A Stepwise Evaluation of Hepatitis B Virus-Related Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure to Optimize the Indication for Urgent Liver Transplantation

Acute-on-chronic liver failure: far to go-a review

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) has been recognized as a severe clinical syndrome based on the acute deterioration of chronic liver disease and is characterized by organ failure and high short-term mortality. Heterogeneous definitions and diagnostic criteria for the clinical condition have been proposed in different geographic regions due to the differences in aetiologies and precipitating events. Several predictive and prognostic scores have been developed and validated to guide clinical management. The specific pathophysiology of ACLF remains uncertain and is mainly associated with an intense systemic inflammatory response and immune-metabolism disorder based on current evidence. For ACLF patients, standardization of the treatment paradigm is required for different disease stages that may provide targeted treatment strategies for individual needs.

Acute-on-chronic liver failure: clinical course and liver transplantation

INTRODUCTION

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is a clinical syndrome characterized by intense systemic inflammatory response, multiple-organ failures, and high short-term mortality in patients with chronic liver disease. ACLF is dynamic and heterogeneous, and the prognosis is closely related to the clinical course. Currently, liver transplantation (LT) remains the only potential curative treatment that improves survival of ACLF patients.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, we summarize the dynamic clinical course of ACLF and the relationship between the clinical course and the post-LT prognosis, especially the factors affecting the mortality after LT in severe ACLF patients and explore the optimal choice of LT therapy for ACLF patients, both to benefit patients the most and to avoid futile therapy.

EXPERT OPINION

ACLF is a dynamic disease with varying clinical phenotypes, and the global burden is high. Early identification of the clinical course is important to assess the prognosis and guide the treatment. The contradiction between shortage of liver donors and the large number of recipients makes it necessary for us to strictly screen out the recipients and identify patients who really need LT to save liver sources.

Liver transplantation in Acute-on-Chronic liver failure: Timing of transplantation and selection of patient population

Acute-on-Chronic liver failure (ACLF) is a clinical syndrome with high short-term mortality. Alcoholic ACLF is prevalent in European and American countries, while hepatitis B virus (HBV)-related ACLF is more common in the Asia-Pacific region. There is still a lack of a unified definition standard for ACLF, due to various etiologies and pathogeneses in different continents. Currently, liver transplantation (LT) is the most effective treatment for liver failure. However, the shortage of liver sources is still a global problem, which seriously limits the clinical application of an LT. Premature LT aggravates the shortage of liver resources to a certain extent, and too much delay significantly increases the risk of complications and death. Therefore, this study reviews the current literature on LT in the treatment of ACLF and discusses further the challenges for ACLF patients, the timing of LT for ACLF, and the choice of the patient population.

Predicting the survival benefit of liver transplantation in HBV-related acute-on-chronic liver failure: an observational cohort study

Background

Liver transplantation (LT) is an effective therapy for acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) but is limited by organ shortages. We aimed to identify an appropriate score for predicting the survival benefit of LT in HBV-related ACLF patients.

Methods

Hospitalized patients with acute deterioration of HBV-related chronic liver disease (n = 4577) from the Chinese Group on the Study of Severe Hepatitis B (COSSH) open cohort were enrolled to evaluate the performance of five commonly used scores for predicting the prognosis and transplant survival benefit. The survival benefit rate was calculated to reflect the extended rate of the expected lifetime with vs. without LT.

Findings

In total, 368 HBV-ACLF patients received LT. They showed significantly higher 1-year survival than those on the waitlist in both the entire HBV-ACLF cohort (77.2%/52.3%, p < 0.001) and the propensity score matching cohort (77.2%/27.6%, p < 0.001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) showed that the COSSH-ACLF II score performed best (AUROC 0.849) at identifying the 1-year risk of death on the waitlist and best (AUROC 0.864) at predicting 1-year outcome post-LT (COSSH-ACLFs/CLIF-C ACLFs/MELDs/MELD-Nas: AUROC 0.835/0.825/0.796/0.781; all p < 0.05). The C-indexes confirmed the high predictive value of COSSH-ACLF IIs. Survival benefit rate analyses showed that patients with COSSH-ACLF IIs 7-10 had a higher 1-year survival benefit rate from LT (39.2%-64.3%) than those with score <7 or >10. These results were prospectively validated.

Interpretation

COSSH-ACLF IIs identified the risk of death on the waitlist and accurately predicted post-LT mortality and survival benefit for HBV-ACLF. Patients with COSSH-ACLF IIs 7-10 derived a higher net survival benefit from LT.

Funding

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81830073, No. 81771196) and the National Special Support Program for High-Level Personnel Recruitment (Ten-thousand Talents Program).

Factors Prognostic of Survival in Liver Transplant Recipients with Hepatitis B Virus Related Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure

OBJECTIVES

Factors prognostic of survival in liver transplant (LT) recipients with hepatitis B virus related acute-on-chronic liver failure (HBV-ACLF) remain unclear. This study evaluated risk factors for survival in LT recipients with HBV-ACLF and determined the scoring system optimal for assessing patient prognosis.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 323 HBV-ACLF related patients undergoing LT, including 112, 146, and 65 patients with HBV-ACLF grades 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Overall survival (OS) was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method, and factors associated with survival were analysed by multivariate Cox proportional hazards models. Pretransplant prognostic scoring systems were compared by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.

RESULTS

The one-year survival rate was significantly lower in HBV-ACLF grade 3 (80.0%) than in grades 1 (93.8%) and 2 (91.8%) recipients (p=0.0063). Cox multivariate analysis showed that age >53 years (hazard ratio (HR) 3.731; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.640-8.407), WBC count >8.6 × 10⁹/L (HR 4.544; 95% CI 1.140-18.107), HBV-ACLF 3 (HR 2.729; 95% CI 1.050-7.096), and cold ischaemia time >8.5 hours (HR 2.867; 95% CI, 1.38-5.921) were independently prognostic of 1-year survival. Comparisons of pretransplant scoring systems showed that chronic liver failure-consortium ACLF score (CLIF-C ACLFs) was superior to COSSH-ACLF, MELD-Na, and MELD scores in predicting 1-year OS in these patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Age >53 years, WBC counts >8.6 × 10⁹/L, HBV-ACLF grade 3, and cold ischaemia time >8.5 hours are independently prognostic of OS in LT recipients with HBV-ACLF. CLIF-C ACLFs is superior to other scoring methods in predicting 1-year OS in these patients.

Dynamic Prognostication in Transplant Candidates with Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure

We aimed to extensively investigate clinical markers that are sufficiently dynamic for prognosis of acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF). Defined by the Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL) criteria, patients with ACLF on the liver transplant waitlist in a tertiary center were retrospectively reviewed. Laboratory results and severity scores at three time points (days 1, 7, and 14 after admission) were analyzed. From 2015 to 2019, 64 patients with ACLF were enrolled, of which 24 received a liver transplant from 22 live donors. The hospital mortality rate was 31% (8% for transplant; 45% for nontransplant groups), and the 3-month survival was crucial for determining long-term outcomes. The number of significant variables for mortality, and, specifically, the hazards of international normalized ratio of prothrombin time (INR) and APASL ACLF Research Consortium (AARC) score were increased within two weeks. In multivariable analysis, INR and AARC score (D-14) were associated with poor survival and liver transplant was a protective factor in all patients, while AARC score (D-14) was significant in the nontransplant group. AARC score at day 14 is an independent risk factor for mortality in ACLF. Liver transplant from live donors reversed poor outcomes in patients with ACLF in a timely manner.