Liver transplantation in the critically ill: a multicenter Canadian retrospective cohort study

Extracorporeal liver support and liver transplantation for acute-on-chronic liver failure

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is defined by acute decompensation, organ failure and a high risk of short-term mortality. This condition is characterized by an overwhelming systemic inflammatory response. Despite treating the precipitating event, intensive monitoring and organ support, clinical deterioration can occur with very poor outcomes. During the last decades, several extracorporeal liver support systems have been developed to try to reduce ongoing liver injury and provide an improved environment for the liver to regenerate or as a bridging therapy until liver transplantation. Several clinical trials have been performed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of extracorporeal liver support systems, but no clear impact on survival has been proven. DIALIVE is a novel extracorporeal liver support device that has been built to specifically address the pathophysiological derangements responsible for the development of ACLF by replacing dysfunctional albumin and removing pathogen and damage-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs and DAMPs). In phase II clinical trial, DIALIVE appears to be safe, and it seems to be associated with a faster time to the resolution of ACLF compared with standard medical treatment. Even in patients with severe ACLF, liver transplantation saves lives and there is clear evidence of transplant benefit. Careful selection of patients is required to attain good results from liver transplantation, but many questions remain unanswered. In this review, we describe the current perspectives on the use of extracorporeal liver support and liver transplantation for ACLF patients.

Management of the acute on chronic liver failure in the intensive care unit

Acute on chronic liver failure (ACLF) reflects the development of organ failure(s) in a patient with cirrhosis and is associated with high short-term mortality. Given that ACLF has many different 'phenotypes', medical management needs to take into account the relationship between precipitating insult, organ systems involved and underlying physiology of chronic liver disease/cirrhosis. The goals of intensive care management of patients suffering ACLF are to rapidly recognize and treat inciting events (e.g. infection, severe alcoholic hepatitis and bleeding) and to aggressively support failing organ systems to ensure that patients may successfully undergo liver transplantation or recovery. Management of these patients is complex since they are prone to develop new organ failures and infectious or bleeding complications. ICU therapy parallels that applied in the general ICU population in some complications but differs in others. Given that liver transplantation in ACLF is an emerging and evolving field, multidisciplinary teams with expertise in critical care and transplant medicine best accomplish management of the critically ill ACLF patient. The focus of this review is to identify the common complications of ACLF and to describe the proper management in critically ill patients awaiting liver transplantation in our centres, including organ support, prognostic assessment and how to assess when recovery is unlikely.

Long-term outcome following liver transplantation of patients with ACLF grade 3

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Utility, a major principle for allocation in the context of transplantation, is questioned in patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure grade 3 (ACLF-3) who undergo liver transplantation (LT). We aimed to explore long-term outcomes of patients included in a three-centre retrospective French study published in 2017.

METHOD

All patients with ACLF-3 (n = 73), as well as their transplanted matched controls with ACLF-2 (n = 145), 1 (n = 119) and no ACLF (n = 292), who participated in the Princeps study published in 2017 were included. We explored 5- and 10-year patient and graft survival rates, causes of death and their predictive factors.

RESULTS

Median follow-up of patients with ACLF-3 was 7.5 years. At LT, median MELD was 40. In patients with ACLF-3, 2, 1 and no ACLF, 5-year patient survival rates were 72.6% vs. 69.7% vs. 76.4% vs. 77.0%, respectively (p = 0.31). Ten-year patient survival for ACLF-3 was 56.8% and was not different to other groups (p = 0.37). Leading causes of death in patients with ACLF-3 were infections (33.3%) and cardiovascular events (23.3%). After exclusion of early death, UCLA futility risk score, age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index and CLIF-C ACLF score were independently associated with 10-year patient survival. Long-term graft survival rates were not different across the groups. Clinical frailty scale and WHO performance status improved over time in patients alive after 5 years.

CONCLUSION

5- and 10-year patient and graft survival rates were not different in patients with ACLF-3 compared to matched controls. 5-year patient survival is higher than the 50%-70% threshold defining the utility of a liver graft. Efforts should focus on candidate selection based on comorbidities, as well as the prevention of infection and cardiovascular events.

IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS

While short-term outcomes following liver transplantation in the most severely ill patients with cirrhosis (acute-on-chronic liver failure grade 3 [ACLF-3]) are known, long-term data are limited, raising questions about the utility of graft allocation in the context of scarce medical resources. This study provides a favourable long-term update, confirming no differences in 5- and 10-year patient and graft survival following liver transplantation in patients with ACLF-3 compared to matched patients with ACLF-2, ACLF-1, and no-ACLF. The study highlights the risk of dying from infection and cardiovascular causes in the long-term and identifies scores including comorbidity evaluation, such as the age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index, as independently associated with long-term survival. Therefore, physicians should consider the cumulative burden of comorbidities when deciding whether to transplant these patients. Additionally, after transplantation, the study encourages mitigating infectious risk with tailored immunosuppressive regimens and tightly managing cardiovascular risk over time.

Liver transplantation for acute-on-chronic liver failure

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) occurs in the context of advanced liver disease and is associated with hepatic and extrahepatic organ failure, eventually leading to a major risk of short-term mortality. To date, there are very few effective therapeutic options for ACLF. In many cases, liver transplantation is the only life-saving treatment that has acceptable outcomes in carefully selected recipients. This Review addresses key aspects of the use of liver transplantation for patients with ACLF, providing an in-depth discussion of existing evidence regarding candidate selection, the optimal window for transplantation, potential prioritisation of liver grafts for this indication, and the global management of ACLF to bridge patients to liver transplantation.

Older Patients With Acute on Chronic Liver Failure Have a Higher Waitlist Mortality, but Acceptable Post Liver Transplantation Survival When Compared to Younger Patients

BACKGROUND & AIMS

There is a paucity of studies on older patients (≥65 years) who develop acute on chronic liver failure (ACLF). The objectives of our study were to determine clinical characteristics and outcomes of older patients listed for liver transplantation (LT).

METHODS

Adults listed for LT with estimated ACLF (Est-ACLF) between 2005 and 2021 were identified using the United Network for Organ Sharing database and subdivided into older and younger age (18-64 years) groups. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were used to evaluate survival, and a competing-risk model (Fine-Gray) was used to evaluate risk factors for survival on the waitlist. Logistic regression was done to evaluate risk factors.

