Liver transplantation in patients with multiple organ failures: Feasibility and outcomes

Indian National Association for the Study of Liver (INASL) Guidance Statements for Determining Futility in Liver Transplantation

Liver transplantation (LT) is a life-saving procedure for patients with end-stage liver disease; however, with the growing shortage of organ donors, the need to identify futile transplants has become increasingly urgent. Futility in liver transplantation refers to situations where the expected post-transplant survival or quality of life is poor, making the procedure unlikely to yield a meaningful benefit. Various definitions of futility are used across different countries and transplant centers, with criteria often based on clinical factors such as age, comorbidities, MELD score, and functional status. For hepatologists and transplant surgeons, clearer guidelines are essential to make informed decisions and avoid unnecessary transplants that may place patients at risk without improving their prognosis. While some studies have proposed futility scores, there is currently no universal consensus on a standardized definition or set of criteria. This highlights the need for further prospective trials to evaluate the predictors of futility in liver transplantation, aiming to refine decision-making processes, optimize organ allocation, and improve patient outcomes. Future research should focus on the development of universally accepted futility criteria and explore interventions to mitigate the factors contributing to transplant futility.

Predicting futile outcomes following deceased donor liver transplantation in non-HCC patients with MELD-Na score above 30: a retrospective international multicenter cohort study

INTRODUCTION

In the current "sickest first" allocation policy for limited deceased liver grafts, identifying patients "too sick to transplant" before transplantation is crucial to optimize outcomes. This study aimed to predict futile outcomes following deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) in patients with model for end-stage liver disease-sodium (MELD-Na) scores ≥30.

METHODS

This international multicenter study was conducted as part of the International Society of Liver Surgeons. We collected data from patients with a MELD-Na score of ≥30 who underwent DDLT. A total of 994 patients were enrolled between 2010 and 2021, including 654 from the Republic of Korea, 224 from the USA, and 116 from other regions. Futility was defined as death within 3 months or during the hospital stay following a DDLT. After exclusion, 160 (16.6%) patients were classified into a futile group and 803 (83.4%) into a non-futile group.

RESULTS

The MELD-Na scores collected at three time points (listing, matching, and transplantation) were comparable between the groups ( P = 0.442, P = 0.180, and P = 0.554, respectively). Regarding concomitant organ failure factors, the futile group showed a higher incidence of organ dysfunction across all measured parameters, including the use of mechanical ventilators, continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT), pneumonia, bacteremia, and vasopressor use (all P < 0.01). Independent risk factors for futile outcome were recipient age (≥65 years), body mass index (<18.5 kg/m 2 ), mechanical ventilator use, CRRT (≥1 week), and prolonged intensive care unit stay before transplantation (≥2 weeks). The futility rate was 53.3% in patients with ≥3 risk factors ( P < 0.001). We developed a nomogram to predict futility after DDLT based on multivariate regression analysis, which showed a better predictive power than previous models.

CONCLUSION

The risk factors and new nomogram, which adequately reflect concomitant organ failure before liver transplantation, could effectively predict the risk of futile outcomes after DDLT and contribute to decision-making regarding transplantation eligibility in clinical practice.

Artificial Liver Support System Improves One-Year Prognosis of Patients With Hepatitis B Virus-Associated Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is a complex syndrome with limited treatment options. This study aims to investigate the impact of artificial liver support system (ALSS) on the one-year prognosis of patients with Hepatitis B virus (HBV)-associated ACLF.

METHOD

A retrospective study was conducted on 239 patients with HBV-ACLF in Nanfang Hospital from January 2016 to June 2021. Patients were divided into the ALSS group (n = 103) and the Standard Medical Therapy (SMT group, n = 136). Demographic, clinical, and laboratory data were collected before the first ALSS treatment for patients in ALSS group, while baseline data were collected in SMT group. According to receiving different ALSS modes, patients in ALSS group were divided into plasma exchange (PE) group and non-PE group.

RESULT

The 12-week and 1-year liver transplant (LT) free survival rates in the ALSS group were significantly higher than that in the SMT group (65.05% vs 52.21%, p = 0.0011; 63.11% vs. 48.53%, p = 0.0006). ALSS therapy was the independent predictive factors associated with 12-week and 1-year mortality (hazard ratio, HR: 0.59, p = 0.04, and HR: 0.54, p = 0.01). Comparatively more ALSS-related complications were observed in PE group. After Propensity Score Matching, the 12-week and 1-year LT-free survival rates between PE and non-PE group were similar (88% vs. 80%, p = 0.227, 88% vs. 80%, p = 0.227).

CONCLUSION

ALSS therapy is a safe and effective treatment for HBV-ACLF. ALSS improves 1-year prognosis of patients with HBV-ACLF.

The Kidney and Extracorporeal Therapies in Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure: What the Nephrologist Needs to Know

In this review, we discuss the pathophysiology and management of acute kidney injury (AKI) in the setting of acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF). ACLF is characterised by the occurrence of acute hepatic and/or extrahepatic organ failure, induced by immune dysregulation and systemic inflammation in patients with chronic liver disease. Kidney involvement is common, with AKI occurring in 30% to > 95% of ACLF patients, depending on the definition used. Since there is a lack of kidney biopsy data in these patients, the underlying pathophysiological basis of AKI remains incompletely understood, and systemic inflammation is believed to be the primary driver of organ injury. The management of AKI has been largely extrapolated from studies in decompensated cirrhosis, and there is little data specifically in the ACLF setting. However, available evidence suggests that structural kidney injury is more common in ACLF than in decompensated CLD, and therefore, AKI in ACLF is less likely to respond to volume repletion and vasopressors. Treatment options remain limited for those who are non-responsive to intravenous fluids and vasopressors. Liver transplantation (LT), with or without kidney transplantation, is the definitive treatment for these patients. At present, extracorporeal therapies such as therapeutic plasma exchange and kidney replacement therapies play a supportive role in ACLF as a bridge to LT; however, the optimal timing and dosing remain unclear. While theoretically, extracorporeal therapies have the potential to reverse or halt progression of organ damage in ACLF, there is limited evidence currently.

Liver transplantation improves prognosis across all grades of acute-on-chronic liver failure patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation (LT) is recognized as an effective approach that offers survival benefits for patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF). However, controversies remain regarding the LT selection criteria, and meta-analyses reporting overall survival outcomes across different ACLF severity grades are lacking.

AIM

To depict a comprehensive postoperative picture of patients with ACLF of varying severity and contribute to updating LT selection.

METHODS

Systematic searches in Web of Science, EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane databases were performed, from inception to December 26, 2023, for studies exploring post-transplant outcomes among ACLF patients, stratified by severity grades as identified by the European Association for the Study of the Liver-Chronic Liver Failure criteria. The primary outcome of interest was the survival rate within one year, with post-transplant complications as secondary outcomes. Additionally, the subgroup analysis examined region-specific one-year survival rates.

