Orthotopic liver transplantation in critically ill cirrhotic patients with multi-organ failure: a single-center experience

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.

Improve the prediction of liver transplant mortality based on pre-transplant factors: A multi-center study from China: Mortality prediction of LT

AIMS

To designed a new model using pre-transplant data to predict post-transplant mortality for Chinese population and compared its performance to that of existing models.

METHODS

In this multicenter study, 544 recipients of liver transplants for non-tumor indications were enrolled in the training group and 276 patients in the validation group. The new Simplified Mortality Prediction Scores (SMOPS) model was compared to the MELD and four existing models using the C-statistic.

RESULTS

SMOPS model used 6 independent pre-transplantation risk factors screened from the training group (chronic liver failure/organ failure scores, fever > 37.6 ℃, ABO blood-type compatibility, arterial lactate level, leukocyte count and re-transplantation). The SMOPS accurately predicted patients' 30-day, 90-day and 365-day mortality following liver transplantation, and its' scores were more accurate than those of the other models. The SMOPS generated four levels of risk: low risk (<10 points), moderate risk (11-20 points), high risk (21-25 points) and futile risk (≥26 points). The survival within all risk levels was not different between MELD=40 and MELD<40. The survival within moderate-, high- or extreme-risk ALF was not different between ALF and non-ALF.

CONCLUSION

The SMOPS model uses pre-transplant risk factors to stratify post-transplant survival and is superior to current models for Chinese population, and has the potential to contribute to improvements in organ-allocation policies.

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.

Predicting post-liver transplant outcomes in patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure using Expert-Augmented Machine Learning

Liver transplantation (LT) is a treatment for acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF), but high post-LT mortality has been reported. Existing post-LT models in ACLF have been limited. We developed an Expert-Augmented Machine Learning (EAML) model to predict post-LT outcomes. We identified ACLF patients who underwent LT in the University of California Health Data Warehouse. We applied the RuleFit machine learning (ML) algorithm to extract rules from decision trees and create intermediate models. We asked human experts to rate the rules generated by RuleFit and incorporated these ratings to generate final EAML models. We identified 1384 ACLF patients. For death at 1 year, areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curve were 0.707 (confidence interval [CI] 0.625-0.793) for EAML and 0.719 (CI 0.640-0.800) for RuleFit. For death at 90 days, areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curve were 0.678 (CI 0.581-0.776) for EAML and 0.707 (CI 0.615-0.800) for RuleFit. In pairwise comparisons, both EAML and RuleFit models outperformed cross-sectional models. Significant discrepancies between experts and ML occurred in rankings of biomarkers used in clinical practice. EAML may serve as a method for ML-guided hypothesis generation in further ACLF research.

Prognostic Models in Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is a clinical syndrome characterized by severe hepatic dysfunction leading to multiorgan failure in patients with end-stage liver disease. ACLF is a challenging clinical syndrome with a rapid clinical course and high short-term mortality. There is no single uniform definition of ACLF or consensus in predicting ACLF-related outcomes, which makes comparing studies difficult and standardizing management protocols challenging. This review aims to provide insights into the common prognostic models that define and grade ACLF.

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.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

AREAS COVERED

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

EXPERT OPINION

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

Extracorporeal blood purification in patients with liver failure: Considerations for the low-and-middle income countries of Latin America

Severe liver failure is common in Low-and-Medium Income Countries (LMIC) and is associated with a high morbidity, mortality and represents an important burden to the healthcare system. In its most severe state, liver failure is a medical emergency, that requires supportive care until either the liver recovers or a liver transplant is performed. Frequently the patient requires intensive support until their liver recovers or they receive a liver transplant. Extracorporeal blood purification techniques can be employed as a strategy for bridging to transplantation or recovery. The most common type of extracorporeal support provided to these patients is kidney replacement therapy (KRT), as acute kidney injury is very common in these patients and KRT devices more readily available. However, because most of the substances that the liver clears are lipophilic and albumin-bound, they are not cleared effectively by KRT. Hence, there has been much effort in developing devices that more closely resemble the clearance function of the liver. This article provides a review of various non-biologic extracorporeal liver support devices that can be used to support these patients, and our perspective keeping in mind the needs and unique challenges present in the LMIC of Latin America.

