It is unclear whether practice-related aspects of antimicrobial therapy contribute to the high mortality from septic shock among patients with cirrhosis. We examined the relationship between aspects of initial empiric antimicrobial therapy and mortality in patients with cirrhosis and septic shock. This was a nested cohort study within a large retrospective database of septic shock from 28 medical centers in Canada, the United States, and Saudi Arabia by the Cooperative Antimicrobial Therapy of Septic Shock Database Research Group between 1996 and 2008. We examined the impact of initial empiric antimicrobial therapeutic variables on the hospital mortality of patients with cirrhosis and septic shock. Among 635 patients with cirrhosis and septic shock, the hospital mortality was 75.6%. Inappropriate initial empiric antimicrobial therapy was administered in 155 (24.4%) patients. The median time to appropriate antimicrobial administration was 7.3 hours (interquartile range, 3.2-18.3 hours). The use of inappropriate initial antimicrobials was associated with increased mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 9.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.3-20.7], as was the delay in appropriate antimicrobials (aOR for each 1 hour increase, 1.1; 95% CI, 1.1-1.2). Among patients with eligible bacterial septic shock, a single rather than two or more appropriate antimicrobials was used in 226 (72.9%) patients and was also associated with higher mortality (aOR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.0-3.3). These findings were consistent across various clinically relevant subgroups. Conclusion: In patients with cirrhosis and septic shock, inappropriate and delayed appropriate initial empiric antimicrobial therapy is associated with increased mortality. Monotherapy of bacterial septic shock is also associated with increased mortality. The process of selection and implementation of empiric antimicrobial therapy in this high-risk group should be restructured. (Hepatology 2012;56:2305–2315)

An excellent outcome is possible after liver transplantation for chronic HBV disease using HBIg dosed by pharmacokinetic parameters. Currently, quantification of pretransplant serum markers of the HBV antigen load does not predict the intensity of posttransplant treatment required for good clinical outcomes. Because HBV is not eradicated from the patient, some form of indefinite antiviral therapy continues to be warranted.

To our knowledge our patient appears to be the first case reported of isolated hepatic TB in the OLT patient population. It is likely that the allograft was infected prior to transplantation and the disease was reactivated nearly 3 months after the procedure.

Background A major prerequisite for living related liver transplantation is to ensure both donor safety and optimal graft quality. Therefore, excluding unsuitable donor candidates should be an important priority of the transplant team. Purpose To analyze the criteria for exclusion of potential living related liver donors. Patients and methods From November 2000 to March 2005, 327 potential living related donors for 136 potential recipients for liver transplantation were screened and worked up at the Liver Transplant Center, King Abdul Aziz Medical City. They were evaluated in a stepwise manner, including medical, physical, laboratory, psychosocial, and imaging assessment. Data regarding potential donors were retrospectively reviewed. Reasons for rejection of disqualified donors were analyzed. Results Out of the 327 potential donors, 223 (68.2%) were rejected at an early stage. A total of 104 cases (31.8%) had computed tomographic (CT) volumetry and/or magnetic resonance cholangiography (MRCP). While 44 (42.3% of those who had CT volumetry and/or MRCP) had their workup completed and proved to be suitable candidates, 24 (23%) went for surgery. Causes for donor rejection were classified as donor-related factors (inadequate volume, unsafe anatomy, abnormal liver function tests, medical/psychiatric, fatty liver, etc.; n = 191) and recipient-related factors (too ill, died, received cadaveric transplant, etc.; n = 112). Conclusion In our experience, as well as in those from other centers, a small proportion of potential donors prove to be satisfactory candidates. Therefore, strict adherence to a stepwise evaluation process is of utmost importance, so unsuitable potential donors can be disqualified, as early as possible during workup.