RESULTS

A total of 17 studies involving 28025 participants were included. Patients with ACLF-1 and ACLF-2 have favorable survival within one year, with survival rates reaching 87% [95% confidence interval (CI): 84%-91%] and 86% (95%CI: 81%-91%), respectively. Despite the relatively lower survival (73%, 95%CI: 66%-80%) and higher incidence of infection (48%, 95%CI: 29%-67%) observed in ACLF-3 patients, their survival exceeds that of those who do not undergo LT. Moreover, post-transplant survival was highest in North America across all ACLF grades.

CONCLUSION

LT can provide survival advantages for ACLF patients. To optimize the utilization of scarce donor organs and improve prognosis, comprehensive preoperative health evaluations are essential, especially for ACLF-3 patients.

Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure: Steps Towards Consensus

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is a clinical syndrome characterized by organ failure and high short-term mortality. Since its first definition in 2013, many international organizations have defined this syndrome and, till now, there has been no agreement regarding definitions and diagnostic criteria. Although the precise mechanism of ACLF is unknown, precipitant factors and the systemic inflammation response play a major role. Specific management of this high-mortality syndrome is still under development, but a general consensus in the diagnosis and management of ACLF is needed.

Potential therapies for acute-on-chronic liver failure

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is a syndrome that develops in approximately 30% of patients hospitalised with cirrhosis and is characterised by an acute decompensation of liver function associated with extra-hepatic organ failures and a high short-term mortality. At present, no specific therapies are available for ACLF, and current management is limited to treatment of the precipitating event and organ support. Given the high prevalence and high mortality of this severe liver disease, there is an urgent need for targeted treatments. There is increasing evidence of the important role played by systemic inflammation and immune dysfunction in the pathophysiology of ACLF and a better understanding of these immune processes is resulting in new therapeutic targets. The aim of this review is to present an overview of ongoing studies of potentially promising therapies and how they could be utilised in the management of ACLF.

Reduced short-term survival following liver transplant in patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure: Reevaluating OPTN data

BACKGROUND

Prior studies show severe acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) at liver transplantation (LT) negatively impacts short-term, but not long-term, post-LT outcomes. However, not accounting for ACLF's time-varying effect on the waitlist may underappreciate its dynamic nature. Moreover, excluding those who died or dropped off the waitlist raises concerns about selection bias.

METHODS

This US nationwide retrospective cohort study estimated the effect of severe ACLF (grade 3) (ACLF-3) on post-LT outcomes, including adult, first-time deceased donor LT candidates listed from June 2013 to May 2023. A marginal structural model (MSM) to address selection bias and time-varying exposure (ACLF-3) was applied, with extended Cox proportional hazard models using a Heaviside step function to assess the hazard of death after LT.

RESULTS

Among 31,267 eligible candidates for LT (baseline cohort), 11.3% (n = 3518) had ACLF-3 at listing; 13.6% (n = 4243) died or dropped out while on the LT waitlist. Of the 27,024 patients who received LT (transplanted cohort), 12.3% (n = 3333) had ACLF-3 at LT. ACLF-3 at LT (but not at waitlisting) was associated with a higher hazard of death, with the hazard ratio of 1.80 (95% CI: 1.09-2.97) within 1 year after LT but not thereafter. This marginal structural model effect size was 9% higher than conventional multivariable Cox proportional hazard models. Sensitivity analyses corroborated these findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to previous studies, ACLF-3 at LT in our marginal structural model was associated with a discernible increase in short-term mortality after transplant, presumably due to our addressing of selection bias, while long-term survival was similar to those without severe ACLF at LT. However, potential vulnerability to posttransplant complications warrants further investigation.

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.

Mechanisms and treatment approaches for ACLF

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is a life-threatening syndrome characterized by decompensation of cirrhosis, severe systemic inflammation and organ failures. ACLF is frequently triggered by intra- and/or extrahepatic insults, such as bacterial infections, alcohol-related hepatitis or flares of hepatic viruses. The imbalance between systemic inflammation and immune tolerance causes organ failures through the following mechanisms: (i) direct damage of immune cells/mediators; (ii) worsening of circulatory dysfunction resulting in organ hypoperfusion and (iii) metabolic alterations with prioritization of energetic substrates for inflammation and peripheral organ 'energetic crisis'. Currently, the management of ACLF includes the support of organ failures, the identification and treatment of precipitating factors and expedited assessment for liver transplantation (LT). Early LT should be considered in patients with ACLF grade 3, who are unlikely to recover with the available treatments and have a mortality rate > 70% at 28 days. However, the selection of transplant candidates and their prioritization on the LT waiting list need standardization. Future challenges in the ACLF field include a better understanding of pathophysiological mechanisms leading to inflammation and organ failures, the development of specific treatments for the disease and personalized treatment approaches. Herein, we reviewed the current knowledge and future perspectives on mechanisms and treatment of ACLF.

Improvement in Survival After Transplantation for Critically Ill Patients With Cirrhosis in the United States

INTRODUCTION

There is considerable debate over the indication of liver transplantation (LT) for critically ill patients with cirrhosis, in part due to their potentially poor post-LT prognosis. We analyzed the epidemiology and outcome of LT for critically ill patients with cirrhosis over 4 time periods of 4 years.

METHODS

We included adult patients who underwent liver transplant alone between 2005 and 2020 using the United Network for Organ Sharing registry database. We defined critically ill patients with cirrhosis as being in the intensive care unit with 1 or more of the following characteristics at the time of LT: (i) grade III/IV hepatic encephalopathy, (ii) mechanical ventilation, (iii) dialysis, and (iv) vasopressors.

RESULTS

A total of 85,594 LT recipients were included, 5,827 (6.8%) of whom were classified as being critically ill with cirrhosis at the time of LT. The number and percentage of critically ill LT recipients with cirrhosis increased over the study period: 819 (4.3%) in 2005-2008 vs 2,067 (7.9%) in 2017-2020, P < 0.001. There was a 17% absolute increase in 1-year survival after LT: 72.5% in 2005-2008 vs 89.5% in 2017-2020, P < 0.001. The 1-year post-LT survival gap between critically ill and noncritically ill patients with cirrhosis narrowed over the study period: 16.7 percentage points in 2005-2008 vs 4.6 percentage points in 2017-2020. The year of LT was independently associated with lower 1-year post-LT mortality (hazard ratio 0.92, 95% confidence interval 0.91-0.93, P < 0.001).

DISCUSSION

The absolute number and relative percentage of LT recipients who were critically ill increased over time, as did 1-year post-LT survival. Meanwhile, the gap in survival between this group of patients and noncritically ill patients with cirrhosis decreased but persisted. Cautious access to selected LT candidates who are critically ill may be warranted, provided the gap in survival with noncritically ill patients remains as small as possible.

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.

