Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure (ACLF): The ‘Kyoto Consensus’-Steps From Asia

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is a condition associated with high mortality in the absence of liver transplantation. There have been various definitions proposed worldwide. The first consensus report of the working party of the Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL) set in 2004 on ACLF was published in 2009, and the APASL ACLF Research Consortium (AARC) was formed in 2012. The AARC database has prospectively collected nearly 10,500 cases of ACLF from various countries in the Asia-Pacific region. This database has been instrumental in developing the AARC score and grade of ACLF, the concept of the \u27Golden Therapeutic Window\u27, the \u27transplant window\u27, and plasmapheresis as a treatment modality. Also, the data has been key to identifying pediatric ACLF. The European Association for the Study of Liver-Chronic Liver Failure (EASL CLIF) and the North American Association for the Study of the End Stage Liver Disease (NACSELD) from the West added the concepts of organ failure and infection as precipitants for the development of ACLF and CLIF-Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) and NACSELD scores for prognostication. The Chinese Group on the Study of Severe Hepatitis B (COSSH) added COSSH-ACLF criteria to manage hepatitis b virus-ACLF with and without cirrhosis. The literature supports these definitions to be equally effective in their respective cohorts in identifying patients with high mortality. To overcome the differences and to develop a global consensus, APASL took the initiative and invited the global stakeholders, including opinion leaders from Asia, EASL and AASLD, and other researchers in the field of ACLF to identify the key issues and develop an evidence-based consensus document. The consensus document was presented in a hybrid format at the APASL annual meeting in Kyoto in March 2024. The \u27Kyoto APASL Consensus\u27 presented below carries the final recommendations along with the relevant background information and areas requiring future studies

A comparative study of excision with primary closure versus Limberg flap in pilonidal sinus

Background: The term ‘pilonidal sinus’ describes a condition found in the natal cleft overlying the coccyx which is treated by excision.Methods: This study is a prospective study held in Department of general surgery, Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi from October 2014 to April 2016 on 60 patients out of which 30 were controls (excision with primary closure) and 30 were taken as case (Limberg flap). Post-operative follow up was done till 6 months and complications were noted. The data was tabulated and SPSS version 17 was used for statistics.Results: Pilonidal sinus disease is common in age group 20 years and above and twice more common in males than females. Although operating time in Limberg flap is little more as compared to primary closure but insignificant. The post-operative pain in the long term follow up is less in the Limberg flap procedure, although in the initial post-operative period it is slightly higher as compared to primary closure. In Limberg flap procedure, post-operative complications like stitch line infection, seroma formation, wound dehiscence are low as compared to primary closure. Limberg flap require 2.27±0.52 days hospital stay as compared to 3.57±1.43 days in primary closure due to less post-operative complications. Recurrence rate is 3.33% in Limberg flap as compared to 26.67% in primary closure group.Conclusions: We recommend the Limberg flap method for primary pilonidal disease with low morbidity rates over primary closure.</jats:p

Women's awareness of perinatal mental health conditions and the acceptability of being asked about mental health in two regions in India: a qualitative study

Background Mental health conditions are common during pregnancy and the first year after childbirth. Early detection allows timely support and treatment to be offered, but identifying perinatal mental health conditions may be challenging due to stigma and under-recognition of symptoms. Asking about symptoms of mental health conditions during routine antenatal and postnatal appointments can help to identify women at risk. This study explores women’s awareness of perinatal mental health conditions, their views on the acceptability of being asked about mental health and any preference for specific assessment tools in two regions in India. Methods Focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted with pregnant, post-partum and non-perinatal women in Kangra, Himachal Pradesh (northern India) and Bengaluru, Karnataka (southern India). Settings included a hospital antenatal clinic and obstetric ward, Anganwadi Centres and Primary Health Centres. FGDs were facilitated, audio-recorded and transcribed. Narratives were coded for emerging themes and analysed using thematic analysis. Results Seven FGDs including 36 participants were conducted. Emerging themes were: manifestations of and contributors to mental health conditions; challenges in talking about mental health; and the acceptability of being asked about mental health. Difficult familial relationships, prioritising the needs of others and pressure to have a male infant were cited as key stressors. Being asked about mental health was generally reported to be acceptable, though some women felt uncomfortable with questions about suicidality. No preference for any specific assessment tool was reported. Conclusions Women face many stressors during the perinatal period including difficult familial relationships and societal pressure to bear a male infant. Being asked about mental health was generally considered to be acceptable, but questions relating to suicidality may be challenging in a community setting, requiring sensitivity by the interviewer. Future studies should assess the acceptability of mental health assessments in ‘real world’ antenatal and postnatal clinics and explore ways of overcoming the associated challenges in resource-constrained settings