RESULTS

A total of 4313 older (14%) and 26,628 younger (86%) patients were listed for LT, and 2142 (49.6%) and 16,931 (63.5%) were transplanted, respectively. Older patients had a higher 30-day waitlist mortality than younger patients (20.4% vs 16.7%; P < .0001); this was more pronounced in Est-ACLF-2 (23.7% vs 14.8%; P < .0001) and Est-ACLF-3 (43.3% vs 29.9%; P < .0001). One-year post-LT, patient survival in older patients with Est-ACLF grades 1, 2, and 3 were 86.4%, 85.5%, and 77% respectively; younger patients had better survival across all Est-ACLF grades. When adjusted for transplant eras, respiratory failure was the only independent risk factor for increased 1-year post-LT mortality in older patients.

CONCLUSION

Older patients with Est-CLF had significantly higher waitlist mortality than younger patients, but had acceptable 1-year post-LT survival including those with Est-ACLF-3; therefore, age alone should not be considered as a contraindication for LT. Older patients with respiratory failure should be carefully selected for LT.

Liver transplant selection criteria and outcomes in critically ill patients with ACLF

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Retrospective studies have reported good results with liver transplantation (LTx) for acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) in selected patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the selection process for LTx in patients with ACLF admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and to assess outcomes.

METHODS

This prospective, non-interventional, single high-volume center study collected data on patients with ACLF admitted to the ICU between 2017-2020.

RESULTS

Among 200 patients (mean age: 55.0 ± 11.2 years and 74% male), 96 patients (48%) were considered potential candidates for LTx. Unfavourable addictology criteria (n = 76) was the main reason for LTx ineligibility. Overall, 69 patients were listed for LTx (34.5%) and 50 were transplanted (25% of the whole population). The 1-year survival in the LTx group was significantly higher than in the non-transplanted group (94% vs. 15%, p <0.0001). Among patients eligible for LTx, mechanical ventilation during the first 7 days of ICU stay and an increase in the number of organ failures at day 3 were associated with the absence of LTx or death (odds ratio 9.58; 95% CI 3.29-27.89; p <0.0001 for mechanical ventilation and odds ratio 1.87; 95% CI 1.08-3.24; p <0.027 for increasing organ failures). The probability of not being transplanted in patients with ACLF under mechanical ventilation is >85.4% in those experiencing an increase of 2 organ failures since admission or >91% if experiencing an increase >2 organ failures, at which point futility could be considered.

CONCLUSION

This prospective analysis of outcomes of patients with ACLF admitted to the ICU highlights the drastic nature of selection in this setting. Unfavourable addictology criteria, mechanical ventilation and increasing number of organ failures since admission were predictive of absence of LTx, futility and death.

IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS

Liver transplantation (LT) is the best therapeutic option in selected cirrhotic patients admitted to the ICU with acute on chronic liver failure. However, the selection criteria are poorly described and based on retrospective studies. This is the first prospective study that aimed to describe the selection process for LT in a transplant center. Patients with ACLF should be admitted to the ICU and evaluated within a short period of time for LT. In the context of organ shortage, eligibility for LT and either absence of LT, futility of care or death are better clarified in our study. These are mainly determined by prolonged respiratory failure and worsening of organ failures since ICU admission. Considering worldwide variations in the etiology and definition of ACLF, transplant availability and a narrow therapeutic window for transplant further prospective studies are awaited.

Review article: Emerging and current management of acute-on-chronic liver failure

BACKGROUND

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is a clinically and pathophysiologically distinct condition from acutely decompensated cirrhosis and is characterised by systemic inflammation, extrahepatic organ failure, and high short-term mortality.

AIMS

To provide a narrative review of the diagnostic criteria, prognosis, epidemiology, and general management principles of ACLF. Four specific interventions that are explored in detail are intravenous albumin, extracorporeal liver assist devices, granulocyte-colony stimulating factor, and liver transplantation.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and Cochrane databases for articles published up to July 2023.

RESULTS

Approximately 35% of hospital inpatients with decompensated cirrhosis have ACLF. There is significant heterogeneity in the criteria used to diagnose ACLF; different definitions identify different phenotypes with varying mortality. Criteria established by the European Association for the Study of the Liver were developed in prospective patient cohorts and are, to-date, the most well validated internationally. Systemic haemodynamic instability, renal dysfunction, coagulopathy, neurological dysfunction, and respiratory failure are key considerations when managing ACLF in the intensive care unit. Apart from liver transplantation, there are no accepted evidence-based treatments for ACLF, but several different approaches are under investigation.

CONCLUSION

The recognition of ACLF as a distinct entity from acutely decompensated cirrhosis has allowed for better patient stratification in clinical settings, facilitating earlier engagement with the intensive care unit and liver transplantation teams. Research priorities over the next decade should focus on exploring novel treatment strategies with a particular focus on which, when, and how patients with ACLF should be treated.

Should patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure grade 3 receive higher priority for liver transplantation?

In this debate, the authors consider whether patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure grade 3 (ACLF-3) should receive higher liver transplant priority, with reference to the following clinical case: a 62-year-old male with a history of decompensated alcohol-associated cirrhosis, with recurrent ascites and hepatic encephalopathy, and metabolic comorbidities (type 2 diabetes mellitus, arterial hypertension and a BMI of 31 kg/m²). A few days following evaluation for liver transplantation (LT), the patient was admitted to the intensive care unit and placed on mechanical ventilation for neurological failure, FiO₂ of 0.3 with a SpO₂ of 98%, and started on norepinephrine at 0.62 μg/kg/min. He had been abstinent since the diagnosis of cirrhosis a year prior. Laboratory results at admission were: leukocyte count 12.1 G/L, international normalised ratio 2.1, creatinine 2.4 mg/dl, sodium 133 mmol/L, total bilirubin 7 mg/dl, lactate 5.5 mmol/L, with a MELD-Na score of 31 and a CLIF-C ACLF score of 67. On the 7^th day after admission, the patient was placed on the LT waiting list. On the same day, he had massive variceal bleed with hypovolemic shock requiring terlipressin, transfusion of three red blood cell units, and endoscopic band ligation. On day 10, the patient was stabilised with a low dose of norepinephrine 0.03 μg/kg/min, with no new sepsis or bleeding. However, the patient was still intubated for grade 2 hepatic encephalopathy and on renal replacement therapy with a lactate level of 3.1 mmol/L. The patient is currently categorised as having ACLF-3, with five organ failures (liver, kidney, coagulation, circulation, and respiration). Based on the severity of his liver disease and multiorgan failure, the patient is at an exceedingly high risk of death without LT. Is it appropriate to perform LT in such a patient?

Patients With Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure Have Greater Healthcare Resource Utilization After Liver Transplantation

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Although liver transplantation (LT) has been demonstrated to provide survival benefit for patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF), data are lacking regarding resource utilization for this population after LT.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed data from 10 centers in North America of patients transplanted between 2018 and 2019. ACLF was identified by using the European Association for the Study of the Liver-Chronic Liver Failure criteria.