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF): the ‘Kyoto Consensus’—steps from Asia

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is a condition associated with high mortality in the absence of liver transplantation. There have been various definitions proposed worldwide. The first consensus report of the working party of the Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL) set in 2004 on ACLF was published in 2009, and the “APASL ACLF Research Consortium (AARC)” was formed in 2012. The AARC database has prospectively collected nearly 10,500 cases of ACLF from various countries in the Asia–Pacific region. This database has been instrumental in developing the AARC score and grade of ACLF, the concept of the ‘Golden Therapeutic Window’, the ‘transplant window’, and plasmapheresis as a treatment modality. Also, the data has been key to identifying pediatric ACLF. The European Association for the Study of Liver-Chronic Liver Failure (EASL CLIF) and the North American Association for the Study of the End Stage Liver Disease (NACSELD) from the West added the concepts of organ failure and infection as precipitants for the development of ACLF and CLIF-Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) and NACSELD scores for prognostication. The Chinese Group on the Study of Severe Hepatitis B (COSSH) added COSSH-ACLF criteria to manage hepatitis b virus-ACLF with and without cirrhosis. The literature supports these definitions to be equally effective in their respective cohorts in identifying patients with high mortality. To overcome the differences and to develop a global consensus, APASL took the initiative and invited the global stakeholders, including opinion leaders from Asia, EASL and AASLD, and other researchers in the field of ACLF to identify the key issues and develop an evidence-based consensus document. The consensus document was presented in a hybrid format at the APASL annual meeting in Kyoto in March 2024. The ‘Kyoto APASL Consensus’ presented below carries the final recommendations along with the relevant background information and areas requiring future studies.

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF): the 'Kyoto Consensus'-steps from Asia

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is a condition associated with high mortality in the absence of liver transplantation. There have been various definitions proposed worldwide. The first consensus report of the working party of the Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL) set in 2004 on ACLF was published in 2009, and the "APASL ACLF Research Consortium (AARC)" was formed in 2012. The AARC database has prospectively collected nearly 10,500 cases of ACLF from various countries in the Asia-Pacific region. This database has been instrumental in developing the AARC score and grade of ACLF, the concept of the 'Golden Therapeutic Window', the 'transplant window', and plasmapheresis as a treatment modality. Also, the data has been key to identifying pediatric ACLF. The European Association for the Study of Liver-Chronic Liver Failure (EASL CLIF) and the North American Association for the Study of the End Stage Liver Disease (NACSELD) from the West added the concepts of organ failure and infection as precipitants for the development of ACLF and CLIF-Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) and NACSELD scores for prognostication. The Chinese Group on the Study of Severe Hepatitis B (COSSH) added COSSH-ACLF criteria to manage hepatitis b virus-ACLF with and without cirrhosis. The literature supports these definitions to be equally effective in their respective cohorts in identifying patients with high mortality. To overcome the differences and to develop a global consensus, APASL took the initiative and invited the global stakeholders, including opinion leaders from Asia, EASL and AASLD, and other researchers in the field of ACLF to identify the key issues and develop an evidence-based consensus document. The consensus document was presented in a hybrid format at the APASL annual meeting in Kyoto in March 2024. The 'Kyoto APASL Consensus' presented below carries the final recommendations along with the relevant background information and areas requiring future studies.

Robust Predictive Performance of the SALT-M Score for Clinical Outcomes in Asian Patients With Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure

BACKGROUND

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is a syndrome of patients with chronic liver disease presenting with multiple organ failures. Recently, Sundaram-ACLF-LT Mortality (SALT-M) score has been developed to predict 1-year post-liver transplantation mortality. We validated the SALT-M score in a large-volume, Asian single-centre cohort.

AIMS

We validated the SALT-M score in a large-volume, Asian single-centre cohort.

METHODS

We analysed 224 patients of ACLF grade 2-3. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and concordance index (c-index) were used to assess and compare the predictability of posttransplant mortality of SALT-M and other scores. Moreover, we compared the survivals of patients with high and low SALT-M, in conjunction with MELD score and ACLF grade.

RESULTS

The AUROC for prediction of 1-year post-LT survival was higher in SALT-M (0.691) than in MELD, MELD-Na, MELD 3.0 and delta-MELD. Similarly, the c-index of the SALT-M (0.650) was higher than aforementioned MELD systems. When categorised by the cut-off of SALT-M ≥ 20 and MELD ≥ 30, patients with high SALT-M exhibited lower post-LT survival than those with low SALT-M scores regardless of high or low MELD (40.0% for high SALT-M/high MELD vs. 42.9% for high SALT-M/low MELD vs. 73.8% for low SALT-M/high MELD vs. 63.7% for low SALT-M/low MELD, p < 0.001). In patients with ACLF grade 3, SALT-M effectively stratified the posttransplant mortality (39.4% for high SALT-M vs. 63.1% for low SALT-M, p = 0.018).

CONCLUSIONS

SALT-M outperformed previous MELD systems for predicting posttransplant mortality in Asian LT cohort with severe ACLF. Transplantability for patients with severe ACLF could be determined based on SALT-M.

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.

Benefits of liver transplant in critically ill patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure: Implementation of an urgent living-donor program

We evaluated the liver transplantation (LT) criteria in acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF), incorporating an urgent living-donor LT (LDLT) program. Critically ill patients with a Chronic Liver Failure Consortium (CLIF-C) ACLF score (CLIF-C_ACLF_score) ≥65, previously considered unsuitable for LT, were included to explore the excess mortality threshold of the CLIF-C_ACLF_score (CLIF-C_ACLF_score_threshold). We followed 854 consecutive patients with ACLF (276 ACLF grade 2 and 215 ACLF grade 3) over 10 years among 4432 LT recipients between 2008 and 2019. For advanced ACLF patients without immediate deceased-donor (DD) allocation, an urgent LDLT program was expedited. The CLIF-C_ACLF_score_threshold was determined by the metrics of transplant survival benefit: >60% 1-year and >50% 5-year survival rate. In predicting post-LT mortality, the CLIF-C_ACLF_score outperformed the (model for end-stage liver disease-sodium) MELD-Na and (model for end-stage liver disease) MELD-3.0 scores but was comparable to the Sundaram ACLF-LT-mortality score. A CLIF-C_ACLF_score ≥65 (n = 54) demonstrated posttransplant survival benefits, with 1-year and 5-year survival rates of 66.7% and 50.4% (P < .001), respectively. Novel CLIF-C_ACLF_score_threshold for 1-year and 5-year mortalities was 70 and 69, respectively. A CLIF-C_ACLF_score-based nomogram for predicting survival probabilities, integrating cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and donor type (LDLT vs DDLT), was generated. This study suggests reconsidering the criteria for unsuitable LT with a CLIF-C_ACLF_score ≥65. Implementing a timely salvage LT strategy, and incorporating urgent LDLT, can enhance survival rates.

EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines on liver transplantation

Liver transplantation (LT) is an established life-saving procedure. The field of LT has changed in the past 10 years from several perspectives, with the expansion of indications, transplantation of patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure, evolution of transplant oncology, the use of donations after cardiac death, new surgical techniques, and prioritisation of recipients on the waiting list. In addition, the advent of organ perfusion machines, the recognition of new forms of rejection, and the attention paid to the transition from paediatric to adult patients, have all improved the management of LT recipients. The purpose of the EASL guidelines presented here is not to cover all aspects of LT but to focus on developments since the previous EASL guidelines published in 2016.

