Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Minimal Hepatic Encephalopathy: Follow-Up 10 Years After Successful Liver Transplantation

Mattarozzi, Katia1,3; Cretella, Lucia2; Guarino, Maria2; Stracciari, Andrea2

doi: 10.1097/TP.0b013e318244f734
Clinical and Translational Research
Free

Background. The long-term effect of liver transplantation (LT) on cognitive functions and the complete reversibility of minimal hepatic encephalopathy are poorly documented. Much evidence indicates that spatial attention improves starting from the immediate period after LT. However, at least in the first 2 years, some cognitive defects seem to persist to some degree, especially for supramodal nonverbal cognitive functions. The aim of this study is to investigate (i) whether the improvements observed in the perioperative period fluctuate or remain stable 10 years after LT and (ii) whether the functions that have been found defective also improve.

Methods. We called patients previously included in a prospective study (Mattarozzi et al., Arch Neurol 2004; 61: 242) for a further neuropsychological evaluation. We compared the cognitive evaluation after 7 to 10 years with previous data gathered 6 and 18 months after LT.

Results. The improvements obtained in the first 2 years after transplantation remain stable during the 7 to 10 years thereafter, especially for visuospatial attention, F(12,96) 1.70; P=0.04 and selective attention, F(6,66) 3.51; P=0.005. Furthermore, these findings also seem to suggest an improvement in supramodal cognitive functions, such as spatial planning intelligence, measured by the Elithorn Maze Test, F(3,33) 7.42; P=0.002. Verbal short-term memory, F(3,33) 3.69; P=0.038, and visuospatial short-term memory, F(6,64) 2.97; P=0.013, show a more fluctuating trend over time.

Conclusions. Despite the risk of surgery, the neurotoxicity of immunosuppression therapy, and the effects of aging and related comorbidities, our data indicate that LT is able to significantly improve patients' cognitive functions in the long term.

1Department of Psychology, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.

2Unit of Neurology, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.

The authors declare no funding or conflicts of interest.

Address correspondence to: Katia Mattarozzi, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, University of Bologna, V.le Berti Pichat, 5, Bologna 40127, Italy. E-mail: katia.mattarozzi@unibo.it

K.M. participated in research design, in the writing of the manuscript, and performed data analyses; L.C. participated in the performance of the research; M.G. participated in research design and in the performance of the research; and A.S. participated in research design, in the writing of the manuscript, and in the performance of the research.

Received 19 September 2011. Revision requested 19 October 2011.

Accepted 1 December 2011.

The reversibility of minimal hepatic encephalopathy (MHE) after successful liver transplantation (LT) has been an object of great interest in the past 10 years. A large body of evidence, derived from different approaches (psychometric tests, psychophysiological measures, and, most recently, magnetic resonance imaging), has consistently indicated that transplantation improves those cognitive functions, which had previously deteriorated during the course of chronic liver disease. These improvements occur notwithstanding the seriousness of the surgery, perioperative complications, and the neurotoxicity of the immunosuppression therapy (1, 35). This enhancement is already significantly pronounced in the immediate period after LT, especially for some cognitive functions (e.g., visuospatial attention), whereas it is slower for others (e.g., verbal and visual memory). However, at least in the first 2 years after LT, some cognitive defects seem to persist to some degree, and this is evident especially for supramodal nonverbal neuropsychological functions such as spatial planning intelligence (2, 6) and visuomotor skills (7). Thus, the complete reversibility of MHE still remains an open question. One aspect, which currently remains poorly documented, is the effects of successful LT on cognitive function after more than 5 years since surgery. Several questions remain unaddressed: do the improvements observed in the perioperative period and in the following 2 years fluctuate or remain stable in the long term? Over many years, do the functions that have been found defective also improve? Is the neuropsychological outcome hampered by aging and comorbidities?

To address these questions, more than 5 years (7–10 years) after LT, we decide to recall patients previously included in a prospective study, for which results have been already formerly published (2) for a further neuropsychological evaluation.

Back to Top | Article Outline

RESULTS

Patients

Of the 12 patients who completed the T3 follow-up, 2 were women. The mean age of the whole sample at T3 was 52.75±9.31 (range 39–64) years. Ten patients did not show any neurological dysfunction at the time of the psychometric evaluation, two patients (one woman) presented mild bilateral hand tremor, due, most likely, to both metabolic and iatrogenic factors. The immunosuppression therapy was based on cyclosporine (eight patients), tacrolimus (three patients), or sirolimus (one patient).

Back to Top | Article Outline

Psychometric Assessment

For concision, most F values of factors not reaching statistical significance were not reported. Scores (mean±standard deviation) and results obtained from pair-wise comparisons regarding each psychometric test are reported in Table 1. To explore differences with the T3 follow-up, we also examined the pair-wise comparison in the single psychometric test that does not reach a significant difference on multivariate or univariate analyses.

