Comparison of Prognostic Models in Acute Liver Failure: Decision is to be Dynamic

Clinical Profile, Short-term Prognostic Accuracies of CLIF-C ACLF Score and Serial CLIF-C OF Scores in Acute-on-chronic Liver Failure Patients: A Prospective Observational Study

Background

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is a recently defined entity that carries high short-term mortality. The European Association for Study of Liver (EASL) has given a different definition for ACLF and derived two scores called Chronic Liver Failure-Consortium Organ Failure (CLIF-C OF) and CLIF-C ACLF to diagnose and predict the short-term outcome, respectively.

Materials and methods

This was the prospective observational study, included 40 ACLF patients diagnosed as per the EASL definition and calculated CLIF-C ACLF as well as other scores (CTP, MELD, MELD-Na, CLIF-C OF) on admission. Serial CLIF-C OF scores were also calculated (Day 3 and Day 7). The 28-day and 90-day mortality was recorded.

Results

Alcohol was the predominant etiology of cirrhosis (32 patients-80%). Infection was the chief precipitating factor in 19 patients (47.5%). The 28-day and 90-day mortality was 45% and 52.5%. Mean (SD) of CLIF-C ACLF scores of survivors and non-survivors on Day-90 were 44.11(6.62) and 53.86 (7.83). The prognostic accuracy of the CLIF-C ACLF score (Area Under Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve-AUROC) to predict 28-day and 90-day mortality was 0.86 and 0.84, respectively. MELD-Na and CLIF-C ACLF scores had higher AUROC for predicting 28-day and 90-day mortality, respectively. The AUROC of the CLIF-C OF score on Day 3 was found to be higher than the values of Day 1 and Day 7, but it was not statistically significant.

Conclusion

CLIF-C ACLF has good short-term prognostic accuracy and it is as good as other available scores. Serial CLIF-C OF scores were equally good in predicting in short-term mortality.

How to cite this article

Hareesh GJ, Ramadoss R. Clinical Profile, Short-term Prognostic Accuracies of CLIF-C ACLF Score and Serial CLIF-C OF Scores in Acute-on-chronic Liver Failure Patients: A Prospective Observational Study. Indian J Crit Care Med 2024;28(2):126-133.

Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Impact of Bacterial or Fungal Infections in Acute Liver Failure Patients from India

BACKGROUND

We evaluated the prevalence, risk factors, and impact of bacterial/fungal infections in acute liver failure (ALF) patients.

METHODS

We analyzed clinical, biochemical, and microbiological data of ALF patients with and without bacterial/fungal infections admitted at an institute over the last 5 years.

RESULTS

We enrolled 143 patients, 50% males, median age 25 years, with acute viral hepatitis (32.2%), drug-induced injury (18.2%), and tropical illness (14%) as aetiologies of ALF. 110 patients (76.9%) developed bacterial/fungal infections [Bacterial infection: MDR: 70%, PDR: 7%, ESBL: 40%, CRE: 30%, CRAB: 26.6%, MDR-EF: 13.3% and fungal infection: 19 (17.3%)]. On univariable analysis, SIRS (33.6% vs.3%), ICU admission (78.2% vs. 45.5%), mechanical ventilation (88.2% vs. 51.5%), inotropes (39.1% vs. 6.1%), invasive catheters (91.8% vs. 39.4%), and prolonged catheterization (6 days vs. 0 days) were significant risk factors for infections (p < 0.05, each). In contrast, SIRS and catheterization independently predicted infection on multivariable regression. Organ failures [3 (2-4) vs. 1 (0-2)], grade-III-IV HE (67.3% vs. 33.3%), circulatory failure (39.1% vs. 6.1%), coagulopathy (INR > 2.5: 58.2% vs. 33.3%), renal injury (28.2% vs. 6.1%) (p < 0.05), MELD (32.9 ± 8.2 vs. 26.7 ± 8.3) and CPIS [3(2-4) vs. 2(0-2)] were higher in infected vs. non-infected patients (p < 0.001). 30-day survival was significantly lower in infected vs. non-infected patients (17.3% vs. 75.8%, p < 0.001), while no patient survived with fungal infections. Refractory septic shock was the commonest cause of mortality in patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Infections due to MDR organisms are high, fungal infections are fatal, and refractory septic shock is the dominant reason for mortality, implying bacterial and fungal infections as the major killer in ALF patients.

Liver Transplantation for Acute Liver Failure- Indication, Prioritization, Timing, and Referral

Acute liver failure (ALF) is a major success story in gastroenterology, with improvements in critical care and liver transplant resulting in significant improvements in patient outcomes in the current era compared to the dismal survival rates in the pretransplant era. However, the ever-increasing list of transplant candidates and limited organ pool makes judicious patient selection and organ use mandatory to achieve good patient outcomes and prevent organ wastage. Several scoring systems exist to facilitate the identification of patients who need a liver transplant and would therefore need an early referral to a specialized liver unit. The timing of the liver transplant is also crucial as transplanting a patient too early would lead to those who would recover spontaneously receiving an organ (wastage), and a late decision might result in the patient becoming unfit for transplant (delisted) or have an advanced disease which would result in poor post-transplant outcomes. The current article reviews the indications and contraindications of liver transplant in ALF patients, the various prognostic scoring systems, etiology-specific outcomes, prioritization and timing of referral.