Liver transplantation for alcohol-associated liver disease

Alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, and a leading indication for liver transplantation (LT) in many countries, including the United States. However, LT for ALD is a complex and evolving field with ethical, social, and medical challenges. Thus, it requires a multidisciplinary approach and individualized decision-making. Short-term and long-term patient and graft survival of patients undergoing LT for ALD are comparable to other indications, but there is a continued need to develop better tools to identify patients who may benefit from LT, improve the pretransplant and posttransplant management of ALD, and evaluate the impact of LT for ALD on the organ donation and transplantation systems. In this review, we summarize the current evidence on LT for ALD, from alcohol-associated hepatitis to decompensated alcohol-associated cirrhosis. We discuss the indications, criteria, outcomes, and controversies of LT for these conditions and highlight the knowledge gaps and research priorities in this field.

Liver transplantation for acute liver failure and acute-on-chronic liver failure

Acute liver failure (ALF) and acute-on-chronic liver (ACLF) are distinct phenotypes of liver failure and, thus, need to be compared and contrasted for appropriate management. There has been a significant improvement in the outcomes of these patients undergoing liver transplantation (LT). Survival post-LT for ALF and ACLF ranges between 90% and 95% and 80% and 90% at 1 year, futility criteria have been described in both ALF and ACLF where organ failures define survival. Plasma exchange and continuous renal replacement therapy may serve as bridging therapies. Identifying the futility of LT is as necessary as the utility of LT in patients with ALF and ACLF. The role of regenerative therapies such as granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in ACLF and hepatocyte and xenotransplantation in both conditions remains uncertain. Measures to increase the donor pool through increasing deceased donor transplants in Asian countries, living donations in Western countries, auxiliary liver transplants, and ABO-incompatible liver transplants are necessary to improve the survival of these patients. In this review, we discuss the similarities and differences in clinical characteristics and the timing and outcomes of LT for ALF and ACLF, briefly highlighting the role of bridging therapies and providing an overview of recent advances in the management of ALF and ACLF.

Managing Multiorgan Failure in Acute on Chronic Liver Failure

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is defined as a clinical syndrome that develops in patients with chronic liver disease characterized by the presence of organ failure and high short-term mortality, although there is still no worldwide consensus on diagnostic criteria. Management of ACLF is mainly based on treatment of "precipitating factors" (the most common are infections, alcohol-associated hepatitis, hepatitis B flare, and bleeding) and support of organ failure, which often requires admission to the intensive care unit. Liver transplantation should be considered in patients with ACLF grades 2 to 3 as a potentially life-saving treatment. When a transplant is not indicated, palliative care should be considered after 3 to 7 days of full organ support in patients with at least four organ failures or a CLIF-C ACLF score of >70. This review summarizes the current knowledge on the management of organ failure in patients with ACLF, focusing on recent advances.

Barriers and Strategies to Effective Serious Illness Communication for Patients with End-Stage Liver Disease in the Intensive Care Setting

Background: Patients with end-stage liver disease (ESLD) often require Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission during the disease trajectory, but aggressive medical treatment has not resulted in increased quality of life for patients or caregivers. Methods: This narrative review synthesizes relevant data thematically exploring the current state of serious illness communication in the ICU with identification of barriers and potential strategies to improve performance. We provide a conceptual model underscoring the importance of providing comprehensible disease and prognosis knowledge, eliciting patient values and aligning these values with available goals of care options through a series of discussions. Achieving effective serious illness communication supports the delivery of goal concordant care (care aligned with the patient's stated values) and improved quality of life. Results: General barriers to effective serious illness communication include lack of outpatient serious illness communication discussions; formalized provider training, literacy and culturally appropriate patient-directed serious illness communication tools; and unoptimized electronic health records. ESLD-specific barriers to effective serious illness communication include stigma, discussing the uncertainty of prognosis and provider discomfort with serious illness communication. Evidence-based strategies to address general barriers include using the Ask-Tell-Ask communication framework; clinician training to discuss patients' goals and expectations; PREPARE for Your Care literacy and culturally appropriate written and online tools for patients, caregivers, and clinicians; and standardization of documentation in the electronic health record. Evidence-based strategies to address ESLD-specific barriers include practicing with empathy; using the "Best-Case, Worst Case" prognostic framework; and developing interdisciplinary solutions in the ICU. Conclusion: Improving clinician training, providing patients and caregivers easy-to-understand communication tools, standardizing EHR documentation, and improving interdisciplinary communication, including palliative care, may increase goal concordant care and quality of life for critically ill patients with ESLD.

Risk evaluation and recipient selection in adult liver transplantation: A mixed-methods survey

Background:

Liver transplant (LT) is the definitive treatment for end-stage liver disease. Limited resources and important post-operative implications for recipients compel judicious risk stratification and patient selection. However, little is known about the factors influencing physicians’ assessment regarding patient selection for LT and risk evaluation.

Methods:

We conducted a mixed-methods, cross-sectional survey involving Canadian hepatologists, anesthesiologists, LT surgeons, and French anesthesiologists. The survey contained quantitative questions and a vignette-based qualitative substudy about risk assessment and patient selection for LT. Descriptive statistics and qualitative content analyses were used.

Results:

We obtained answers from 129 physicians, and 63 participated in the qualitative substudy. We observed considerable variability in risk assessment prior to LT and identified many factors perceived to increase the risk of complications. Clinicians reported that the acceptable incidence of at least 1 severe post-operative complication for a LT program was 20% (95% CI: 20-30%). They identified the presence of any comorbidity as increasing the risk of different post-operative complications, especially acute kidney injury and cardiovascular complications. Frailty and functional disorders, severity of the liver disease, renal failure and cardiovascular comorbidities prior to LT emerged as important risk factors for post-operative morbidity. Most respondents were willing to pursue LT in patients with grade III acute-on-chronic liver failure but were less often willing to do so when faced with the uncertainty of a clinical example.

Conclusions:

Clinicians had a heterogeneous appraisal of the post-operative risk of complications following LT, as well as factors considered in risk assessment.

Bridging the critically ill patient with acute to chronic liver failure to liver transplantation

Liver transplantation (LT) has emerged as an effective therapy for severe forms of acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF), an entity characterized by the development of multiorgan failure and high short-term mortality. The aim of critical care management of ACLF patients is to rapidly treat precipitating events and aggressively support failing organs to ensure that patients may successfully undergo LT or, less frequently, recover. Malnutrition and sarcopenia are frequently present, adversely impacting the prognosis of these patients. Management of critical care patients with ACLF is complex and requires the participation of different specialties. Once the patient is stabilized, a rapid evaluation for salvage LT should be performed because the time window for LT is often narrow. The development of sepsis and prolonged organ support may preclude LT or diminish its chances of success. The current review describes strategies to bridge severe ACLF patients to LT, highlights the minimal evaluation required for listing and the currently suggested contraindications to proceed with LT, and addresses different aspects of management during the perioperative and early posttransplant period.

