BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Various prognostic scores are available for predicting outcome in acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF). We compared the available prognostic models as predictors of outcome in alcohol-related ACLF patients. METHODS: All consecutive patients with alcohol-related ACLF were included. At admission, prognostic indices-acute physiology and chronic health evaluation score (APACHE II), model for end-stage liver disease (MELD), MELD-Na, Maddrey's discriminant function (DF), age-bilirubin-INR-creatinine (ABIC), and Chronic Liver Failure Consortium (CLIF-C) ACLF score (CLIF-C ACLF) score were calculated. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted for all prognostic scores with in-hospital, 90-day, and 1-year mortality as outcome. RESULTS: Of the 171 patients, 170 were males, and grade 1 ACLF in 20 (11.7%), grade 2 in 52 (30.4%), and grade 3 in 99 (57.9%) patients. One hundred and nineteen (69.6%) died in-hospital. The median (IQR) Maddrey's score, MELD, MELD-Na, ABIC, APACHE II, and CLIF-C ACLF were 87.8 (66.5-123.0), 33.1 (27.6-40.0), 34.4 (29.5-40.0), 8.5 (7.3-9.6), 15 (12-21), and 51.1 (44.1-56.4), respectively. On multivariate Cox regression analysis, independent predictors of in-hospital outcome were presence of hepatic encephalopathy (early HR, 2.078; 95%CI, 1.173-3.682, p = 0.012 and advanced, HR, 2.330; 95% CI, 1.270-4.276, p = 0.006), elevated serum creatinine (HR, 1.140; 95% CI, 1.023-1.270, p = 0.018), and infection at admission (HR, 1.874; 95% CI, 1.160-23.029, p = 0.010). On comparison of ROC curves, APACHE II and CLIF-C ACLF AUROC were significantly higher than MELD, MELD-Na, DF, and ABIC (p < 0.05) for predicting in-hospital, 90-day, and 1-year mortality. The AUROC was highest for APACHE II followed by CLIF-C ACLF (Hanley and McNeil, p = 0.660). CONCLUSIONS: Alcohol-related ACLF has high in-hospital mortality. Among the available prognostic scores, CLIF-C ACLF and APACHE II perform best.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Various prognostic scores are available for predicting outcome in acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF). We compared the available prognostic models as predictors of outcome in alcohol-related ACLF patients. METHODS: All consecutive patients with alcohol-related ACLF were included. At admission, prognostic indices-acute physiology and chronic health evaluation score (APACHE II), model for end-stage liver disease (MELD), MELD-Na, Maddrey's discriminant function (DF), age-bilirubin-INR-creatinine (ABIC), and Chronic Liver Failure Consortium (CLIF-C) ACLF score (CLIF-C ACLF) score were calculated. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted for all prognostic scores with in-hospital, 90-day, and 1-year mortality as outcome. RESULTS: Of the 171 patients, 170 were males, and grade 1 ACLF in 20 (11.7%), grade 2 in 52 (30.4%), and grade 3 in 99 (57.9%) patients. One hundred and nineteen (69.6%) died in-hospital. The median (IQR) Maddrey's score, MELD, MELD-Na, ABIC, APACHE II, and CLIF-C ACLF were 87.8 (66.5-123.0), 33.1 (27.6-40.0), 34.4 (29.5-40.0), 8.5 (7.3-9.6), 15 (12-21), and 51.1 (44.1-56.4), respectively. On multivariate Cox regression analysis, independent predictors of in-hospital outcome were presence of hepatic encephalopathy (early HR, 2.078; 95%CI, 1.173-3.682, p = 0.012 and advanced, HR, 2.330; 95% CI, 1.270-4.276, p = 0.006), elevated serum creatinine (HR, 1.140; 95% CI, 1.023-1.270, p = 0.018), and infection at admission (HR, 1.874; 95% CI, 1.160-23.029, p = 0.010). On comparison of ROC curves, APACHE II and CLIF-C ACLF AUROC were significantly higher than MELD, MELD-Na, DF, and ABIC (p < 0.05) for predicting in-hospital, 90-day, and 1-year mortality. The AUROC was highest for APACHE II followed by CLIF-C ACLF (Hanley and McNeil, p = 0.660). CONCLUSIONS:Alcohol-related ACLF has high in-hospital mortality. Among the available prognostic scores, CLIF-C ACLF and APACHE II perform best.
Authors: Javier Fernández; Juan Acevedo; Reiner Wiest; Thierry Gustot; Alex Amoros; Carme Deulofeu; Enric Reverter; Javier Martínez; Faouzi Saliba; Rajiv Jalan; Tania Welzel; Marco Pavesi; María Hernández-Tejero; Pere Ginès; Vicente Arroyo Journal: Gut Date: 2017-08-28 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Rajiv Jalan; Pere Gines; Jody C Olson; Rajeshwar P Mookerjee; Richard Moreau; Guadalupe Garcia-Tsao; Vicente Arroyo; Patrick S Kamath Journal: J Hepatol Date: 2012-06-28 Impact factor: 25.083
Authors: Marlene Dominguez; Diego Rincón; Juan G Abraldes; Rosa Miquel; Jordi Colmenero; Pablo Bellot; Joan-Carles García-Pagán; Rosamelia Fernández; Montserrat Moreno; Rafael Bañares; Vicente Arroyo; Joan Caballería; Pere Ginès; Ramón Bataller Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2008-08-21 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Mark R Thursz; Paul Richardson; Michael Allison; Andrew Austin; Megan Bowers; Christopher P Day; Nichola Downs; Dermot Gleeson; Alastair MacGilchrist; Allister Grant; Steven Hood; Steven Masson; Anne McCune; Jane Mellor; John O'Grady; David Patch; Ian Ratcliffe; Paul Roderick; Louise Stanton; Nikhil Vergis; Mark Wright; Stephen Ryder; Ewan H Forrest Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-04-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Rajiv Jalan; Faouzi Saliba; Marco Pavesi; Alex Amoros; Richard Moreau; Pere Ginès; Eric Levesque; Francois Durand; Paolo Angeli; Paolo Caraceni; Corinna Hopf; Carlo Alessandria; Ezequiel Rodriguez; Pablo Solis-Muñoz; Wim Laleman; Jonel Trebicka; Stefan Zeuzem; Thierry Gustot; Rajeshwar Mookerjee; Laure Elkrief; German Soriano; Joan Cordoba; Filippo Morando; Alexander Gerbes; Banwari Agarwal; Didier Samuel; Mauro Bernardi; Vicente Arroyo Journal: J Hepatol Date: 2014-06-17 Impact factor: 25.083
Authors: Grzegorz Niewiński; Szymon Morawiec; Maciej K Janik; Michał Grąt; Agata Graczyńska; Krzysztof Zieniewicz; Joanna Raszeja-Wyszomirska Journal: Med Sci Monit Date: 2020-05-16