in line with the framework of 3PM guidelines, the pandemic priority pathways (PPP) are strongly recommended for maintaining tertiary care uninterrupted. For the evidence-based implementation of PPP, creation of predictive algorithms and individualized care strategy tailored to the patient is essential. Resulting classification of measures is summarized as follows: The Green PPP Line is reserved for prioritized (urgent and comprehensive) treatment of patients at highest risk to die from ACLD (tertiary care) as compared to the risk from possible COVID-19 infection. The Orange PPP Line considers patients at middle risk of adverse outcomes from ACLD with re-addressing them to the secondary care. As further deterioration of ACLD is still probable, pro-active management is ascertained with tertiary center serving as the 24/7 telemedicine consultation hub for a secondary facility (on a physician-physician level). The Red PPP Line is related to the patients at low risk to die from ACLD, re-addressing them to the primary care. Since patients with stable chronic liver diseases without advanced fibrosis are at trivial inherent risk, they should be kept out of the healthcare setting as far as possible by the telemedical (patient-nurse or patient- physician) measurements. The assigned priority has to be monitored and re-evaluated individually—in intervals based on the baseline prognostic score such as MELD. The approach is conform with principles of predictive, preventive and personalized medicine (PPPM / 3PM) and demonstrates a potential of great clinical utility for an optimal management of any severe chronic disorder (cardiovascular, neurological and cancer) under lasting pandemics.

Background. Physical frailty increases susceptibility to stressors and predicts adverse outcomes of cirrhosis. Data on disease course in different etiologies are scarce, so we aimed to compare the prevalence and risk factors of frailty and its impact on prognosis in nonalcoholic fatty liver (NAFLD) and alcoholic (ALD) cirrhosis. Patients and Methods. Cirrhosis registry RH7 operates since 2014 and includes hospitalized patients with decompensated cirrhosis, pre-LT evaluation, or curable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). From the RH7, we identified 280 ALD and 105 NAFLD patients with at least 6 months of follow-up. Results. Patients with NAFLD compared with ALD were older and had a higher proportion of females, higher body mass index (BMI) and mid-arm circumference (MAC), lower MELD score, CRP, and lower proportion of refractory ascites. The liver frailty index did not differ, and the prevalence of HCC was higher (17.1 vs. 6.8%, p = 0.002 ). Age, sex, serum albumin, and C-reactive protein (CRP) were independent predictors of frailty. In NAFLD, frailty was also associated with BMI and MAC and in ALD, with the MELD score. The Cox model adjusted for age, sex, MELD, CRP, HCC, and LFI showed that NAFLD patients had higher all-cause mortality (HR = 1.88 95% CI 1.32–2.67, p < 0.001 ) and were more sensitive to the increase in LFI (HR = 1.51, 95% CI 1.05–2.2). Conclusion. Patients with NAFLD cirrhosis had a comparable prevalence of frailty compared to ALD. Although prognostic indices showed less advanced disease, NAFLD patients were more sensitive to frailty, which reflected their higher overall disease burden and led to higher all-cause mortality.

No abstract

Background Lower back pain is a common issue, but little is known about the prevalence of pain in patients with liver cirrhosis during hospitalisation. Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine lower back pain in patients with liver cirrhosis. Methods The sample consisted of patients with liver cirrhosis (n = 79; men n = 55; women n = 24; mean age = 55.79 ± 12.52 years). The hospitalised patients were mobile. The presence and intensity of pain were assessed in the lumbar spine during hospitalisation. The presence of pain was assessed using the visual analogue pain scale (0–10). The range of motion of the lower spine was assessed using the Schober and Stibor tests. Frailty was measured by Liver Frailty Index (LFI). The condition of liver disease was evaluated using The Model For the End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) and Child–Pugh score (CPS) and ascites classification. Student’s t test and Mann–Whitney test were used for analysis of the difference of group. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) with the Tukey post hoc test was used to test differences between categories of liver frailty index. The Kruskal–Wallis test was used to test pain distribution. Statistical significance was determined at the α-0.05 significance level. Result The prevalence of pain in patients with liver cirrhosis was 13.92% (n = 11), and the mean intensity of pain according to the visual analogue scale was 3.73 (± 1.90). Lower back pain was present in patients with ascites (15.91%; n = 7) and without ascites (11.43%; n = 4). The prevalence of lower back pain was not statistically significant between patients with and without ascites (p = 0,426). The base of Schober’s assessment mean score was 3.74 cm (± 1.81), and based on Stibor’s assessment mean score was 5.84 cm (± 2.23). Conclusion Lower back pain in patients with liver cirrhosis is a problem that requires attention. Restricted spinal mobility has been reported in patients with back pain, according to Stibor, compared to patients without pain. There was no difference in the incidence of pain in patients with and without ascites.