Risk factors and outcomes of early infection in liver transplant recipients with acute-on-chronic liver failure

OBJECTIVES

Patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) have a high risk of infection after liver transplantation (LT). In this study, we aimed to evaluate the prevalence of early post-LT infection (within one month after LT) in recipients with ACLF, and to compare the survival rate between patients with or without post-LT infection.

METHODS

Patients with ACLF who underwent LT between January 2015 and December 2017 were retrospectively included. Characteristics of the patients, prevalence, site and pathogen of post-LT infection, and its risk factors were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 62 patients with ACLF developed bacterial or fungal infection after LT. The 30-day, 90-day, and 1-year survival rates in the infected group were found to be significantly lower than those in the non-infected group (67.7% vs 98.5%, 64.5% vs 97.7%, and 48.4% vs 95.4%; all P  < 0.001). The most common pathogens involved were carbapenem-resistant gram-negative organisms, including Acinetobacter baumannii, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Acinetobacter lwoffi. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that reoperation and length of intensive care unit stay were independently associated with post-LT infection. In addition, living donor LT and early allograft dysfunction were independently associated with 30-day all-cause mortality, whereas red blood cell transfusion and post-LT infection were independently associated with all-cause 30-day and 90-day mortality after LT.

CONCLUSIONS

Early infection after LT is a major prognostic factor in patients with ACLF. Constant vigilance for the risk factors of early infection after LT is needed for timely diagnosis and prompt intervention.

PRO: Patients With Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure Should Receive Priority on the Liver Transplant Waiting List

Content available: Audio Recording.

Implications and Management of Cirrhosis-Associated Immune Dysfunction Before and After Liver Transplantation

Cirrhosis-associated immune dysfunction (CAID) describes a panacea of innate and adaptive deficits that result from the sequelae of cirrhotic portal hypertension that is similar in its manifestations regardless of etiology of chronic liver injury. CAID is associated with synchronous observations of dysregulated priming of innate immune effector cells that demonstrate a proinflammatory phenotype but are functionally impaired and unable to adequately prevent invading pathogens. CAID is mainly driven by gut-barrier dysfunction and is associated with deficits of microbial compartmentalization and homeostasis that lead to tonic activation, systemic inflammation, and exhaustion of innate-immune cells. CAID leads to a high frequency of bacterial and fungal infections in patients with cirrhosis that are often associated with acute decompensation of chronic liver disease and acute-on-chronic liver failure and carry a high mortality rate. Understanding the deficits of mucosal and systemic immunity in the context of chronic liver disease is essential to improving care for patients with cirrhosis, preventing precipitants of acute decompensation of cirrhosis, and improving morbidity and survival. In this review, we summarize the detailed dynamic immunological perturbations associated with advanced chronic liver disease and highlight the importance of recognizing immune dysregulation as a sequela of cirrhosis. Furthermore, we address the role of screening, prevention, and early treatment of infections in cirrhosis in improving patient outcomes in transplant and nontransplant settings.

Bridging to Allotransplantation-Is Pig Liver Xenotransplantation the Best Option?

In the past 20 y, the number of patients in the United States who died while waiting for a human donor liver totaled >52 000. The median national wait time for patients with acute liver failure and the most urgent liver transplant listing was 7 d in 2018. The need for a clinical "bridge" to allotransplantation is clear. Current options for supporting patients with acute liver failure include artificial liver support devices, extracorporeal liver perfusion, and hepatocyte transplantation, all of which have shown mixed results with regard to survival benefit and are largely experimental. Progress in the transplantation of genetically engineered pig liver grafts in nonhuman primates has grown steadily, with survival of the pig graft extended to almost 1 mo in 2017. Further advances may justify consideration of a pig liver transplant as a clinical bridge to allotransplantation. We provide a brief history of pig liver xenotransplantation, summarize the most recent progress in pig-to-nonhuman primate liver transplantation models, and suggest criteria that may be considered for patient selection for a clinical trial of bridging by genetically engineered pig liver xenotransplantation to liver allotransplantation.

Acute on Chronic Liver Failure: Factors Associated With Transplantation

Acute on chronic liver failure (ACLF) carries a poor prognosis unless liver transplantation is offered. We present risk factors associated with proceeding with liver transplantation in patients with ACLF.