RESULTS

We studied 318 patients of whom 106 patients (33.3%) had no ACLF, 61 (19.1%) had ACLF-1, 74 (23.2%) had ACLF-2, and 77 (24.2%) had ACLF-3 at transplantation. Healthcare resource utilization after LT was greater among recipients with ACLF compared with patients without ACLF regarding median post-LT length of hospital stay (LOS) (P < .001), length of post-LT dialysis (P < .001), discharge to a rehabilitation center (P < .001), and 30-day readmission rates (P = .042). Multivariable negative binomial regression analysis demonstrated a significantly longer LOS for patients with ACLF-1 (1.9 days; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-7.51), ACLF-2 (6.7 days; 95% CI, 2.5-24.3), and ACLF-3 (19.3 days; 95% CI, 1.2-39.7), compared with recipients without ACLF. Presence of ACLF-3 at LT was also associated with longer length of dialysis after LT (9.7 days; 95% CI, 4.6-48.8) relative to lower grades. Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed greater likelihood of discharge to a rehabilitation center among recipients with ACLF-1 (odds ratio [OR], 1.79; 95% CI, 1.09-4.54), ACLF-2 (OR, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.12-5.01), and ACLF-3 (OR, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.40-5.73). Development of bacterial infection after LT also predicted LOS (20.9 days; 95% CI, 6.1-38.5) and 30-day readmissions (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.17-2.25).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with ACLF at LT, particularly ACLF-3, have greater post-transplant healthcare resource utilization.

Outcomes of patients with acute liver failure listed for liver transplantation: A multicenter prospective cohort analysis

Liver transplantation (LT) is a life-saving treatment for patients with acute liver failure (ALF). Currently, there are few detailed data regarding long-term outcomes after LT for ALF. We combined prospective data from the Acute Liver Failure Study Group (ALFSG) Registry with those of the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) to assess outcomes among consecutive patients with ALF listed for LT. Cohort analysis of detailed pretransplantation data for patients listed for LT for ALF in the ALFSG Registry between January 1998 and October 2018 matched with transplantation-related data from the SRTR. Primary outcomes were 1- and 3-year post-LT patient survival. Secondary outcome was receipt of LT; independent associations with successful receipt of LT were determined using multivariable logistic regression. Of 624 patients with ALF listed for LT, 398 (64%) underwent LT, 100 (16%) died without LT, and 126 (20%) recovered spontaneously. Among LT recipients, etiologies included seronegative/indeterminate (22%), drug-induced liver injury (18%), acetaminophen overdose (APAP; 16%), and viral hepatitis (15%). The 1- and 3-year post-LT patient survival rates were 91% and 90%, respectively. Comparing those dying on the waiting list versus with those who received LT, the former had more severe multiorgan failure, reflected by increased vasopressor use (65% vs. 22%), mechanical ventilation (84% vs. 57%), and renal replacement therapy (57% vs. 30%; p  < 0.0001 for all). After adjusting for relevant covariates, age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00-1.04), APAP etiology (aOR 2.72, 95% CI 1.42-5.23), requirement for vasopressors (aOR 4.19, 95% CI 2.44-7.20), Grade III/IV hepatic encephalopathy (aOR 2.47, 95% CI 1.29-4.72), and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores (aOR 1.05, 95% CI 1.02-1.09; p  < 0.05 for all) were independently associated with death without receipt of LT. Post-LT outcomes for ALF are excellent in this cohort of very ill patients. The development of multiorgan failure while on the transplantation list and APAP ALF etiology were associated with a lower likelihood of successful receipt of LT.

Liver transplantation for critically ill cirrhotic patients: Results from the French transplant registry

This study describes the population of cirrhotic patients who were transplanted from the ICU in France, identifying pre-transplant risk factors of post-transplant mortality and describing geographic variations in ICU transplant activity. Cirrhotic patients transplanted between 2008 and 2018 were included through the national transplant registry. The demographic, clinical and biological characteristics of the patients transplanted from the ICU were compared to cirrhotic patients who were transplanted from home or from the hospital. Risk factors of post-transplant one-year mortality were identified in uni- and multivariable analysis within the population transplanted from the ICU. Funnel plots were used to illustrate center-specific differences in ICU transplant activity. 1,047 cirrhotic patients were transplanted from the ICU during the study period. While the national rate of transplants performed from the ICU was 14.3% the absolute number and the rate of cirrhotic patients transplanted from the ICU varied significantly from one center to another, ranging from 6.6% to 22.8% (p < 0.05). Three recipient-associated independent risk factors one-year post-LT mortality were identified in the population transplanted from the ICU: age > 50 years (HR 1.65, 95%CI 1.16-2.36), p = 0.005), diabetes (HR 1.46, 95%CI 1.07-1.98, p = 0.02) and intubation (HR2.12, 95%CI 1.62-2.78), p < 0.001). Donor age was also independently associated with mortality (HR 1.01, 95%CI 1.01-1.02, p < 0.001). Funnel plots showed significant differences in the proportion of patients transplanted from the ICU and the distribution of risk factors across French transplant centers, especially the inclination to transplant intubated patients. This study underlines the increased post-transplant mortality among cirrhotic patients transplanted from the ICU. It identifies four clinically pertinent independent risk factors associated with post-transplant mortality in this specific sub-group of transplant candidates. Finally, it illustrates how diverse the landscape of liver transplantation for critically ill cirrhotic patients is across a single country, despite a unified allocation algorithm.

Sequential organ failure assessment score improves survival prediction for left ventricular assist device recipients in intensive care

BACKGROUND

Preoperative risk scores facilitate patient selection, but postoperative risk scores may offer valuable information for predicting outcomes. We hypothesized that the postoperative Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score would predict mortality after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed data from 294 continuous-flow LVAD implantations performed at Mayo Clinic Rochester during 2007 to 2015. We calculated the EuroSCORE, HeartMate-II Risk Score, and RV Failure Risk Score from preoperative data and the APACHE III and Post Cardiac Surgery (POCAS) risk scores from postoperative data. Daily, maximum, and mean SOFA scores were calculated for the first 5 postoperative days. The area under receiver-operator characteristic curves (AUC) was calculated to compare the scoring systems' ability to predict 30-day, 90-day, and 1-year mortality.

RESULTS

For the entire cohort, mortality was 5% at 30 days, 10% at 90 days, and 19% at 1 year. The Day 1 SOFA score had better discrimination for 30-day mortality (AUC 0.77) than the preoperative risk scores or the APACHE III and POCAS postoperative scores. The maximum SOFA score had the best discrimination for 30-day mortality (AUC 0.86), and the mean SOFA score had the best discrimination for 90-day mortality (AUC 0.82) and 1-year mortality (AUC 0.76).

