
==== Front
Am J Gastroenterol
Am J Gastroenterol
AJGAST
ACG
The American Journal of Gastroenterology
0002-9270
1572-0241
Wolters Kluwer Philadelphia, PA

38587287
AJG-24-0235
10.14309/ajg.0000000000002795
00032
3
Brief Report
Overt Hepatic Encephalopathy: More Than Meets the Eye
https://orcid.org/0009-0002-7194-1185
Erminelli Davide MD 1*davide.erminelli@studenti.unipd.it

Mangini Chiara MD 1*chiara.manginij@gmail.com

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7678-9074
Zarantonello Lisa PhD 1lisa.zarantonello.1@unipd.it

Angeli Paolo MD 1pangeli@unipd.it

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2800-9923
Montagnese Sara MD, PhD 12
1 Department of Medicine, University of Padova, Padova, Italy;
2 Chronobiology Section, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK.
Correspondence: Sara Montagnese, MD, PhD. E-mail: sara.montagnese@unipd.it.
9 2024
08 4 2024
119 9 19301934
27 1 2024
13 3 2024
Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American College of Gastroenterology
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CCBY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

INTRODUCTION:

We aimed to assess the reliability of a qualitative approach to overt hepatic encephalopathy (OHE) diagnosis compared with the semiquantitative, and recommended one.

METHODS:

The above 2 methods were compared in 411 outpatients (71% males, 60 ± 10 years, model for end-stage liver disease 13.5 ± 5.0).

RESULTS:

Of the 73 patients with OHE on quantitative assessment, 19 (26%) were missed on qualitative assessment, with no difference in the likelihood of the physician missing grades II or III. Sixty-eight (20%) of the 270 patients with no OHE on quantitative assessment were wrongly qualified as having OHE.

DISCUSSION:

Qualitative clinical evaluation of OHE is not reliable, and recommendations should be followed.

KEYWORDS:

cirrhosis
hepatic encephalopathy
neuropsychology
electroencephalography
ammonia
Horizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeH2020-SC1-BHC-2018-2020 Sara MontagneseOPEN-ACCESSTRUE
SDCT
==== Body
pmcINTRODUCTION

Although a semiquantitative assessment of overt hepatic encephalopathy (OHE) has been repeatedly and formally recommended (1,2), the impact of its replacement by unstructured interviews and/or physicians' impressions, which are still common practice, has never been formally assessed. The concept behind the recommendation is that verbal abilities tend to be preserved even in severe OHE (3,4), which can therefore be easily missed in conversation, unless questions ascertaining temporal and spatial orientation are actually asked.

The aim of this study was to assess the reliability and the impact, if any, of a qualitative approach to OHE diagnosis compared with the semiquantitative one recommended in the most recent set of Italian guidelines (2) (see Supplementary Figure 1, Supplementary Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/AJG/D241).

METHODS

A total of 411 patients (71% males, 60 ± 10 years of age) evaluated in our dedicated HE clinic between April 2009 and June 2023 were included.

Before any formal assessment, patients were classified as having/not having OHE based on a qualitative impression of the physician—generally, a senior resident (i.e., a fourth- to fifth-year hepatology specialist trainee) or a consultant hepatologist—who clerked them into clinic, took their history, and went on to examine them. The doctor ticked yes or no in response to the question: Does the patient have overt hepatic encephalopathy? on the outpatient clinic form, before any formal neuropsychiatric assessment.

Patients were then formally evaluated by neuropsychological tests and electroencephalography (EEG), as fully described in Mangini et al (5), and qualified as unimpaired, when they were clinically normal and both the psychometric hepatic encephalopathy score (also summarized as the so-called mean PHES Z-score (6,7)) and the EEG were normal, having covert HE (CHE) when they were clinically normal but the Psychometric Hepatic Encephalopathy Score (PHES) and/or the EEG were abnormal, or having OHE based on a recommended semiquantitative modification of the West Haven criteria (2). This includes orientation to time (5 questions) and space (4 questions) plus the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) (8). OHE was graded as II (oriented to space, disoriented to time, or presence of asterixis), III (disoriented to time and space with a GCS ≥8), and IV (disoriented to time and space with a GCS <8; coma) (2). From 2016 onward, the animal naming test (ANT) was also administered (9).