'First week' is the crucial period for deciding living donor liver transplantation in patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is a rapidly progressive illness with high short-term mortality. Timely liver transplant (LT) may improve survival. We evaluated various indices for assessment of the severity of liver failure and their application for eligibility and timing of living donor LT (LDLT).

METHODS

Altogether 1021 patients were analyzed for the severity and organ failure at admission to determine transplant eligibility and 28 day survival with or without transplant.

RESULTS

The ACLF cohort [mean age 44 ± 12.2 years, males 81%) was of sick patients; 55% willing for LT at admission, though 63% of them were ineligible due to sepsis or organ failure. On day 4, recovery in sepsis and/or organ failure led to an improvement in transplant eligibility from 37% at baseline to 63.7%. Delay in LT up to 7 days led to a higher incidence of multiorgan failure (p < 0.01) contributing to 23% of the first week and 55% of all-cause 28-day mortality. In a matched cohort analysis, the actuarial survival with LT (n = 41) and conditional survival in the absence of transplant (n = 191) were comparable, when the condition, i.e., transplant was adjusted. The comparison curve showed differentiation in survival beyond 7 days (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

ACLF is a rapidly progressive disease and risk stratification within the first week of hospitalization is needed. 'Emergent LT' should be defined in the first week in the ACLF patients; the transplant window for improving survival in a live donor setting.

Liver Transplantation in Patients with Acute-onChronic Liver Failure: Challenging the Limits

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is one of the main causes of death on the waiting list. Liver transplantation (LT) is the only curative treatment for patients with ACLF and therefore it should be considered in all cases. However, the applicability of LT in patients with ACLF is challenging, given the scarcity of donors and the high short-term mortality of these patients. Organ allocation has traditionally been prioritised according to the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) system. However, the accuracy of MELD score is limited in patients with ACLF. In this article, the authors review the outcomes of patients with ACLF before and after LT, highlighting its clinical course, the feasibility of LT in the sickest patients, the role of the organ allocation system, and possible indicators of futility.

Predictors and outcome of emergent Liver transplantation for patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Controversy exists over whether emergent liver transplantation (LT) should be performed for patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF), especially for patients with multiple organ failure.

METHODS

A total of 110 ACLF patients, defined by the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) Chronic Liver Failure-Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (CLIF-SOFA) criteria were analyzed. The primary outcome was overall survival after ACLF diagnosis.

RESULTS

During follow-up, 76 patients received LT (59 received deceased-donor LT and 17 patients received living-donor LT). The overall survival was better for patients who received LT than patients who did not (82.9% vs. 17.6%, P < 0.001). Among the 76 patients who received LT, the overall survival was not different according to ACLF grade at diagnosis (70.0%, 85.3%, and 84.4% at one-year for ACLF grades 1, 2, and 3, respectively, P = 0.45). The baseline model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score and progression of the ACLF grade during the pre-transplant period were independent factors for survival after LT. The one-year survival rate was 92.3% for patients with baseline MELD scores of ≤ 32 without ACLF grade progression, whereas it was 33.3% for those with baseline MELD scores of > 32 and ACLF grade progression.

CONCLUSIONS

Emergent LT provided a significant survival benefit to ACLF patients, regardless of the baseline ACLF grade. Post-LT outcomes were associated with baseline MELD scores and ACLF progression during the pre-transplant period, which might be used in the emergent LT plan for patients presenting with ACLF.

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

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

Acute-on-chronic liver failure in liver transplant candidates with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) has become the most common liver disease worldwide. It is expected that non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), NASH-related cirrhosis and its decompensated forms will increase further in the next two decades. Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is a distinct syndrome characterized by rapid deterioration of liver function in patients with chronic liver disease that is associated with development of one or more organ failures, and carries a very high short-term mortality. There is a paucity of data on ACLF in patients with NASH cirrhosis. Recent studies have shown that although ACLF incidence due to NASH is lower when compared to other etiologies, NASH is the fastest growing liver disease etiology among all ACLF hospitalizations. Higher rates of infections, as a precipitating factor, and circulatory failure were noted in this population. Metabolic derangements such as obesity and diabetes might also play a confounding role in the pathophysiology, clinical course, and prognosis of NASH patients with ACLF. Patients with ACLF due to NASH have shown a lower inpatient mortality despite a longer hospital length-of-stay and a higher 28- and 90-day mortality. Patients with ACLF should be promptly transferred to a transplant center and evaluated for liver transplantation (LT). Optimal prognostic scores, timing of LT, and the best bridge to LT therapy and treatment of post-LT complications need to be elucidated in prospective studies.