CONCLUSIONS

We observed that postoperative mean and maximum SOFA scores in LVAD recipients predict short-term and intermediate-term mortality better than preoperative risk scores do. However, because preoperative and postoperative risk scores each contribute unique information, they are best used in concert to predict outcomes after LVAD implantation.

Immunosuppression in patients with Grade 3 Acute-On-Chronic Liver Failure at transplantation: A practice analysis study

Transplantation for patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure grade 3 (ACLF3) has encouraging results with one-year-survival of 80-90%. These patients with multiple organ failure meet the conditions for serious alterations of drug metabolism and increased toxicity. The goal of this study was to identify immunosuppression-dependent factors that affect survival. This retrospective monocentric study was conducted in patients with ACLF3 consecutively transplanted between 2007 and 2019. The primary endpoint was one-year survival. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, treated rejection and surgical complications. Immunosuppression was evaluated as to type of immunosuppression, post-transplant introduction timing, through levels and trough level intra-patient variability (IPV). One hundred patients were included. Tacrolimus IPV <40% (p=0.019), absence of early tacrolimus overdose (p=0.033), use of anti-IL2-receptor antibodies (p=0.034) and early mycophenolic acid introduction (p=0.038) predicted one-year survival. Treated rejection was an independent predictor of survival (p=0.001; HR 4.2 (CI 95%: 1.13-15.6)). Early everolimus introduction was neither associated with higher rejection rates nor with more surgical complications. Management of immunosuppression in ACLF3 critically ill patients undergoing liver transplantation is challenging. Occurrence and treatment of rejection impacts on survival. Early introduction of mTOR inhibitor seems safe and efficient in this situation. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

'Equity' and 'Justice' for patients with acute-on chronic liver failure: A call to action

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) occurs in hospitalised patients with cirrhosis and is characterised by multiorgan failures and high rates of short-term mortality. Without liver transplantation (LT), the 28-day mortality rate of patients with ACLF ranges from 18-25% in those with ACLF grade 1 to 68-89% in those with ACLF grade 3. It has become clear that patients with ACLF do not have equitable access to LT because of current allocation policies, which are based on prognostic scores that underestimate their risk of death and a lack of appreciation of the clear evidence of transplant benefit in carefully selected patients (who can have excellent post-LT outcomes). In this expert opinion, we provide evidence supporting the argument that patients with ACLF should be given priority for LT based on prognostic models that define the risk of death for these patients. We also pinpoint risk factors for poor post-LT outcomes, identify unanswered questions and describe the design of a global study, the CHANCE study, which will provide answers to the outstanding issues. We also propose the worldwide adoption of new organ allocation policies for patients with ACLF, as have been initiated in the UK and recommended in Spain.

Liver Transplantation in Acute-on-chronic Liver Failure

Liver transplantation (LT) has revolutionized outcomes for cirrhotic patients. Current liver allocation policies dictate patients with highest short-term mortality receive the highest priority, thus, several patients become increasingly ill on the waitlist. Given cirrhosis is a progressive disease, it can be complicated by the occurrence of acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF), a syndrome defined by an acute deterioration of liver function associated with extrahepatic organ failures requiring intensive care support and a high short-term mortality. Successfully bridging to transplant includes accurate prognostication and prioritization of ACLF patients awaiting LT, optimizing intensive care support pre-LT, and tailoring immunosuppressive and anti-infective therapies post-LT. Furthermore, predicting futility (too sick to undergo LT) in ACLF is challenging. In this review, we summarize the role of LT in ACLF specifically highlighting (a) current prognostic scores in ACLF, (b) critical care management of the ACLF patient awaiting LT, (c) donor issues to consider in transplant in ACLF, and (d) exploring of recent post-LT outcomes in ACLF and potential opportunities to improve outcomes including current care gaps and unmet research needs.

Intensive care management of acute-on-chronic liver failure

The syndrome of acute-on-chronic liver failure combines deterioration of liver function in a patient with chronic liver disease, with the development of extrahepatic organ failure and high short-term mortality. Its successful management demands a rapid and coherent response to the development of dysfunction and failure of multiple organ systems in an intensive care unit setting. This response recognises the features that distinguish it from other critical illness and addresses the complex interplay between the precipitating insult, the many organ systems involved and the disordered physiology of underlying chronic liver disease. An evidence base is building to support the approaches currently adopted and outcomes for patients with this condition are improving, but mortality remains unacceptably high. Herein, we review practical considerations in critical care management, as well as discussing key knowledge gaps and areas of controversy that require further focussed research.

Liver transplantation for critically ill cirrhotic patients: Stratifying utility based on pretransplant factors

The aim of this study was to produce a prognostic model to help predict posttransplant survival in patients transplanted with grade-3 acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF-3). Patients with ACLF-3 who underwent liver transplantation (LT) between 2007 and 2017 in 5 transplant centers were included (n = 152). Predictors of 1-year mortality were retrospectively screened and tested on a single center training cohort and subsequently tested on an independent multicenter cohort composed of the 4 other centers. Four independent pretransplant risk factors were associated with 1-year mortality after transplantation in the training cohort: age ≥53 years (P = .044), pre-LT arterial lactate level ≥4 mml/L (P = .013), mechanical ventilation with PaO₂ /FiO₂  ≤ 200 mm Hg (P = .026), and pre-LT leukocyte count ≤10 G/L (P = .004). A simplified version of the model was derived by assigning 1 point to each risk factor: the transplantation for Aclf-3 model (TAM) score. A cut-off at 2 points distinguished a high-risk group (score >2) from a low-risk group (score ≤2) with 1-year survival of 8.3% vs 83.9% respectively (P < .001). This model was subsequently validated in the independent multicenter cohort. The TAM score can help stratify posttransplant survival and identify an optimal transplantation window for patients with ACLF-3.

Acute-On-Chronic Liver Failure: The Role of Prognostic Scores in a Single-Center Experience

Background

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is associated with multi-organ failure and high short-term mortality. We evaluated the role of currently available prognostic scores for prediction of 90-day mortality in ACLF patients.

Material/Methods

Fifty-five (M/F=40/15, mean age 60.0±11.1years) consecutive cirrhotic patients with severe liver insufficiency (mean MELD 28.4±9.0, Child-Pugh score – C-12) were enrolled into the study. MELD variants and SOFA, CLIF-SOFA, and CLIF-C scores were calculated, mortality predicting factors were identified, and clinical comparisons between ACLF and AD patients were performed.