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.

Microbiological and molecular studies on a multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa from a liver transplant patient with urinary tract infection in Egypt

BACKGROUND

Pseudomonas aeruginosa is an opportunistic pathogen responsible for complicated UTIs and exhibits high antibiotic resistance, leading to increased mortality rates, especially in cases of multidrug-resistant strains. This study aimed to investigate the antibiotic susceptibility patterns and genomic characterization of XDR strains identified in end-stage liver disease patients who underwent liver transplants.

METHODS

In this study, a number of 30 individuals who underwent liver transplants were registered. Ninety urine and 60 wound site swab samples were collected and processed for culturing, identification, and antimicrobial sensitivity. Extensively drug-resistant strain EMARA01 was confirmed through Sanger sequencing and was then processed for whole genome sequencing to characterize the genomic pattern. Sequencing data were processed for de novo assembly using various tools and databases, including genome annotation, serotype identification, virulence factor genes, and antimicrobial resistance gene. Pangenome analysis of randomly selected 147 reference strains and EMAR01 sequenced strain was performed using the Bacterial Pan Genome Analysis (BPGA) software.

RESULTS

Of these total examined samples, nosocomial infection due to P. aeruginosa was detected in twelve patients' samples. AST analysis showed that P. aeruginosa strains exhibit resistance to tobramycin, erythromycin, and gentamicin, followed by piperacillin and ofloxacin, and no strains exhibit resistance to meropenem and imipenem. The CARD database identified 59 AMR genes similar to the EMAR01 strain genome and mostly belong to the family involved in the resistance-nodulation-cell division (RND) antibiotic efflux pump. Five genes; nalC, nalD, MexR, MexA, and MexB, exhibit resistance to 14 classes of antibiotics, while two AMR; CpxR, and OprM, exhibit resistance to 15 classes of drugs. Pangenome analysis revealed that the pan-genome remained open, suggesting the potential for acquiring accessory and unique genes. Notably, the genes predominantly involved in amino acid transport metabolism were identified using the KEGG database.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides valuable insights into the antimicrobial resistance profile, genetic features, and genomic evolution of P. aeruginosa strains causing UTIs in liver transplant patients. The findings emphasize the significance of comprehending AMR mechanisms and genetic diversity in P. aeruginosa for developing effective treatment strategies and infection control measures.

Immunopathogenesis of acute on chronic liver failure

Acute-on-chronic liver failure is a well-established description of a high-mortality syndrome of chronic liver disease (usually cirrhosis) with organ failure. While the exact definition is under refinement, the accepted understanding of this entity is in patients with chronic liver disease and various organs in failure and where systemic inflammation is a major component of the pathobiology. There are limited therapies for a disease with such a poor prognosis, and while improvements in the critical care management and for very few patients, liver transplantation, mean 50% can survive to hospital discharge, rapid application of new therapies is required. Here we explain the current understanding of the immunologic abnormalities seen in acute-on-chronic liver failure across the innate and adaptive immune systems, the role of the hepatic cell death and the gut-liver axis, and recommendations for future research and treatment paradigms.

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 Transplantation in Chronic Liver Disease and Acute on Chronic Liver Failure- Indication, Timing and Practices

Liver transplantation (LT) is the second most common solid organ transplantation worldwide. LT is considered the best and most definitive therapeutic option for patients with decompensated chronic liver disease (CLD), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), acute liver failure (ALF), and acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF). The etiology of CLD shows wide geographical variation, with viral hepatitis being the major etiology in the east and alcohol-related liver disease (ALD) in the west. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is on an increasing trend and is expected to be the most common etiology on a global scale. Since the first successful LT, there have been radical changes in the indications for LT. In many circumstances, not just the liver disease itself but factors such as extra-hepatic organ dysfunction or failures necessitate LT. ACLF is a dynamic syndrome that has extremely high short-term mortality. Currently, there is no single approved therapy for ACLF, and LT seems to be the only feasible therapeutic option for selected patients at high risk of mortality. Early identification of ACLF, stratification of patients according to disease severity, aggressive organ support, and etiology-specific treatment approaches have a significant impact on post-transplant outcomes. This review briefly describes the indications, timing, and referral practices for LT in patients with CLD and ACLF.

Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver clinical practice guidelines on liver transplantation

Liver transplantation is a highly complex and challenging field of clinical practice. Although it was originally developed in western countries, it has been further advanced in Asian countries through the use of living donor liver transplantation. This method of transplantation is the only available option in many countries in the Asia-Pacific region due to the lack of deceased organ donation. As a result of this clinical situation, there is a growing need for guidelines that are specific to the Asia-Pacific region. These guidelines provide comprehensive recommendations for evidence-based management throughout the entire process of liver transplantation, covering both deceased and living donor liver transplantation. In addition, the development of these guidelines has been a collaborative effort between medical professionals from various countries in the region. This has allowed for the inclusion of diverse perspectives and experiences, leading to a more comprehensive and effective set of guidelines.

Acute decompensation of cirrhosis versus acute-on-chronic liver failure: What are the clinical implications?

It is essential to identify the subgroup of patients who experience poorer outcomes in order to adapt clinical management effectively. In the context of liver disease, the earlier the identification occurs, the greater the range of therapeutic options that can be offered to patients. In the past, patients with acute decompensation (AD) of chronic liver disease were treated as a homogeneous group, with emphasis on identifying those at the highest risk of death. In the last 15 years, a differentiation has emerged between acute-on-chronic liver failure syndrome (ACLF) and AD, primarily due to indications that the latter is linked to a less favorable short-term prognosis. Nevertheless, the definition of ACLF varies among the different knowledge societies, making it challenging to assess its true impact compared with AD. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to provide a detailed analysis emphasizing the critical importance of identifying ACLF in the field of advanced liver disease. We will discuss the differences between Eastern and Western approaches, particularly in relation to the occurrence of liver failure and disease onset. Common characteristics, such as the dynamic nature of the disease course, will be highlighted. Finally, we will focus on two key clinical implications arising from these considerations: the prevention of ACLF before its onset and the clinical management strategies once it develops, including liver transplantation and withdrawal of care.

[Transplantation for acute-on-chronic liver failure]

A review and discussion of the current literature on liver transplantation for acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) was performed. The ACLF represents an acute deterioration of liver function with pre-existing liver disease and is associated with increasing multiorgan failure, depending on the stage. The 28-day mortality ranges to well over 70% in stage 3 and requires rapid intensive medical treatment involving an interdisciplinary team experienced in transplantation medicine. Under optimized conditions, liver transplantation provides long-term survival rates comparable to other indications. Achieving this requires a differentiated donor selection, choosing the appropriate time for transplantation in the context of a dynamic disease course and the use of appropriate surgical techniques.