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

Background

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

Material/Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Effect of the clinical course of acute-on-chronic liver failure prior to liver transplantation on post-transplant survival

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) can be listed for liver transplantation (LT) because LT is the only curative treatment option. We evaluated whether the clinical course of ACLF, particularly ACLF-3, between the time of listing and LT affects 1-year post-transplant survival.

METHODS

We identified patients from the United Network for Organ Sharing database who were transplanted within 28 days of listing and categorized them by ACLF grade at waitlist registration and LT, according to the EASL-CLIF definition.

RESULTS

A total of 3,636 patients listed with ACLF-3 underwent LT within 28 days. Among those transplanted, 892 (24.5%) recovered to no ACLF or ACLF grade 1 or 2 (ACLF 0-2) and 2,744 (75.5%) had ACLF-3 at transplantation. One-year survival was 82.0% among those transplanted with ACLF-3 vs. 88.2% among those improving to ACLF 0-2 (p <0.001). Conversely, the survival of patients listed with ACLF 0-2 who progressed to ACLF-3 at LT (n = 2,265) was significantly lower than that of recipients who remained at ACLF 0-2 (n = 17,631) at the time of LT (83.8% vs. 90.2%, p <0.001). Cox modeling demonstrated that recovery from ACLF-3 to ACLF 0-2 at LT was associated with reduced 1-year mortality after transplantation (hazard ratio0.65; 95% CI 0.53-0.78). Improvement in circulatory failure, brain failure, and removal from mechanical ventilation were also associated with reduced post-LT mortality. Among patients >60 years of age, 1-year survival was significantly higher among those who improved from ACLF-3 to ACLF 0-2 than among those who did not.

CONCLUSIONS

Improvement from ACLF-3 at listing to ACLF 0-2 at transplantation enhances post-LT survival, particularly in those who recovered from circulatory or brain failure, or were removed from the mechanical ventilator. The beneficial effect of improved ACLF on post-LT survival was also observed among patients >60 years of age.

LAY SUMMARY

Liver transplantation (LT) for patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure grade 3 (ACLF-3) significantly improves survival, but 1-year survival probability after LT remains lower than the expected outcomes for transplant centers. Our study reveals that among patients transplanted within 28 days of waitlist registration, improvement of ACLF-3 at listing to a lower grade of ACLF at transplantation significantly enhances post-transplant survival, even among patients aged 60 years or older. Subgroup analysis further demonstrates that improvement in circulatory failure, brain failure, or removal from mechanical ventilation have the strongest impact on post-transplant survival.

The North American Consortium for the Study of End-Stage Liver Disease-Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure Score Accurately Predicts Survival: An External Validation Using a National Cohort

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) carries high short-term mortality. The North American Consortium for the Study of End-Stage Liver Disease (NACSELD)-ACLF score, positive if ≥2 organ failures are present, is a bedside tool that predicts short-term mortality in patients with cirrhosis. However, it was created using major liver referral centers, where a minority of patients with cirrhosis are hospitalized. Therefore, this study used the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, a nationally representative database, from 2005 to 2014 to externally validate the NACSELD-ACLF score in a cohort of patients with decompensated cirrhosis who were identified by a validated algorithm. Organ failures were identified using diagnosis codes. The primary objective was to evaluate the association between the NACSELD-ACLF score and inpatient mortality, whereas secondary objectives compared outcomes depending on presence of infection or hospitalization at a transplant center. Multivariate logistic regression was used to compare outcomes, and area under the curve was calculated. There were 1,523,478 discharges that were included with 106,634 (7.0%) having a positive NACSELD-ACLF score. Patients were a mean 58 years old, and a majority were white men. Infection was present in 33.7% of the sample. Inpatient survival decreased with each organ failure and if infection was present. Patients with the NACSELD-ACLF score had significantly lower inpatient survival on crude (94% versus 48%; P < 0.001) and multivariate analysis (odds ratio [OR], 0.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.07-0.08) and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.77 (95% CI, 0.77-0.78). Liver transplant centers had clinically similar but significantly better survival at each organ failure, in patients with the NACSELD-ACLF score, and on multivariate analysis (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.13-1.22). Using a national cohort, our study validated the NACSELD-ACLF score as an excellent, simple bedside tool to predict short-term survival in patients with decompensated cirrhosis.