Results

In total, 30 (55%) patients were transplanted (22 ACLF and 8 AD), and 20 (30%) died (19 ACLF and 1 AD). Five (9%) patients survived without liver transplantation (LT) (3 ACLF and 2 AD), and 3 transplant recipients died within 1 month. SOFA, CLIF-SOFA, CLIF-C OF, and INR were significantly associated with the incidence of 90-day mortality in competing risk regression analysis (all p<0.001). The model based on SOFA had the lowest BIC, with the optimal cut-off for 90-day mortality prediction ≥12, with the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) of 0.901 (95% CI 0.779–1.000; p<0.001), and corresponding incidence of transplantation rates of 85.5% and 11.8%, respectively (p<0.001). Of note, the important role of 24-h urine output is emphasized.

Conclusions

In this series of ACLF patients, SOFA score outperformed the CLIF-C scores in predicting 90-day mortality. Multi-organ failure scores performed better in predicting patient mortality than conventional liver function assessment. LT is possible and remains effective in selected ACLF patients.

Outcomes of Liver Transplant Recipients With Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure Based on EASL-CLIF Consortium Definition: A Single-center Study

The impact of acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) defined by European Association for the Study of the Liver-Chronic Liver Failure in liver transplant (LT) recipients has not been well characterized. The aim of the study was to assess early posttransplant morbidity and survival of ACLF patients.

Methods

Eight hundred twenty-five consecutive LT patients (04/2006-03/2013) were included in a retrospective analysis. Of the 690 evaluable patients, 589 had no ACLF, and the remaining 101 were grouped into ACLF Grades 1-3 (ACLF Grade 1: 50 [49.5%], ACLF Grade 2: 32 [31.7%], and ACLF Grade 3: 19 [18.8%]).

Results

LT recipients transplanted in the context of ACLF had significantly increased serum creatinine (2.27 ± 1.16 versus 0.98 ± 0.32; P < 0.0001), and inferior 1-year graft (90% versus 78%; P < 0.0001) and patient survival (92% versus 82%; P = 0.0004) by Kaplan-Meier survival analysis; graft and patient survival correlated negatively with increasing severity of ACLF. One-year graft and patient survival were lower in those with high ACLF (Grade 2 and 3) irrespective of Model for End-Stage Liver Disease compared with other groups. The ACLF group had longer intensive care unit stays (10.6 ± 19.5 versus 4.2 ± 9; P < 0.0001), hospital stays (20.9 ± 25.9 versus 11.7 ± 11.4; P < 0.0001), and increased surgical re-exploration (26.7 % versus 14.6%, P = 0.002).

Conclusions

Patients with ACLF undergoing LT have significantly higher resource utilization, inferior graft survival and patient survival, and renal dysfunction at 1 year. The combination of ACLF and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease can be considered when determining the suitability for potential transplantation.

Liver Transplantation

The field of liver transplantation has changed since the MELD scoring system became the most widely used donor allocation tool. Due to the MELD-based allocation system, sicker patients with higher MELD scores are being transplanted. Persistent organ donor shortages remain a challenging issue, and as a result, the wait-list mortality is a persistent problem for most of the regions. This chapter focuses on deceased donor and live donor liver transplantation in patients with complications of portal hypertension. Special attention will also be placed on donor-recipient matching, perioperative management of transplant patients, and the impact of hepatic hemodynamics on transplantation.

Approaches for patients with very high MELD scores

In the era of the "sickest first" policy, patients with very high model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores have been increasingly admitted to the intensive care unit with the expectation that they will receive a liver transplant (LT) in the absence of improvement on supportive therapies. Such patients are often admitted in a context of acute-on-chronic liver failure with extrahepatic failures. Sequential assessment of scores or classification based on organ failures within the first days after admission help to stratify the risk of mortality in this population. Although the prognosis of severely ill cirrhotic patients has recently improved, transplant-free mortality remains high. LT is still the only curative treatment in this population. Yet, the increased relative scarcity of graft resource must be considered alongside the increased risk of losing a graft in the initial postoperative period when performing LT in "too sick to transplant" patients. Variables associated with poor immediate post-LT outcomes have been identified in large studies. Despite this, the performance of scores based on these variables is still insufficient. Consideration of a patient's comorbidities and frailty is an appealing predictive approach in this population that has proven of great value in many other diseases. So far, local expertise remains the last safeguard to LT. Using this expertise, data are accumulating on favourable post-LT outcomes in very high MELD populations, particularly when LT is performed in a situation of stabilization/improvement of organ failures in selected candidates. The absence of "definitive" contraindications and the control of "dynamic" contraindications allow a "transplantation window" to be defined. This window must be identified swiftly after admission given the poor short-term survival of patients with very high MELD scores. In the absence of any prospect of LT, withdrawal of care could be discussed to ensure respect of patient life, dignity and wishes.

Liver transplantation for critically ill cirrhotic patients: Overview and pragmatic proposals

Liver transplantation for critically ill cirrhotic patients with acute deterioration of liver function associated with extrahepatic organ failures is controversial. While transplantation has been shown to be beneficial on an individual basis, the potentially poorer post-transplant outcome of these patients taken as a group can be held as an argument against allocating livers to them. Although this issue concerns only a minority of liver transplants, it calls into question the very heart of the allocation paradigms in place. Indeed, most allocation algorithms have been centered on prioritizing the sickest patients by using the model for end-stage liver disease score. This has led to allocating increasing numbers of livers to increasingly critically ill patients without setting objective or consensual limits on how sick patients can be when they receive an organ. Today, finding robust criteria to deem certain cirrhotic patients too sick to be transplanted seems urgent in order to ensure the fairness of our organ allocation protocols. This review starts by fleshing out the argument that finding such criteria is essential. It examines five types of difficulties that have hindered the progress of recent literature on this issue and identifies various strategies that could be followed to move forward on this topic, taking into account the recent discussion on acute on chronic liver failure. We move on to review the literature along four axes that could guide clinicians in their decision-making process regarding transplantation of critically ill cirrhotic patients.

Palliative care in end-stage liver disease: Time to do better?

Optimal involvement of palliative care (PC) services in the management of patients with decompensated cirrhosis and end-stage liver disease (ESLD) is limited. This may result from both ignorance and the failure to recognize the spectrum and unpredictability of the underlying liver condition. Palliative care is a branch of medicine that focuses on quality of life (QoL) by optimizing symptom management and providing psychosocial, spiritual, and practical support for both patients and their caregivers. Historically, palliative care has been underutilized for patients with decompensated liver disease. This review provides an evidence-based analysis of the benefits of the integration of palliative care into the management of patients with ESLD. Liver Transplantation 24 961-968 2018 AASLD.