The semiquantitative and qualitative OHE diagnoses were compared, and patients qualified as true positives (TPs) when the impression of the physician was consistent with the formal diagnosis of OHE; false negatives (FNs) when the physician did not recognize OHE; false positives (FPs) when patients were qualified as having OHE by the physician, but they did not meet the formal diagnostic criteria; and true negatives (TNs) when neither the physician nor the formal criteria confirmed an OHE diagnosis.

Permission for retrospective data analyses was obtained from the local Ethics Committee.

Results are expressed as mean ± SD or as count and percentage, as appropriate. Comparisons were performed by ANOVA (post hoc Tukey test) or by χ2, as appropriate. Analyses were performed with the package Statistica, version 13.1 (Dell, Round Rock, TX).

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-two (30%) patients were qualified as having OHE on qualitative assessment.

On quantitative evaluation, 137 (33%) patients were qualified as unimpaired, 201 (49%) as having CHE, 57 (14%) as having grade II OHE, and 16 (4%) as having grade III OHE. Of the 73 patients with OHE, 19 (26%) were missed on qualitative assessment (FNs), with no difference in the likelihood of the physician missing grades II and III (Figure 1). Sixty-eight (20%) unimpaired/CHE patients were qualified as having OHE on qualitative assessment (FPs), of whom 61 (90%) had CHE and 7 (10%) were unimpaired (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Percentage true-positive, false-negative, false-positive, and true-negative results, by degree of hepatic encephalopathy (HE).

Demographic, hepatic failure, and neuropsychiatric features of the patients, by agreement between quantitative and qualitative HE assessment, are presented in Table 1 and Figure 2. The latter (Figure 2, panels b–d) highlights how FNs had virtually identical neuropsychiatric profiles as true positives. By contrast, FPs had slightly worse neuropsychiatric performances than TNs, suggesting that the physician was probably capable of detecting CHE. Finally, although overall model for end-stage liver disease scores were low (Table 1), they were even lower in TNs (Figure 2, panel a).

Table 1. Demographic, hepatic failure, and neuropsychiatric indices, by agreement between quantitative and qualitative assessment of hepatic encephalopathy

Figure 2. Mean ± 95% confidence interval of the variables: model for end-stage liver disease (MELD); (a) animal naming test (ANT, the higher the number of animals listed in 60 seconds, the better the performance); (b) mean Psychometric Hepatic Encephalopathy Score Z-score (MPZS, the higher the Z-score, the better the performance); (c) and the spectral EEG parameter mean dominant frequency (MDF, the higher the frequency, the better the EEG); (d) by classes of agreement between quantitative and qualitative assessment of hepatic encephalopathy. FN, false negatives; FP, false positives; TN, true negatives; TP, true positives. ^P < 0.05, ^^P < 0.01, significance of the difference between TP and FP; $P < 0.05, $$$P < 0.001, significance of the difference between FN and FP; +P < 0.001, significance of the difference between TP and TN; °°P < 0.001, significance of the difference between FN and TN; #P < 0.05, ##P < 0.01, ###P < 0.001, significance of the difference between FP and TN on post hoc comparisons (Tukey test).

DISCUSSION

Qualitative clinical evaluation of OHE is not reliable, with approximately a quarter of patients with grades II and III OHE being missed. This confirms the appropriateness of the recommended evaluation tools and most likely also the theory behind them. The time taken to perform the semistructured interview, which is less than 2 minutes, seems a very reasonable investment by comparison with the missed diagnoses of grades II/III OHE patients, some of whom may deserve immediate management or hospitalization (10–12). By contrast, the large majority (90%) of FPs were CHE and not unimpaired, suggesting that the physician was actually capable of detecting a mild degree of neuropsychiatric impairment, which did not result in temporal disorientation or asterixis (2). Although the data on FPs may be confounded by the fact that the study was conducted in a tertiary referral center for hepatology with a research interest in HE, the data on FNs are even more worrying for the same reason. Neurologists and geriatricians need and use semiquantitative and quantitative tools to assess their patients' performance (13,14), and one cannot see why hepatogastroenterologists should not (15). In conclusion, although our data need to be replicated in multicenter studies, they support existing guidelines to routinely perform semiquantitative OHE assessment, which is clinically actionable and might reduce both underdiagnosis and overdiagnosis and treatment of OHE.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Guarantor of the article: Sara Montagnese, MD, PhD.