Impact of acute-on-chronic liver failure on post-transplant survival and on kidney outcomes

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to evaluate the effect of acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) on patients' 1-year post-liver transplant (LT) survival. In addition, we evaluated the effect of ACLF on the development of post-LT chronic kidney disease (CKD) and early allograft dysfunction (EAD).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort of patients who underwent transplantation from 2010 to 2016 was studied. EASL-CLIF's definition of ACLF was used. The risk of post-LT death, CKD, and EAD was estimated with regression models weighted by inverse probability weighting considering the recipients' characteristics. Donor's BMI and donor risk index were included in the models as well.

RESULTS

A total of 185 patients were included: 125 (67.6%) without ACLF and 60 (32.4%) with ACLF. The 1-year post-LT survival rate was 91.2% [95% confidence interval (CI): 84.6-95.1%] in patients without ACLF versus 84.9% (95% CI: 73.1-91.9%) in patients with ACLF. Post-LT CKD occurred in 43 (38.7%) patients without ACLF versus 26 (52.0%) patients with ACLF. EAD occurred in 40 (32.3%) patients without ACLF versus 15 (28.8%) patients with ACLF. No effect of ACLF was found on survival (hazard ratio 1.75; 95% CI: 0.64-4.75, P = 0.272), CKD (odds ratio: 1.31; 95% CI: 0.60-2.86; P = 0.491), or EAD (odds ratio: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.38-1.66, P = 0.473).

CONCLUSION

In this study, which included mainly patients with grade 1 ACLF at the time of LT, its presence had no impact on post-LT survival or on the occurrence of CKD or EAD.

Acute-on-chronic liver failure in patients with alcohol-related liver disease

The spectrum of alcohol-related liver diseases (ALD) includes steatosis, steatohepatitis, progressive liver fibrosis, and cirrhosis. Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is a recently defined entity that occurs in patients with chronic liver diseases and is characterised by acute decompensation, organ failures and a high risk of short-term mortality. Active alcohol consumption, alcoholic hepatitis and bacterial infections are the most frequent events precipitating the development of ACLF in the context of ALD (ALD-ACLF). The specific management of this entity remains unknown and the place of salvage liver transplantation controversial. This overview details the current knowledge on specific aspects of epidemiology, pathophysiology, prognosis and management of ALD-ACLF.

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

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

Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure: Getting Ready for Prime Time?

Acute on chronic liver failure (ACLF) is the culmination of chronic liver disease and extrahepatic organ failures, which is associated with a high short-term mortality and immense health care expenditure. There are varying definitions for organ failures and ACLF in Europe, North America, and Asia. These differing definitions need to be reconciled to enhance progress in the field. The pathogenesis of ACLF is multifactorial and related to interactions between the immunoinflammatory system, microbiota, and the various precipitating factors. Individual organ failures related to the kidney, brain, lungs, and circulation have cumulative adverse effects on mortality and are often complicated or precipitated by infections. Strategies to prevent and rapidly treat these organ failures are paramount in improving survival. With the aging population and paucity of organs for liver transplant, the prognosis of ACLF patients is poor, highlighting the need for novel therapeutic strategies. The role of liver transplant in ACLF is evolving and needs further investigation across large consortia. A role for early palliative care and management of frailty as approaches to alleviate disease burden and improve patient-reported outcomes is being increasingly recognized.

CONCLUSION

ACLF is a clinically relevant syndrome that is epidemic worldwide and requires a dedicated multinational approach focused on prognostication and management; investigations are underway worldwide to prepare ACLF for prime time. (Hepatology 2018; 00:000-000).

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

BACKGROUND & AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Liver Transplantation for Acute on Chronic Liver Failure

BACKGROUND

Acute-on chronic liver failure (ACLF) is defined as acute insult on previous liver disease that causes sudden worsening of liver functions.