Fibroblast growth factors 19 and 21 in acute liver damage

Currently there are very few pharmacological options available to treat acute liver injury. Because its natural exposure to noxious stimuli the liver has developed a strong endogenous hepatoprotective capacity. Indeed, experimental evidence exposed a variety of endogenous hepatic and systemic responses naturally activated to protect the hepatic parenchyma and to foster liver regeneration, therefore preserving individual's survival. The fibroblast growth factor (FGF) family encompasses a range of polypeptides with important effects on cellular differentiation, growth survival and metabolic regulation in adult organisms. Among these FGFs, FGF19 and FGF21 are endocrine hormones that profoundly influence systemic metabolism but also exert important hepatoprotective activities. In this review, we revisit the biology of these factors and highlight their potential application for the clinical management of acute liver injury.

Living Donor Liver Transplantation for Acute on Chronic Liver Failure Based on EASL-CLIF Diagnostic Criteria

BACKGROUND

The European association for the study of the liver and chronic liver failure consortium (EASL-CLIF) recently proposed diagnostic criteria for acute on chronic liver failure (ACLF). There is lack of data regarding liver transplant outcomes in ACLF patients based on these criteria. The objective of this study was to determine outcome following living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in ACLF patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent LDLT for ACLF based on European association for the study of the liver and chronic liver failure consortium (EASL-CLIF) diagnostic criteria (group 1) (N = 60) and compared them with ACLF patients who did not undergo transplantation (group 2) (N = 59). The primary outcome of interest was 30 day mortality. We also looked at one year survival in these patients. Survival was calculated using Kaplan-Meier curves and Log rank test was used to determine significance between variables.

RESULTS

Median MELD scores for group 1 and 2 patients in ACLF grade 1 was 28 (20-38) and 31 (24-36), in ACLF grade 2 was 35 (24-42) and 36 (24-42) and in ACLF grade 3 was 36 (29-42) and 38 (32-52). For group 1 and 2, 30 day mortality in ACLF grade 1, 2 and 3 was 2/43(4.6%) versus 9/15(60%) (P < 0.001), 1/15 (6.6%) versus 13/19 (68.4%), 0/2 (0%) versus 20/25 (80%) (P < 0.001). Actuarial 1 year overall survival was 92% versus 11% (P < 0.001) in patients who underwent transplantation versus those who did not. One year survival in patients with grade 1 and 2 ACLF who received transplant versus medical treatment was 91% versus 13% and 93% versus 15% (P < 0.001) respectively.

CONCLUSION

LDLT has excellent outcomes in patients with EASL-CLIF grade 1 and 2 ACLF. Without transplantation, ACLF patients have a very poor prognosis.

Palliative care in decompensated cirrhosis: A review

Decompensated cirrhosis is an illness that causes tremendous suffering. The incidence of cirrhosis is increasing and rates of liver transplant, the only cure, remain stagnant. Palliative care is focused on improving quality of life for patients with serious illness by addressing advanced care planning, alleviating physical symptoms and providing emotional support to the patient and family. Palliative care is used infrequently in patients with decompensated cirrhosis. The allure of transplant as a potential treatment option for cirrhosis, misperceptions about the role of palliative care and difficulty predicting prognosis in liver disease are potential contributors to the underutilization of palliative care in this patient population. Studies have demonstrated some benefit of palliative care in patients with decompensated cirrhosis but the literature is limited to small observational studies. There is evidence that palliative care consultation in other patient populations lowers hospital costs and ICU utilization and improves symptom control and patient satisfaction. Prospective randomized control trials are needed to investigate the effects of palliative care on traditional- and patient-reported outcomes as well as cost of care in decompensated cirrhosis for transplant eligible and ineligible patient populations.

Critical care management of the patient with cirrhosis awaiting liver transplant in the intensive care unit

Patients with cirrhosis who are awaiting liver transplantation (LT) are at high risk for developing critical illnesses. Current liver allocation policies that dictate a "sickest first" approach coupled with a mismatch between need and availability of organs result in longer wait times, and thus, patients are becoming increasingly ill while awaiting organ transplantation. Even patients with well-compensated cirrhosis may suffer acute deterioration; the syndrome of acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) results in multisystem organ dysfunction and a marked increase in associated short-term morbidity and mortality. For patients on transplant waiting lists, the development of multisystem organ failure may eliminate candidacy for transplant by virtue of being "too sick" to safely undergo transplantation surgery. The goals of intensive care management of patients suffering ACLF are to rapidly recognize and treat inciting events (eg, infection and bleeding) and to aggressively support failing organ systems to ensure that patients may successfully undergo LT. Management of the critically ill ACLF patient awaiting transplantation is best accomplished by multidisciplinary teams with expertise in critical care and transplant medicine. Such teams are well suited to address the needs of this unique patient population and to identify patients who may be too ill to proceed to transplantation surgery. The focus of this review is to identify the common complications of ACLF and to describe our approach management in critically ill patients awaiting LT in our centers. Liver Transplantation 23 1465-1476 2017 AASLD.

Liver transplantation in critically ill patients: Preoperative predictive factors of post-transplant mortality to avoid futility

BACKGROUND

The allocation of liver transplants to patients with acute liver failure (ALF) and acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) with multi-organ failure who are admitted in ICU remains controversial due to their high post-transplant mortality rate and the absence of identified mortality risk factors.

METHODS

We performed a single-center retrospective cohort study to determine the post-transplant mortality rate of patients with ALF and ACLF requiring ICU care prior to liver transplant (LT) and identified pretransplant factors of post-transplant mortality.

RESULTS

Eighty-four patients (29 with ALF and 55 with ACLF) received a liver transplant while they were hospitalized at the ICU. Their mean model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score was 41, and their mean sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) was 15 the day before transplant. The overall 1-year survival rate was 66%. In multivariate analysis, pretransplant lactate level and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) were the only two independent factors associated with post-transplant mortality. The absence of ARDS and a pretransplant lactate level< 5 mmol/L led to the identification of a subgroup of ICU patients with a good 1-year post-transplant survival (>80%).

CONCLUSIONS

Low lactatemia lactate level and the absence of ARDS could be useful criteria in selecting those patients in ICU who could be eligible for liver transplant.

Liver transplantation in the most severely ill cirrhotic patients: A multicenter study in acute-on-chronic liver failure grade 3

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Liver transplantation (LT) for the most severely ill patients with cirrhosis, with multiple organ dysfunction (accurately assessed by the acute-on-chronic liver failure [ACLF] classification) remains controversial. We aimed to report the results of LT in patients with ACLF grade 3 and to compare these patients to non-transplanted patients with cirrhosis and multiple organ dysfunction as well as to patients transplanted with lower ACLF grade.

