Advances in the diagnosis and management of hepatorenal syndrome: insights into HRS-AKI and liver transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In hepatorenal syndrome-acute kidney injury (HRS-AKI), accurate and early diagnosis is crucial. HRS is a severe condition seen in advanced cirrhosis, requiring prompt recognition and proper management to enhance patient outcomes. Diagnosis of HRS-AKI relies on serum creatinine elevations, similar to other AKI cases in cirrhosis. However, distinguishing HRS-AKI from other renal impairments in these patients can be challenging. Biomarkers and clinical criteria aid in diagnosis and guide treatment. The management of HRS-AKI initially involves improving the haemodynamic profile using albumin and vasoconstrictors like terlipressin, a synthetic vasopressin analogue. Despite some reports linking terlipressin to increased adverse events compared with norepinephrine, it remains the preferred choice in HRS-AKI and acute-on-chronic liver failure due to its faster, stronger response and improved survival. Additional therapies like midodrine (alpha-1 adrenergic agonist), octreotide (somatostatin analogue) and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt are proposed as adjuvant treatments for HRS-AKI, aiming to improve vasoconstriction and renal blood flow. However, these adjunctive therapies cannot replace the definitive treatment for HRS-AKI-liver transplantation (LT). In cases unresponsive to medical management, LT is the only option to restore liver function and improve renal outcomes. Current evidence favours combined liver and kidney transplantation (CLKT) in certain situations. This review aims to evaluate the present evidence and recommendations on AKI in patients with cirrhosis, the pathophysiology of HRS-AKI, different treatments and indications for LT and CLKT. Understanding the complexities of managing HRS-AKI is crucial for optimising patient care and achieving better outcomes in this challenging clinical setting.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".