Specific author contributions: S.M.: study concept and design. D.E., C.M., L.Z., and S.M.: acquisition of data. D.E., C.M., L.Z., and S.M.: analysis and interpretation of data. D.E., C.M., and S.M.: drafting of the manuscript. P.A.: critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. D.E., C.M., L.Z., and S.M.: statistical analysis. All authors have approved the final draft submitted.

Financial support: SM received a grant from Decompensated cirrhosis: identification of new combinatorial therapies based on system approaches (DECISION) Horizon 2020 (Call: H2020-SC1-BHC-2018-2020).

Potential competing interests: None to report.

Data sharing statement: The data that support the findings of this study are available on reasonable request from the corresponding author.

Supplementary Material

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL accompanies this paper at http://links.lww.com/AJG/D241.

* Davide Erminelli and Chiara Mangini contributed equally to this work.
==== Refs
REFERENCES

1. Vilstrup H Amodio P Bajaj J . Hepatic encephalopathy in chronic liver disease: 2014 practice guideline by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the European Association for the Study of the Liver. Hepatology 2014;60 (2 ):715–35.25042402
2. Montagnese S Russo FP Amodio P . Hepatic encephalopathy 2018: A clinical practice guideline by the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver (AISF). Dig Liver Dis 2019;51 (2 ):190–205.30606696
3. Rehnström S Simert G Hansson JA . Chronic hepatic encephalopathy. A psychometrical study. Scand J Gastroenterol 1977;12 (3 ):305–11.866992
4. Amodio P Montagnese S Gatta A . Characteristics of minimal hepatic encephalopathy. Metab Brain Dis 2004;19 (3-4 ):253–67.15554421
5. Mangini C Zarantonello L Formentin C . Evolution of hepatic encephalopathy over time: Ecological data from a tertiary referral centre for hepatology. Dig Liver Dis 2023;55 (1 ):93–8.35725551
6. Weissenborn K Ennen JC Schomerus H . Neuropsychological characterization of hepatic encephalopathy. J Hepatol 2001;34 (5 ):768–73.11434627
7. Amodio P Campagna F Olianas S . Detection of minimal hepatic encephalopathy: Normalization and optimization of the Psychometric Hepatic Encephalopathy Score. A neuropsychological and quantified EEG study. J Hepatol 2008;49 (3 ):346–53.18602716
8. Teasdale G Jennett B . Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness: A practical scale. Lancet 1974;2 (7872 ):81–4.4136544
9. Campagna F Montagnese S Ridola L . The animal naming test: An easy tool for the assessment of hepatic encephalopathy. Hepatology. 2017;66 (1 ):198–208.28271528
10. Bajaj JS O'Leary JG Tandon P . Hepatic encephalopathy is associated with mortality in patients with cirrhosis independent of other extrahepatic organ failures. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017;15 (4 ):565–74.e4.27720916
11. Louissaint J Gibbs J Shenoy A . Patient portal use and risk of readmissions in decompensated cirrhosis: Retrospective study. JMIR Form Res 2023;7 :e47080.38113099
12. Di Pascoli M Ceranto E De Nardi P . Hospitalizations due to cirrhosis: Clinical aspects in a large cohort of Italian patients and cost analysis report. Dig Dis 2017;35 (5 ):433–8.28245467
13. Gladman JR Lincoln NB Adams SA . Use of the extended ADL scale with stroke patients. Age Ageing 1993;22 (6 ):419–24.8310887
14. Arevalo-Rodriguez I Smailagic N Roqué I Figuls M . Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) for the detection of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias in people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;2015 (3 ):CD010783.25740785
15. Nadeem M Tafader A Park D . A specialized HE testing clinic improves rational decision-making for therapy in cirrhosis. Hepatol Commun 2023;7 (11 ):e0301.38016049