Acute Liver Failure Prognostic Criteria: It's Time to Revisit

INTRODUCTION

Acute liver failure (ALF) is a devastating disease, and patients are at a higher risk of death without liver transplantation. Indicators are needed to identify the risk of death in ALF, which will help in the timely referral of patients to specialized centers. Clichy criteriaand King's College Hospital (KCH) criteria are the most widely used prognostic criteria. Real-life application of Clichy criteria is limited due to the non-availability of factor V level measurement. KCH criteria have good specificity but low sensitivity to predict outcomes. Therefore, we attempted to use the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score and chronic liver failure-sequential organ failure assessment (CLIF-SOFA) score in ALF patients as prognostic indicators and need for liver transplantation.

METHODS

Forty-one patients with ALF were enrolled in the study. On the day of admission, MELD and CLIF-SOFA scores were calculated for each patient. Area under receiver operating characteristics (AUROC) curve, sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), positive predictive value (PPV), and diagnostic accuracy (DA) of MELD and CLIF-SOFA score were calculated to predict the outcome of the patients.

RESULTS

Out of 41 patients, nine patients left against medical advice. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and DA for the MELD score of enrolled patients in the study were 81.5%, 62.5%, 59.5%, 83.3%, 70.1%, and for the CLIF-SOFA score of enrolled patients in the study were 88.9%, 90.0%, 85.7%, 92.3%, 89.6% respectively. Patients who did not survive had higher INR, MELD, CLIF-SOFA scores, and hepatic encephalopathy (HE) grades. Five patients who had a combination of MELD ≥30 and CLIF-SOFA ≥10, expired.

CONCLUSION

 In our study, we used MELD score and CLIF-SOFA as prognostic markers, and we concluded that CLIF-SOFA is a better predictor of mortality than MELD score in terms of sensitivity, specificity, NPV, PPV, and diagnostic accuracy. AUROC for CLIF-SOFA score is higher when compared to the MELD score.

Development of a prognostic model for pediatric acute liver failure in a Brazilian center

OBJECTIVE

Pediatric acute liver failure (PALF) is a heterogeneous, rare, and severe condition, which outcome is survival due to liver spontaneous recovery or death. The patients who do not recover may be allocated to liver transplantation, which is the standard treatment. This study aimed to build a prognostic model to support the clinical decision to indicate liver transplantation for patients with PALF in a Brazilian center.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively analyzed the clinical variables of 120 patients in the liver transplantation program of the 'Children's Institute of the University of São Paulo, Brazil. The authors conducted a univariate analysis of variables associated with survival in PALF. Logistic multivariate analysis was performed to find a prognostic model for the outcome of patients with pediatric acute liver failure.

RESULTS

Risk factors were analyzed using univariate analysis. Two prognostic models were built using multiple logistic regression, which resulted in 2 models: model 1(INR/ALT) and model 2 (INR/Total bilirubin). Both models showed a high sensitivity (97.9%/96.9%), good positive predictive value (89.5%/90.4%), and accuracy (88.4%/88.5%), respectively. The receiver operating characteristic was calculated for both models, and the area under the curve was 0.87 for model 1 and 0.88 for model 2. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test showed that model 1 was good.

CONCLUSION

The authors built a prognostic model for PALF using INR and ALT that can contribute to the clinical decision to allocate patients to liver transplantation.

The Role of Predictive Models in the Assessment of the Poor Outcomes in Pediatric Acute Liver Failure

OBJECTIVES

In children, acute liver failure (ALF) is a severe condition with high mortality. As some patients need liver transplantation (LT), it is essential to predict the fatal evolution and to refer them early for LT if needed. Our study aimed to evaluate the prognostic criteria and scores for assessing the outcome in children with ALF.

METHODS

Data of 161 children with ALF (54.66% female, mean age 7.66 ± 6.18 years) were analyzed based on final evolution (32.91% with fatal evolution or LT) and etiology. We calculated on the first day of hospitalization the PELD score (109 children), MELD, and MELD-Na score (52 children), and King's College Criteria (KCC) for all patients. The Nazer prognostic index and Wilson index for predicting mortality were calculated for nine patients with ALF in Wilson's disease (WD).

RESULTS

PELD, MELD, and MELD-Na scores were significantly higher in patients with fatal evolution (21.04 ± 13.28 vs. 13.99 ± 10.07, p = 0.0023; 36.20 ± 19.51 vs. 20.08 ± 8.57, p < 0.0001; and 33.07 ± 8.29 vs. 20.08 ± 8.47, p < 0.0001, respectively). Moreover, age, bilirubin, albumin, INR, and hemoglobin significantly differed in children with fatal evolution. Function to etiology, PELD, MELD, MELD-Na, and KCC accurately predicted fatal evolution in toxic ALF (25.33 vs. 9.90, p = 0.0032; 37.29 vs. 18.79, p < 0.0001; 34.29 vs. 19.24, p = 0.0002, respectively; with positive predicting value 100%, negative predicting value 88.52%, and accuracy 89.23% for King's College criteria). The Wilson index for predicting mortality had an excellent predictive strength (100% sensibility and specificity), better than the Nazer prognostic index.

CONCLUSIONS

Prognostic scores may be used to predict the fatal evolution of ALF in children in correlation with other parameters or criteria. Early estimation of the outcome of ALF is essential, mainly in countries where emergency LT is problematic, as the transfer to a specialized center could be delayed, affecting survival chances.