TABLE 1

TABLE 1

A significant effect of time was observed on visuospatial attention, F(12,96) 1.70, P=0.04, ηp2=0.20; selective attention, F(6,66) 3.51, P=0.005, ηp2=0.25; verbal short-term memory, F(3,33) 3.69, P=0.038, ηp2=0.25; visuospatial short-term memory, F(6,64) 2.97, P=0.013, ηp2=0.22; verbal learning, F(12,71) 2.82, P=0.003, ηp2=0.29; visuospatial learning, F(6,66) 5.48, P=0.001, ηp2=0.34; language, F(6,60) 1.98, P=0.082, ηp2=0.17; digit symbol substitution (DSS), F(3,33) 25.07, P=0.001, ηp2=0.69; and spatial planning intelligence (i.e., Elithorn), F(3,33) 7.42; P=0.002, ηp2=0.40.

The Separate Univariate Test showed a significant effect of Time on the following psychometric tests: Visual Matrices (VM), F(3,33) 4.72, P=0.02, ηp2=0.30; Stroop Time, F(3,33) 5.11, P=0.018, ηp2=0.32; Stroop Error, F(3,33) 4.15, P=0.04, ηp2=0.27; Corsi's Test, F(3,33) 3.18, P=0.051, ηp2=0.23; Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test immediate, F(3,33) 6.37; P=0.004, ηp2=0.39; Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test 15-min delay recall, F(3,33) 7.25; P=0.003, ηp2=0.42; SupraSpan, F(3,33) 9.93, P=0.001, ηp2=0.47; and FAS, F(3,33) 3.52, P=0.038, ηp2=0.26.

Back to Top | Article Outline

DISCUSSION

In this study, we examined the long-term effects of successful LT on cognitive functions. Thus doing, we updated previous data already published (2), adding a further assessment 7 to 10 years after LT.

The previous study primarily suggested that the improvement in cognitive performance after LT is not generalized to all cognitive functions. More precisely, in our patients, we found that visuospatial attention and learning ability, as expressed by the DSS test, already showed an improvement in the immediate period after LT and remained stable until the subsequent 18-month follow-up. With regard to selective attention, verbal and visuospatial memory, and verbal fluency, the improvement was slower and noteworthy after 18 months from LT. The results obtained in the extended period follow-up (i.e., this study) primarily suggest that the improvements achieved in the first 2 years after transplantation remain stable during the next 7 to 10 years, especially for visuospatial and selective attention. Furthermore, these findings also seem to suggest an improvement in supramodal cognitive functions, such as spatial planning intelligence (measured by the Elithorn Maze Test), which seemed to persist to some degree during the first 2 years after LT. On the other hand, visuospatial short-term memory and verbal learning, even with a normal score, show a more fluctuating trend over time, probably because of aging-related factors than the persistence of MHE. However, we must be careful not to draw any firm conclusions, because our study does not provide any direct comparison with healthy subjects. Further caution is suggested by the possible immunosuppression-related interactions on cognitive functions. As is known, immunosuppressive agents—especially cyclosporine and tacrolimus—entail a nonnegligible risk of neurotoxicity, which mostly involves the central nervous system. Clinical manifestations often include a diffuse encephalopathy, accompanied by cognitive and behavioral derangement (8). In our sample, we observed favorable early and late effects of LT on cognitive functions, despite the use of cyclosporine or tacrolimus in all but one patient. A recent study by Garcia Martinez et al. (5) reporting a cognitive improvement 9 years after transplantation supports our findings.

Future studies are needed to include a wider sample of patients, possibly with homogeneous immunosuppressive therapy. Keeping these limitations in mind when interpreting the results, these findings seem to suggest that LT, despite the seriousness of the surgery, the perioperative complications, and the neurotoxicity of the immunosuppression therapy, is able to significantly improve patients' cognitive function in the long term.

Back to Top | Article Outline

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Participants

We assessed 12 patients from a cohort of 13 patients previously included in a prospective study, the results of which have already been published (2), where patients had undergone clinical and neuropsychological examination before and two times after LT (at 6 and 18 months). One patient was not included because of death after a relapse of hepatitis C, 5 years after surgery. A follow-up addendum was requested and approved by the institutional review board of the LT committee of the Hospital. Once more, patients gave their informed consent to participate. See Figure 1 for the study design and the participants progress through the study.

FIGURE 1

FIGURE 1

Back to Top | Article Outline

Psychometric Assessment

The assessment took place 7 to10 years after LT (T3). We administered the same psychometric tests used in the previous study (2). Specifically, we investigated the cognitive functions listed below.