Living donor liver transplant in acute on chronic liver failure grade 3: Who not to transplant

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Liver transplantation(LT)offers definitive treatment for acute on chronic liver failure(ACLF) patients. This study was done to analyze and compare the outcomes of living donor LT(LDLT) in patients with ACLF versus Chronic liver disease(CLD) and within the grades of ACLF. Factors affecting mortality in patients with ACLF and ACLF grade3 (ACLF3) following LDLT were also derived.

METHODS

Records of adult LDLT between 1/2/2017 and 30/9/2021 were analyzed. ACLF was classified based on EASL-CLIF definition. Post-transplant outcomes of ACLF were compared with CLD and within ACLF grades. Post LDLT mortality predictors were identified in ACLF and ACLF3 patients.

RESULTS

Out of 853 patients who had LT in that period; 704 patients with CLD and 103 with ACLF [of which 54 (52.42%) had ACLF3] underwent LDLT. The one month and one-year post LDLT mortality was 8.81% and 9.80% in CLD; 19.42% and 31.06% in ACLF; and 25.92% and 38.89% in ACLF3 respectively. On log regression analysis, use of grafts from older donors and pre-operative respiratory failure in recipients was associated with poor survival in ACLF, while respiratory failure was a predictor of poor survival in ACLF3 following LDLT.

CONCLUSION

Outcomes following LDLT are poorer in ACLF as compared to after CLD. Higher donor age and preoperative respiratory failure with PF Ratio<200 were associated with poor survival post LDLT in ACLF and ACLF3.

PROGNOSTIC FACTORS OF LIVER TRANSPLANTATION FOR ACUTE-ON-CHRONIC LIVER FAILURE

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation (LT) is the only treatment that can provide long-term survival for patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF). Although several studies identify prognostic factors for patients in ACLF who do not undergo LT, there is scarce literature about prognostic factors after LT in this population.

AIM

Evaluate outcomes of ACLF patients undergoing LT, studying prognostic factors related to 1-year and 90 days post-LT.

METHODS

Patients with ACLF undergoing LT between January 2005 and April 2021 were included. Variables such as chronic liver failure consortium (CLIF-C) ACLF values and ACLF grades were compared with the outcomes.

RESULTS

The ACLF survival of patients (n=25) post-LT at 90 days, 1, 3, 5 and 7 years, was 80, 76, 59.5, 54.1 and 54.1% versus 86.3, 79.4, 72.6, 66.5 and 61.2% for patients undergoing LT for other indications (n=344), (p=0.525). There was no statistical difference for mortality at 01 year and 90 days among patients with the three ACLF grades (ACLF-1 vs. ACLF-2 vs. ACLF-3) undergoing LT, as well as when compared to non-ACLF patients. CLIF-C ACLF score was not related to death outcomes. None of the other studied variables proved to be independent predictors of mortality at 90 days, 1 year, or overall.

CONCLUSIONS

LT conferred long-term survival to most transplant patients. None of the studied variables proved to be a prognostic factor associated with post-LT survival outcomes for patients with ACLF. Additional studies are recommended to clarify the prognostic factors of post-LT survival in patients with ACLF.

Novel Therapeutic Approaches in Treatment of Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF), a clinical syndrome that can develop at any stage in the progression of cirrhotic liver disease, is characterized by an acute decompensation in liver function with associated multiorgan failure and high short-term mortality. Current evidence points to ACLF being reversible, particularly in those at the lower end of the severity spectrum. However, there are no specific treatments for ACLF, and overall outcomes remain poor. Expedited liver transplantation as a treatment option is limited by organ shortage and a lack of priority allocation for this indication. Other options are therefore urgently needed, and our improved understanding of the condition has led to significant efforts to develop novel therapies. In conclusion, this review aims to summarize the current understanding of the pathophysiological processes involved in the onset, progression, and recovery of ACLF and discuss novel therapies under development.

Comparing Three Profoundly Influential Prognostic Scores in Cirrhotic Patients with Acute-on-Chronic-Liver Failure Admitted to the ICU: Prediction of One-Month Mortality-A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Acute-on-chronic-liver failure (ACLF) demonstrates high short-term mortality rates and usually requires intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Accurate prognostication of these patients is pivotal for timely referral for liver transplantation. The superiority of CLIF-C ACLF, CLIF-C ACLF lactate, and NACSELD-ACLF scores in Asian patients with ACLF admitted to an ICU remains inconclusive.

AIMS

To compare the predictive performance of CLIF-C ACLF, CLIF-C ACLF lactate, and NACSELD-ACLF scores for one-month mortality.

METHODS

276 consecutive cirrhotic patients with ACLF admitted to ICU were enrolled. The prognostic values for one-month mortality were assessed by AUROC analysis.

RESULTS

The primary cause of cirrhosis in this cohort was alcohol abuse (56.5%). AUROC analysis (95% confidence intervals) demonstrated that CLIF-C ACLF lactate [0.802 (0.747-0.856)] outperformed both CLIF-C ACLF [0.791 (0.733-0.848)] and NACSELD-ACLF [0.673 (0.606-0.740)] in predicting one-month mortality. However, no statistically significant difference was observed between the predictive abilities of CLIF-C ACLF and CLIF-C ACLF lactate.

CONCLUSIONS

In critically ill cirrhotic patients with ACLF admitted to the hepatology ICU, CLIF ACLF-lactate outperformed CLIF-C ACLF and NACSELD-ACLF in predicting one-month mortality. Nevertheless, no statistically significant difference was observed between CLIF-C ACLF and CLIF-C ACLF lactate. Larger-scale multi-center prospective studies are warranted to validate these results.

Healthcare utilization and outcomes of living donor liver transplantation for patients with APASL-defined acute-on-chronic liver failure

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation (LT) is associated with excellent survival in patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF). There is a lack of data assessing the healthcare utilization and outcomes of patients with APASL-defined ACLF undergoing living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Our aim was to assess pre-LT healthcare utilization and post-LT outcomes in such patients.

METHODS

Patients with ACLF who underwent LDLT at our center between 1st April 2019 and 1st October 2021 were included.

RESULTS

Seventy-three ACLF patients willing to undergo LDLT were listed; eighteen patients died within 30 days. Fifty-five patients underwent LDLT (age:38.05 ± 14.76 years; alcohol:52.7%; males:81.8%). Most were in grade II ACLF (87.3%) at the time of LDLT (APASL ACLF Research Consortium [AARC] score: 9.05 ± 1; MELD NA: 28.15 ± 4.13). Survival rate was 72.73%; mean follow-up period of 925.21 days; 58.2% (32/55) developed complications during the first year post-LT; 45% (25/55) and 12.7% (7/55) developed infections within and after 3 months. Pre-LT, each patient required a median of 2 (1-4) admissions for 17 (4-45) days. Fifty-six percent (31/55) of patients underwent plasma exchange pre-LDLT. A median amount of Rs. 8,25,090 (INR 26,000-43,58,154) was spent to stabilize the patient (who were sicker and waited longer to undergo LDLT); though post-LT survival benefit was not observed.