METHODS

All patients with ACLF-3 transplanted in three liver intensive care units (ICUs) were retrospectively included. Each patient with ACLF-3 was matched to a) non-transplanted patients hospitalized in the ICU with multiple organ dysfunction, or b) control patients transplanted with each of the lower ACLF grades (three groups).

RESULTS

Seventy-three patients were included. These severely ill patients were transplanted following management to stabilize their condition with a median of nine days after admission (progression of mean organ failure from 4.03 to 3.67, p=0.009). One-year survival of transplanted patients with ACLF-3 was higher than that of non-transplanted controls: 83.9 vs. 7.9%, p<0.0001. This high survival rate was not different from that of matched control patients with no ACLF (90%), ACLF-1 (82.3%) or ACLF-2 (86.2%). However, a higher rate of complications was observed (100 vs. 51.2 vs. 76.5 vs. 74.3%, respectively), with a longer hospital stay. The notion of a "transplantation window" is discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

LT strongly influences the survival of patients with cirrhosis and ACLF-3 with a 1-year survival similar to that of patients with a lower grade of ACLF. A rapid decision-making process is needed because of the short "transplantation window" suggesting that patients with ACLF-3 should be rapidly referred to a specific liver ICU. Lay summary: Liver transplantation improves survival of patients with very severe cirrhosis. These patients must be carefully monitored and managed in a specialized unit. The decision to transplant a patient must be quick to avoid a high risk of mortality.

Impact of acute-on-chronic liver failure on 90-day mortality following a first liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is associated with a significant short-term mortality rate (23%-74%), depending on the number of organ failures. Some patients present with ACLF at the time of liver transplantation (LT). The aim of this study was to assess whether ACLF was also a prognostic factor after LT and, if applicable, to construct a score that could predict 90-day mortality.

METHODS

Three hundred and fifty cirrhotic patients, who underwent LT between January 2008 and December 2013, were enrolled. We used ACLF grades according to EASL-CLIF consortium criteria to categorize the cirrhotic patients. A propensity score was applied with an Inverse Probability Treatment Weighting in a Cox model. A predictive score of early mortality after LT was generated.

RESULTS

One hundred and forty patients (40%) met the criteria for ACLF. The overall mortality rate at 90 days post-transplant was 10.6% (37/350 patients). ACLF at the time of LT (HR: 5.78 [3.42-9.77], P<.001) was an independent predictor of 90-day mortality. Infection occurring during the month before LT, high recipient age and male recipient, the reason for LT and a female donor were also independent risk factors for early mortality. Using these factors, we have proposed a model to predict 90-day mortality after LT.

CONCLUSIONS

LT is feasible in cirrhotic patients with ACLF. However, we have shown that ACLF is a significant and independent predictor of 90-day mortality. We propose a score that can identify candidate cirrhotic patients in whom LT might be associated with futile LT.

Prognosis of cirrhotic patients admitted to intensive care unit: a meta-analysis

Background

The best predictors of short- and medium-term mortality of cirrhotic patients receiving intensive care support are unknown.

Methods

We conducted meta-analyses from 13 studies (2523 cirrhotics) after selection of original articles and response to a standardized questionnaire by the corresponding authors. End-points were in-ICU, in-hospital, and 6-month mortality in ICU survivors. A total of 301 pooled analyses, including 95 analyses restricted to 6-month mortality among ICU survivors, were conducted considering 249 variables (including reason for admission, organ replacement therapy, and composite prognostic scores).

Results

In-ICU, in-hospital, and 6-month mortality was 42.7, 54.1, and 75.1%, respectively. Forty-eight patients (3.8%) underwent liver transplantation during follow-up. In-ICU mortality was lower in patients admitted for variceal bleeding (OR 0.46; 95% CI 0.36–0.59; p < 0.001) and higher in patients with SOFA > 19 at baseline (OR 8.54; 95% CI 2.09–34.91; p < 0.001; PPV = 0.93). High SOFA no longer predicted mortality at 6 months in ICU survivors. Twelve variables related to infection were predictors of in-ICU mortality, including SIRS (OR 2.44; 95% CI 1.64–3.65; p < 0.001; PPV = 0.57), pneumonia (OR 2.18; 95% CI 1.47–3.22; p < 0.001; PPV = 0.69), sepsis-associated refractory oliguria (OR 10.61; 95% CI 4.07–27.63; p < 0.001; PPV = 0.76), and fungal infection (OR 4.38; 95% CI 1.11–17.24; p < 0.001; PPV = 0.85). Among therapeutics, only dopamine (OR 5.57; 95% CI 3.02–10.27; p < 0.001; PPV = 0.68), dobutamine (OR 8.92; 95% CI 3.32–23.96; p < 0.001; PPV = 0.86), epinephrine (OR 5.03; 95% CI 2.68–9.42; p < 0.001; PPV = 0.77), and MARS (OR 2.07; 95% CI 1.22–3.53; p = 0.007; PPV = 0.58) were associated with in-ICU mortality without heterogeneity. In ICU survivors, eight markers of liver and renal failure predicted 6-month mortality, including Child–Pugh stage C (OR 2.43; 95% CI 1.44–4.10; p < 0.001; PPV = 0.57), baseline MELD > 26 (OR 3.97; 95% CI 1.92–8.22; p < 0.0001; PPV = 0.75), and hepatorenal syndrome (OR 4.67; 95% CI 1.24–17.64; p = 0.022; PPV = 0.88).

Conclusions

Prognosis of cirrhotic patients admitted to ICU is poor since only a minority undergo liver transplant. The prognostic performance of general ICU scores decreases over time, unlike the Child–Pugh and MELD scores, even recorded in the context of organ failure. Infection-related parameters had a short-term impact, whereas liver and renal failure had a sustained impact on mortality.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13613-017-0249-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Prognostication of critically ill patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure using the Chronic Liver Failure-Sequential Organ Failure Assessment: A Canadian retrospective study

PURPOSE

We evaluated the Chronic Liver Failure-Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (CLIF-SOFA) score to predict survival in a Canadian critically ill cohort with acute-on-chronic liver failure.

METHODS

We retrospectively examined 274 acute-on-chronic liver failure patients admitted to a quaternary level intensive care unit (ICU) between April 1, 2000, and April 30, 2011. We evaluated severity of illness scores, including the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II, model for end-stage liver disease (MELD), Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP), SOFA, and CLIF-SOFA.