  1. Attention: (a) visuospatial attention was examined by (i) VM (9) and (ii) Cross Out A Test, which are two measures of selective attention based on a visual search task and by (iii) Trail Making A and B (10), which assess spatial planning ability based on a visual motor task; (b) selective attention was assessed by Stroop Test (11), which asses the ability to select relevant information for the task and simultaneously inhibit task-irrelevant automatic response.
  2. The measures of Stroop Test, Trail Making A and B, and Cross Out A Test are computed on reversed scale, in which low values indicate the best function; in VM tests, a high value is a sign of good functioning.
  3. Memory: (a) verbal short-term memory was examined by Digit-Span (12), which assesses verbal memory span by means of a number sequence to repeat; (b) Visuospatial Short-Term Memory was evaluated by (i) Corsi's Test (9) and (ii) Immediate Visual Memory Test (9), which assess the amount of visual spatial information that an individual can retain; (c) Verbal Learning was investigated by (i) Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, immediate and 15-min delay recall (13), (ii) Brief Story (9), and (iii) Paired Associate Learning (14), which are tests based on learning of verbal stimuli, such as simple words or association of words, and more complex stimuli such as story; and (d) Visuospatial Learning was assessed by (i) Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Recall Trial (15) and (ii) Supraspan Learning (9), which are memory tasks based on learning of visual stimuli such as visual sequence to be repeated or complex figures to draw.
  4. Language was examined by (i) Word Fluency—FAS—(13), which consists of saying as many words as possible beginning with a precise letter and (ii) Phrase Construction (PC) test (13), which consists of constructing phrase meanings with provided words.
  5. Visuospatial-Constructional Skills were examined by a (i) Copy of Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure and (ii) Painting Copy and Painting Copy with Facilities (13).
  6. Motor speed was assessed using DSS (16), which consists of nine digit-symbol pairs followed by a list of digits, requiring patients to write down the corresponding symbol as fast as possible.
  7. Spatial planning intelligence was investigated by Elithorn's Maze Test (9), which consists of tracing a path as quickly as possible, using a pencil and paper and in accordance with given rules.

All tests are well-validated psychometric instruments. When needed, scores were corrected for age, sex, and education.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Statistical Analysis

Eight separate one-way multivariate analysis of variance (one for each cognitive domain) and two separate analysis of variance (for data derived from DSS Test and Elithorn Maze Test) were performed taking “Time” (T0 vs. T1 vs. T2 vs. T3) as a within-subjects factor. Contrasts were made to characterize the effect of time, with particular attention to the comparison with T3 (i.e., the post 7–10 years follow-up after LT). Bonferroni's confidence interval adjustment (0.05/n) correction was applied when appropriate.

Back to Top | Article Outline

REFERENCES

1. Stewart CA, Cerhan J. Hepatic encephalopathy: A dynamic or static condition. Metab Brain Dis 2005; 20: 193.
2. Rovira A, Minguez B, Xavier Aymerich F, et al.. Decreased white matter lesion volume and improved cognitive function after liver transplantation. Hepatology 2007; 46: 1485.
3. Campagna F, Bianciardi A, Cillo U, et al.. Neurocognitive-neurological complications of liver transplantation: A review. Metab Brain Dis 2010; 25: 115.
4. Garcia Martinez M, Rovira A, Alonso J, et al.. A long-term study of changes in the volume of brain ventricles and white matter lesions after successful liver transplantation. Transplantation 2010; 89: 589.
5. Mattarozzi K, Stracciari A, Vignatelli L, et al.. Minimal hepatic encephalopathy: Longitudinal effects of liver transplantation. Arch Neurol 2004; 61: 242.
6. Senzolo M, Pizzolato G, Ferronato C, et al.. Long-term evaluation of cognitive function and cerebral metabolism in liver transplanted patients. Transplant Proc 2009; 41: 1295.
7. Mechtcheriakov S, Graziadei IW, Mattedi M, et al.. Incomplete improvement of visuo-motor deficits in patients whit minimal hepatic encephalopathy after liver transplantation. Liver Transpl 2004; 10: 77.
8. Stracciari A, Guarino M. Neuropsychiatric complications of liver transplantation. Metab Brain Dis 2001; 16: 3.
9. Spinnler H, Tognoni G. Standardizzazione e taratura italiana di test neuropsicologici. Ital J Neurol Sci 1987; 6(suppl). 8.
10. Giovagnoli AR, Del Pesce M, Mascheroni S, et al.. Trail making test: Normative values from 287 normal adult controls. Ital J Neurol Sci 1996; 17: 305.
11. MacLeod CM. The gold standard of attentional measures. J Exp Psych General 1992; 121: 12.
12. Wechsler D. Wechsler memory scale-revised manual. New York, NY, Psychological Corp 1987.
13. Carlesimo GA, Caltagirone C, Gainotti G. The Mental Deterioration Battery: Normative data, diagnostic reliability and qualitative analyses of cognitive impairment. Eur Neurol 1996; 36: 378.
14. Novelli G, Papagno C, Capitani E, et al.. Tre test clinici di memoria verbale a lungo termine. Taratura su soggetti normali. Archivio di Psicologia, Neurologia e Psichiatria 1986; 47: 278.
15. Osterrieth PA. Le test de copie d'une figure complexe. Arch Psychol 1944; 30: 206.
16. Wechsler D. Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Revised. New York, NY, Psychological Corp 1981.
Keywords:

Minimal hepatic encephalopathy; Liver transplantation; Cognitive processes.

© 2012 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.