CONCLUSIONS

LDLT was associated with 73% survival and, thus, is a viable option in those with APASL-defined ACLF. There was a pre-LT high healthcare resource utilization of plasma exchange, with the intention of optimization, while survival benefit has not been demonstrated.

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.

Dynamic evaluation based on acute-on-chronic liver failure predicts survival of patients after liver transplantation: a cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Dynamic evaluation of critically ill patients is the key to predicting their outcomes. Most scores based on the Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) and acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) utilize point-in-time assessment. This study mainly aimed to investigate the impact of dynamic clinical course change on post-liver transplantation (LT) survival.

METHODS

This study included 637 adults (overall cohort) with benign end-stage liver diseases. The authors compared the MELD scores and our ACLF-based dynamic evaluation scores. Patients enrolled or transplanted with ACLF-3 were defined as the ACLF-3 cohort ( n =158). The primary outcome was 1-year mortality. ΔMELD and ΔCLIF-OF (Chronic Liver Failure-Organ Failure) represented the respective dynamic changes in liver transplant function. Discrimination was assessed using the area under the curve. A Cox regression analysis identified independent risk factors for specific organ failure and 1-year mortality.

RESULTS

Patients were grouped into three groups: the deterioration group (D), the stable group (S), and the improvement group (I). The deterioration group (ΔCLIF-OF ≥2) was more likely to receive national liver allocation ( P =0.012) but experienced longer cold ischemia time ( P =0.006) than other groups. The area under the curves for ΔCLIF-OF were 0.752 for the entire cohort and 0.767 for ACLF-3 cohorts, both superior to ΔMELD ( P <0.001 for both). Compared to the improvement group, the 1-year mortality hazard ratios (HR) of the deterioration group were 12.57 (6.72-23.48) for the overall cohort and 7.00 (3.73-13.09) for the ACLF-3 cohort. Extrahepatic organs subscore change (HR=1.783 (1.266-2.512) for neurologic; 1.653 (1.205-2.269) for circulation; 1.906 (1.324-2.743) for respiration; 1.473 (1.097-1.976) for renal) were key to transplantation outcomes in the ACLF-3 cohort. CLIF-OF at LT (HR=1.193), ΔCLIF-OF (HR=1.354), and cold ischemia time (HR=1.077) were independent risk factors of mortality for the overall cohort, while ΔCLIF-OF (HR=1.384) was the only independent risk factor for the ACLF-3 cohort. Non-ACLF-3 patients showed a higher survival rate than patients with ACLF-3 in all groups ( P =0.002 for I, P =0.005 for S, and P =0.001 for D).

CONCLUSION

This was the first ACLF-based dynamic evaluation study. ΔCLIF-OF was a more powerful predictor of post-LT mortality than ΔMELD. Extrahepatic organ failures were core risk factors for ACLF-3 patients. CLIF-OF at LT, ΔCLIF-OF, and cold ischemia time were independent risk factors for post-LT mortality. Patients with a worse baseline condition and a deteriorating clinical course had the worst prognosis. Dynamic evaluation was important in risk stratification and recipient selection.

The novel SALT-M score predicts 1-year post-transplant mortality in patients with severe acute-on-chronic liver failure

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Twenty-eight-day mortality ranges from 30-90% in patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure grades 2/3 (severe ACLF). Though liver transplantation (LT) has demonstrated a survival benefit, the scarcity of donor organs and uncertainty regarding post-LT mortality among patients with severe ACLF may cause hesitancy. We developed and externally validated a model to predict 1-year post-LT mortality in severe ACLF, called the Sundaram ACLF-LT-Mortality (SALT-M) score, and estimated the median length of stay (LoS) after LT (ACLF-LT-LoS).

METHODS

In 15 LT centers in the US, we retrospectively identified a cohort of patients with severe ACLF transplanted between 2014-2019, followed up to Jan'2022. Candidate predictors included demographics, clinical and laboratory values, and organ failures. We selected predictors in the final model using clinical criteria and externally validated them in two French cohorts. We provided measures of overall performance, discrimination, and calibration. We used multivariable median regression to estimate LoS after adjusting for clinically relevant factors.

RESULTS

We included 735 patients, of whom 521 (70.8%) had severe ACLF (120 ACLF-3, external cohort). The median age was 55 years, and 104 with severe ACLF (19.9%) died within 1-year post-LT. Our final model included age >50 years, use of 1/≥2 inotropes, presence of respiratory failure, diabetes mellitus, and BMI (continuous). The c-statistic was 0.72 (derivation) and 0.80 (validation), indicating adequate discrimination and calibration based on the observed/expected probability plots. Age, respiratory failure, BMI, and presence of infection independently predicted median LoS.

CONCLUSIONS

The SALT-M score predicts mortality within 1-year after LT in patients with ACLF. The ACLF-LT-LoS score predicted median post-LT stay. Future studies using these scores could assist in determining transplant benefits.

IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS

Liver transplantation (LT) may be the only life-saving procedure available to patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF), but clinically instability can augment the perceived risk of post-transplant mortality at 1 year. We developed a parsimonious score with clinically and readily available parameters to objectively assess 1-year post-LT survival and predict median length of stay after LT. We developed and externally validated a clinical model called the Sundaram ACLF-LT-Mortality score in 521 US patients with ACLF with 2 or ≥3 organ failure(s) and 120 French patients with ACLF grade 3. The c-statistic was 0.72 in the development cohort and 0.80 in the validation cohort. We also provided an estimation of the median length of stay after LT in these patients. Our models can be used in discussions on the risks/benefits of LT in patients listed with severe ACLF. Nevertheless, the score is far from perfect and other factors, such as patient's preference and center-specific factors, need to be considered when using these tools.

Effect of acute on chronic liver failure over post-transplant survival

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is associated with reduced short-term survival, and liver transplantation is frequently the only therapeutic option. Nonetheless, the post-transplantation prognosis seems to be worse in ACLF patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The databases of two university centers were retrospectively evaluated, and adult patients with cirrhosis who underwent transplantation between 2013 and 2020 were included. One-year survival of patients with ACLF was compared to that of patients without ACLF. Variables associated with mortality were identified.

RESULTS

A total of 428 patients were evaluated, and 303 met the inclusion criteria; 57.1% were male, the mean age was 57.1 ± 10.2 years, 75 patients had ACLF, and 228 did not. The main etiologies of ACLF were NASH (36.6%), alcoholic liver disease (13.9%), primary biliary cholangitis (8.6%) and autoimmune hepatitis (7.9%). Mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, the use of vasopressors and the requirement of blood product transfusion during liver transplantation were significantly more frequent in ACLF patients. Among those recipients without and with ACLF, survival at 1, 3 and 5 years was 91.2% vs. 74.7%, 89.1% vs. 72.6% and 88.3% vs. 72.6%, respectively (p=0.001). Among pre-transplantation variables, only the presence of ACLF was independently associated with survival (HR 3.2, 95% CI: 1.46-7.11). Post-transplantation variables independently associated with survival were renal replacement therapy (HR 2.8, 95% CI: 1.1-6.8) and fungal infections (HR 3.26, 95% CI: 1.07-9.9).

