The Prediction of In-Hospital Mortality in Decompensated Cirrhosis with Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure

Definitions, Etiologies, and Outcomes of Acute on Chronic Liver Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is a major public health concern. We aimed to assess the definitions, etiologic spectrum, organ failure (OF), and outcomes of ACLF globally.

METHODS

Three databases were searched for studies on ACLF from 1990 until September 2022. Information regarding definitions, acute precipitants, underlying chronic liver disease (CLD), OF, and mortality were extracted. Meta-analyses were performed for pooled prevalence rates (95% confidence interval [CI]) using random-effects model for each definition of ACLF.

RESULTS

Of the 11,451 studies identified, 114 articles (142 cohorts encompassing 210,239 patients) met the eligibility criteria. Most studies (53.2%) used the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) definition, followed by Asia-Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL) (33.3%). Systemic infection was the major acute precipitant, and alcohol use was the major cause of CLD in EASL-defined studies, whereas alcohol was both the major acute precipitant and cause of CLD in APASL-defined studies. Liver failure was the major OF in APASL-based studies, whereas renal failure was predominant in EASL-based studies. Thirty-day mortality varied across definitions: APASL: 38.9%, 95% CI, 31.2%-46.9%; EASL: 47.9%, 95% CI, 42.2%-53.5%; and NACSELD: 52.2%, 95% CI, 51.9%-52.5%. Diagnostic overlap between definitions ranged from 7.7% to 80.2%. Meta-regression suggested that the World Health Organization region influenced 30-day mortality in studies using EASL definition.

CONCLUSIONS

Heterogeneity in the definition of ACLF proposed by different expert societies and regional preferences in its use result in differences in clinical phenotype and outcomes. A uniform definition would enhance the comparability and interpretation of global data.

Epidemiology, characteristics, and outcomes of patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure in Australia

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is distinct from acute decompensation (AD) of cirrhosis in its clinical presentation, pathophysiology, and prognosis. There are limited published Australian ACLF data.

METHODS

We performed a single-center retrospective cohort study of all adults with cirrhosis admitted with a decompensating event to a liver transplantation (LT) centre between 2015 and 2020. ACLF was defined using the European Association for the Study of the Liver-Chronic Liver Failure (EASL-CLIF) definition while those who did not meet the definition were classified as AD. The primary outcome of interest was 90-day LT-free survival.

RESULTS

A total of 615 patients had 1039 admissions for a decompensating event. On their index admission, 34% (209/615) of patients were classified as ACLF. Median admission model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) and MELD-Na scores were higher in ACLF patients compared with AD (21 vs 17 and 25 vs 20 respectively, both P < 0.001). Both the presence and severity of ACLF (grade ≥ 2) significantly predicted worse LT-free survival compared with patients with AD. The EASL-CLIF ACLF score (CLIF-C ACLF), MELD and MELD-Na scores performed similarly in predicting 90-day mortality. Patients with index ACLF had a higher risk of 28-day mortality (28.1% vs 5.1%, P < 0.001) and shorter times to readmission compared with those with AD.

CONCLUSION

ACLF complicates over a third of hospital admissions for cirrhosis with decompensating events and is associated with a high short-term mortality. The presence and grade of ACLF predicts 90-day mortality and should be identified as those at greatest risk of poor outcome without intervention such as LT.

Improved survival of cirrhotic patients with infections in Australian and New Zealand ICUs between 2005 and 2017

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Changes in outcomes of cirrhotic patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) with infections are poorly understood. We aimed to describe changes over time in outcomes for such patients and to compare them to other ICU admissions.

METHODS

Analysis of consecutive admissions to 188 ICUs between 2005 and 2017 as recorded in the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Centre for Outcome and Research Evaluation Adult Patient Database.

RESULTS

Admissions for cirrhotic patients with infections accounted for 4645 (0.6%) of 813 189 non-elective ICU admissions. Hospital mortality rate (35.5%) was significantly higher compared with other cirrhotic patients' admissions (28.5%), and other ICU admissions for infection (17.1%, p < .0001), and increased to 52.2% in the presence of acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF). Hospital mortality in cirrhotic patients' ICU admissions for infection decreased significantly over time (annual decline odds ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.99, p = .002). There was a comparable reduction in-hospital mortality rates over time in other ICU admissions for infections and other cirrhotic patients' ICU admissions. However, mortality rates did not change over time in the ACLF subgroup. Median hospital and ICU length of stays for cirrhotic patients' ICU admissions for infections were 12.1 and 3.5 days, respectively, and decreased significantly by 1 day every 4 years in-hospital survivors(p < .0001).

CONCLUSION

Hospital mortality in ICU admissions for cirrhotic patients with infection is double that of non-cirrhotic patients with infection but has declined significantly over time. Outcomes in the subgroup with ACLF remained poor without significant improvement over the study period.

Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure Clinical Guidelines

In patients with cirrhosis and chronic liver disease, acute-on-chronic liver failure is emerging as a major cause of mortality. These guidelines indicate the preferred approach to the management of patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure and represent the official practice recommendations of the American College of Gastroenterology. The scientific evidence for these guidelines was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation process. In instances where the evidence was not appropriate for Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation, but there was consensus of significant clinical merit, key concept statements were developed using expert consensus. These guidelines are meant to be broadly applicable and should be viewed as the preferred, but not only, approach to clinical scenarios.