RESULTS

On ICU admission, patients had the following median (interquartile range): APACHE II, 23 (19-28); MELD, 26 (19-35); CTP, 12 (10-13); SOFA, 15 (11-18); and CLIF-SOFA, 17 (13-21). In-hospital survival was 40%. There were no significant differences in survival for cirrhosis etiology, reason, or year of admission. The CLIF-SOFA score had the greatest area under receiver operating curve of 0.865 (95% confidence interval, 0.820-0.909) and outperformed the CTP, MELD, SOFA, and APACHE II scores. Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score performance improved on the third day of ICU admission (area under receiver operating curve, 0.935; 95% confidence interval, 0.895-0.975).

CONCLUSIONS

The CLIF-SOFA and SOFA scores during the first 3 days of ICU admission appear to be highly predictive of in-hospital mortality.

Acute-on-chronic liver failure

Acute-on-chronic liver failure combines an acute deterioration in liver function in an individual with pre-existing chronic liver disease and hepatic and extrahepatic organ failures, and is associated with substantial short-term mortality. Common precipitants include bacterial and viral infections, alcoholic hepatitis, and surgery, but in more than 40% of patients, no precipitating event is identified. Systemic inflammation and susceptibility to infection are characteristic pathophysiological features. A new diagnostic score, the Chronic Liver Failure Consortium (CLIF-C) organ failure score, has been developed for classification and prognostic assessment of patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure. Disease can be reversed in many patients, and thus clinical management focuses upon the identification and treatment of the precipitant while providing multiorgan-supportive care that addresses the complex pattern of physiological disturbance in critically ill patients with liver disease. Liver transplantation is a highly effective intervention in some specific cases, but recipient identification, organ availability, timing of transplantation, and high resource use are barriers to more widespread application. Recognition of acute-on-chronic liver failure as a clinically and pathophysiologically distinct syndrome with defined diagnostic and prognostic criteria will help to encourage the development of new management pathways and interventions to address the unacceptably high mortality.

Postoperative resource utilization and survival among liver transplant recipients with Model for End-stage Liver Disease score ≥ 40: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Cirrhotic patients with Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score ≥ 40 have high risk for death without liver transplant (LT).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate these patients' outcomes after LT.

METHODS

The present study analyzed a retrospective cohort of 519 cirrhotic adult patients who underwent LT at a single Canadian centre between 2002 and 2012. Primary exposure was severity of liver disease measured by MELD score at LT (≥ 40 versus < 40). Primary outcome was duration of first intensive care unit (ICU) stay after LT. Secondary outcomes were duration of first hospital stay after LT, rate of ICU readmission, re-LT and survival rates.

RESULTS

On the day of LT, 5% (28 of 519) of patients had a MELD score ≥ 40. These patients had longer first ICU stays after LT (14 versus two days; P < 0.001). MELD score ≥ 40 at LT was independently associated with first ICU stay after LT ≥ 10 days (OR 3.21). These patients had longer first hospital stays after LT (45 versus 18 days; P < 0.001); however, there was no significant difference in the rate of ICU readmission (18% versus 22%; P = 0.58) or re-LT rate (4% versus 4%; P = 1.00). Cumulative survival at one month, three months, one year, three years and five years was 98%, 96%, 90%, 79% and 72%, respectively. There was no significant difference in cumulative survival stratified according to MELD score ≥ 40 versus < 40 at LT (P = 0.59).

CONCLUSIONS

Cirrhotic patients with MELD score ≥ 40 at LT utilize greater postoperative health resources; however, they derive similar long-term survival benefit from LT.

Advances in management and prognostication in critically ill cirrhotic patients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide an update on the recent publications for the management and prognostication of critically ill cirrhotic patients before and after liver transplant.

RECENT FINDINGS

The CLIF Acute-oN-ChrONicLIver Failure in Cirrhosis (CANONIC) study recently derived an evidence-based definition of acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF): hepatic decompensation; organ failure [predefined by the Chronic Liver Failure-Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (CLIF-SOFA)]; and high 28-day mortality rate. Although Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) appears to be more accurate in predicting ICU and hospital mortality in ACLF patients, CLIF-SOFA has been derived specifically for critically ill cirrhotic patients, including those not receiving mechanical ventilation. Recent data suggest that a lower transfusion target in esophageal variceal bleeding (<7 g/l) is safe. Newly defined 'cirrhosis-associated acute kidney injury (AKI)' correlates with mortality, organ failure and length of hospital stay. Although the SOFA score appears to perform better than liver-specific scoring systems [Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) and Child-Pugh scores], neither MELD nor SOFA appears to independently predict posttransplant survival; however, correlated with lengths of ICU and hospital stay. For patients declined for liver transplant, palliative care referral and appropriate goals of care are rarely achieved.

SUMMARY

New definitions for ACLF, cirrhosis-associated AKI and the CLIF-SOFA may improve the discrimination between survivors and nonsurvivors with ACLF. Predicting futility postliver transplant based on preliver transplant severity of illness still poses significant challenges.

Scoring systems for predicting mortality after liver transplantation

Background

Liver transplantation can prolong survival in patients with end-stage liver disease. We have proposed that the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score calculated on post-transplant day 7 has a great discriminative power for predicting 1-year mortality after liver transplantation. The Chronic Liver Failure - Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (CLIF-SOFA) score, a modified SOFA score, is a newly developed scoring system exclusively for patients with end-stage liver disease. This study was designed to compare the CLIF-SOFA score with other main scoring systems in outcome prediction for liver transplant patients.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed medical records of 323 patients who had received liver transplants in a tertiary care university hospital from October 2002 to December 2010. Demographic parameters and clinical characteristic variables were recorded on the first day of admission before transplantation and on post-transplantation days 1, 3, 7, and 14.

Results

The overall 1-year survival rate was 78.3% (253/323). Liver diseases were mostly attributed to hepatitis B virus infection (34%). The CLIF-SOFA score had better discriminatory power than the Child-Pugh points, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score, RIFLE (risk of renal dysfunction, injury to the kidney, failure of the kidney, loss of kidney function, and end-stage kidney disease) criteria, and SOFA score. The AUROC curves were highest for CLIF-SOFA score on post-liver transplant day 7 for predicting 1-year mortality. The cumulative survival rates differed significantly for patients with a CLIF-SOFA score ≤8 and those with a CLIF-SOFA score >8 on post-liver transplant day 7.

Conclusion

The CLIF-SOFA score can increase the prediction accuracy of prognosis after transplantation. Moreover, the CLIF-SOFA score on post-transplantation day 7 had the best discriminative power for predicting 1-year mortality after liver transplantation.