Risk factors for labour induction and augmentation: a multicentre prospective cohort study in India

Summary: Background: Guidelines for labour induction/augmentation involve evaluating maternal and fetal complications, and allowing informed decisions from pregnant women. This study aimed to comprehensively explore clinical and non-clinical factors influencing labour induction and augmentation in an Indian population. Methods: A prospective cohort study included 9305 pregnant women from 13 hospitals across India. Self-reported maternal socio-demographic and lifestyle factors, and maternal medical and obstetric histories from medical records were obtained at recruitment (≥28 weeks of gestation), and women were followed up within 48 h after childbirth. Maternal and fetal clinical information were classified based on guidelines into four groups of clinical factors: (i) ≥2 indications, (ii) one indication, (iii) no indication and (iv) contraindication. Associations of clinical and non-clinical factors (socio-demographic, healthcare utilisation and lifestyle related) with labour induction and augmentation were investigated using multivariable logistic regression analyses. Findings: Over two-fifths (n = 3936, 42.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 41.3–43.3%) of the study population experienced labour induction and more than a quarter (n = 2537, 27.3%, 95% CI 26.4–28.2%) experienced augmentation. Compared with women with ≥2 indications, those with one (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.50, 95% CI 0.42–0.58) or no indication (aOR 0.24, 95% CI 0.20–0.28) or with contraindications (aOR 0.12, 95% CI 0.07–0.20) were less likely to be induced, adjusting for non-clinical characteristics. These associations were similar for labour augmentation. Notably, 34% of women who were induced or augmented did not have any clinical indication. Several maternal demographic (age at labour, parity and body mass index in early pregnancy), healthcare utilization (number of antenatal check-ups, duration of iron-folic acid supplementation and individuals managing childbirth) and socio-economic factors (religion, living below poverty line, maternal education and partner’s occupation) were independently associated with labour induction and augmentation. Interpretation: Although decisions about induction and augmentation of labour in our study population in India were largely guided by clinical recommendations, we cannot ignore that more than a third of the women did not have an indication. Decisions could also be influenced by non-clinical factors which need further research. Funding: The MaatHRI platform is funded by a Medical Research Council Career Development Award (Grant Ref: MR/P022030/1) and a Transition Support Award (Grant Ref: MR/W029294/1)

Does induction or augmentation of labour increase the risk of postpartum haemorrhage in pregnant women with anaemia? A multicentre prospective cohort study in India

Objective: To investigate whether induction/augmentation of labour in pregnant women with anaemia increases the risk of postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) and whether this risk varied by indications for labour induction/augmentation and by anaemia severity in pregnancy. Methods: In a prospective cohort study of 9,420 pregnant women from 13 hospitals across India, we measured haemoglobin (Hb) concentrations at recruitment (≥28 weeks of gestation) and blood loss after childbirth during follow-up and collected clinical information about PPH. Clinical obstetric and childbirth information at both visits were extracted from medical records. Anaemia severity in the third trimester was categorised using Hb concentrations (no/mild anaemia: Hb≥10 g/dL; moderate: Hb 7-9.9 g/dL; severe: Hb<7 g/dL), while PPH was defined based on blood loss volume (vaginal births: ≥500 mL or caesarean sections: ≥1000 mL) and clinical diagnosis. Indications for labour induction/augmentation were classified as clinically indicated and elective as per guidelines. We performed multivariable modified Poisson regression analyses to investigate the associations of anaemia severity and indications for labour induction/augmentation, including their interaction, with PPH, adjusted for potential confounders. Results: PPH was associated with anaemia but not with indications for labour induction/augmentation. However, there was a significant interaction between the two factors in relation to PPH (P value=0.003). Among pregnant women with severe anaemia, a higher risk of PPH was associated with elective (adjusted Risk Ratio (aRR) 3.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.29, 9.18) but not with clinically indicated (aRR=1.22, 95% CI=0.42, 3.55) labour induction/augmentation. No associations were observed among pregnant women with no/mild and moderate anaemia