CONCLUSIONS

ACLF is an independent predictor of one-year post-transplantation survival. Importantly, transplant recipients with ACLF require the use of more resources than patients without ACLF.

Cell transplantation-based regenerative medicine in liver diseases

This review aims to evaluate the current preclinical state of liver bioengineering, the clinical context for liver cell therapies, the cell sources, the delivery routes, and the results of clinical trials for end-stage liver disease. Different clinical settings, such as inborn errors of metabolism, acute liver failure, chronic liver disease, liver cirrhosis, and acute-on-chronic liver failure, as well as multiple cellular sources were analyzed; namely, hepatocytes, hepatic progenitor cells, biliary tree stem/progenitor cells, mesenchymal stromal cells, and macrophages. The highly heterogeneous clinical scenario of liver disease and the availability of multiple cellular sources endowed with different biological properties make this a multidisciplinary translational research challenge. Data on each individual liver disease and more accurate endpoints are urgently needed, together with a characterization of the regenerative pathways leading to potential therapeutic benefit. Here, we critically review these topics and identify related research needs and perspectives in preclinical and clinical settings.

Intensive care management of acute-on-chronic liver failure

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is a clinical syndrome defined by an acute deterioration of the liver function associated with extrahepatic organ failures requiring intensive care support and associated with a high short-term mortality. ACLF has emerged as a major cause of mortality in patients with cirrhosis and chronic liver disease. ACLF has a unique pathophysiology in which systemic inflammation plays a key role; this provides the basis of novel therapies, several of which are now in clinical trials. Intensive care unit (ICU) therapy parallels that applied in the general ICU population in some organ failures but has peculiar differential characteristics in others. Critical care management strategies and the option of liver transplantation (LT) should be balanced with futility considerations in those with a poor prognosis. Nowadays, LT is the only life-saving treatment that can radically improve the long-term prognosis of patients with ACLF. This narrative review will provide insights on the current understanding of ACLF with emphasis on intensive care management.

Liver Transplantation in Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure

In recent years there has been a significant increase in the incidence of acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF). This syndrome is characterized by infections, organ failures, and high short-term mortality. Although progress in the management of these sick patients has been evident, liver transplantation (LT) remains the best treatment modality to date. Several studies have reported LT as a feasible option, despite organ failures. The outcomes following LT are inversely related to the grade of ACLF. This review discusses the current literature on the feasibility, futility, timing, and outcomes of LT in patients with ACLF.

EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines on acute-on-chronic liver failure

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF), which was described relatively recently (2013), is a severe form of acutely decompensated cirrhosis characterised by the existence of organ system failure(s) and a high risk of short-term mortality. ACLF is caused by an excessive systemic inflammatory response triggered by precipitants that are clinically apparent (e.g., proven microbial infection with sepsis, severe alcohol-related hepatitis) or not. Since the description of ACLF, some important studies have suggested that patients with ACLF may benefit from liver transplantation and because of this, should be urgently stabilised for transplantation by receiving appropriate treatment of identified precipitants, and full general management, including support of organ systems in the intensive care unit (ICU). The objective of the present Clinical Practice Guidelines is to provide recommendations to help clinicians recognise ACLF, make triage decisions (ICU vs. no ICU), identify and manage acute precipitants, identify organ systems that require support or replacement, define potential criteria for futility of intensive care, and identify potential indications for liver transplantation. Based on an in-depth review of the relevant literature, we provide recommendations to navigate clinical dilemmas followed by supporting text. The recommendations are graded according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine system and categorised as 'weak' or 'strong'. We aim to provide the best available evidence to aid the clinical decision-making process in the management of patients with ACLF.

Therapeutic plasma-exchange improves short-term, but not long-term, outcomes in patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure: A propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is associated with a high short-term mortality rate in the absence of liver transplantation. The role of therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) in improving the outcomes of ACLF and acute decompensation (AD) is unclear. In this retrospective analysis, we aimed to determine the impact of TPE on mortality in patients with ACLF.

METHODS

ACLF patients receiving TPE with standard medical treatment (SMT) were propensity score matched (PSM) with those receiving SMT alone (1:1) for sex, grades of ACLF, CLIF C ACLF scores, and the presence of hepatic encephalopathy. The primary outcomes assessed were mortality at 30 and 90 days. Survival analysis was performed using Kaplan Meier survival curves.

RESULTS

A total of 1151 patients (ACLF n = 864 [75%], AD [without organ failure] n = 287 [25%]) were included. Of the patients with ACLF (n = 864), grade 1, 2, and 3 ACLF was present in 167 (19.3%), 325 (37.6%), and 372 (43.0%) patients, respectively. Thirty-nine patients received TPE and SMT, and 1112 patients received only SMT. On PSM analysis, there were 38 patients in each group (SMT plus TPE vs SMT alone). In the matched cohort, the 30-days mortality was lower in the TPE arm compared to SMT (21% vs 50%, P = .008), however, the 90-day mortality was not significantly different between the two groups (36.8% vs 52.6%, P = .166); HR, 0.82 (0.44-1.52), P = .549.

CONCLUSION

TPE improves short-term survival in patients with ACLF, but has no significant impact on long-term outcomes. Randomized control trials are needed to obtain a robust conclusion in this regard.

Perioperative clinical practice in liver transplantation: a cross-sectional survey

PURPOSE

The objective of this study was to describe some components of the perioperative practice in liver transplantation as reported by clinicians.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional clinical practice survey using an online instrument containing questions on selected themes related to the perioperative care of liver transplant recipients. We sent email invitations to Canadian anesthesiologists, Canadian surgeons, and French anesthesiologists specialized in liver transplantation. We used five-point Likert-type scales (from "never" to "always") and numerical or categorical answers. Results are presented as medians or proportions.

RESULTS

We obtained answers from 130 participants (estimated response rate of 71% in Canada and 26% in France). Respondents reported rarely using transesophageal echocardiography routinely but often using it for hemodynamic instability, often using an intraoperative goal-directed hemodynamic management strategy, and never using a phlebotomy (medians from ordinal scales). Fifty-nine percent of respondents reported using a restrictive fluid management strategy to manage hemodynamic instability during the dissection phase. Forty-two percent and 15% of respondents reported using viscoelastic tests to guide intraoperative and postoperative transfusions, respectively. Fifty-four percent of respondents reported not pre-emptively treating preoperative coagulations disturbances, and 91% reported treating them intraoperatively only when bleeding was significant. Most respondents (48-64%) did not have an opinion on the maximal graft ischemic times. Forty-seven percent of respondents reported that a piggyback technique was the preferred vena cava anastomosis approach.

CONCLUSION

Different interventions were reported to be used regarding most components of perioperative care in liver transplantation. Our results suggest that significant equipoise exists on the optimal perioperative management of this population.