METHODS

ACLF is characterized by high incidence of organ failure and prognosis is remarkably worse than patients with cirrhosis. Incidence of organ failures is very high despite best medical care and timely liver transplant before development of multi organ failure is associated with good survival rates.

RESULTS

At present, there are no reliable score or ways to correctly identify patients who are going to recover from patients who will need transplantation. Organ failures are important part of prognosis and to define need or futility of early liver transplantation.

CONCLUSION

Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL) published their recommendations regarding ACLF in 2014. Several important studies regarding course/nature of disease and transplantation for ACLF became available after 2014 APASL recommendations and still there are some unanswered areas. The current review discusses various issues regarding liver transplantation in patients with ACLF.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Risk Assessment in High- and Low-MELD Liver Transplantation

Allocation of liver grafts triggers emotional debates, as those patients, not receiving an organ, are prone to death. We analyzed a high-Model of End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) cohort (laboratory MELD score ≥30, n = 100, median laboratory MELD score of 35; interquartile range 31-37) of liver transplant recipients at our center during the past 10 years and compared results with a low-MELD group, matched by propensity scoring for donor age, recipient age, and cold ischemia time. End points of our study were cumulative posttransplantation morbidity, cost, and survival. Six different prediction models, including donor age x recipient MELD (D-MELD), Difference between listing MELD and MELD at transplant (Delta MELD), donor-risk index (DRI), Survival Outcomes Following Liver Transplant (SOFT), balance-of-risk (BAR), and University of California Los Angeles-Futility Risk Score (UCLA-FRS), were applied in both cohorts to identify risk for poor outcome and high cost. All score models were compared with a clinical-oriented decision, based on the combination of hemofiltration plus ventilation. Median intensive care unit and hospital stays were 8 and 26 days, respectively, after liver transplantation of high-MELD patients, with a significantly increased morbidity compared with low-MELD patients (median comprehensive complication index 56 vs. 36 points [maximum points 100] and double cost [median US$179 631 vs. US$80 229]). Five-year survival, however, was only 8% less than that of low-MELD patients (70% vs. 78%). Most prediction scores showed disappointing low positive predictive values for posttransplantation mortality, such as mortality above thresholds, despite good specificity. The clinical observation of hemofiltration plus ventilation in high-MELD patients was even superior in this respect compared with D-MELD, DRI, Delta MELD, and UCLA-FRS but inferior to SOFT and BAR models. Of all models tested, only the BAR score was linearly associated with complications. In conclusion, the BAR score was most useful for risk classification in liver transplantation, based on expected posttransplantation mortality and morbidity. Difficult decisions to accept liver grafts in high-risk recipients may thus be guided by additional BAR score calculation, to increase the safe use of scarce organs.

New concepts in acute-on-chronic liver failure: Implications for liver transplantation

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is a recently defined syndrome that occurs frequently in patients with cirrhosis and is associated with a poor short-term prognosis. Currently, management of patients with ACLF is mainly supportive. Despite medical progress, this syndrome frequently leads to multiorgan failure, sepsis, and, ultimately, death. The results of attempts to use liver transplantation (LT) to manage this critical condition have been poorly reported but are promising. Currently, selection criteria of ACLF patients for LT, instructions for prioritization on the waiting list, and objective indicators for removal of ACLF patients from the waiting list in cases of clinical deterioration are poorly defined. Before potential changes can be implemented into decisional algorithms, their effects, either on the benefits to individual patients or on global transplant outcomes, should be carefully evaluated using objective longterm endpoints that take into account ethical considerations concerning LT. Liver Transplantation 23 234-243 2017 AASLD.

Extracorporeal liver support devices for listed patients

An alternative to liver transplantation for patients with liver failure remains an unmet need. In acute liver failure, the ideal extracorporeal liver support device (ELSD) would replace the functions of the failing liver in order to permit spontaneous recovery, given the incredible regenerative potential of the liver, negating the need for transplantation. In acute-on-chronic liver failure, an ELSD would ideally support hepatic function until a recovery to liver function before acute decompensation or until liver transplantation. In decompensated cirrhosis, an ELSD could again be used to support hepatic function until transplant. In addition, ELSDs may have the potential to treat the multiorgan failure that accompanies liver failure including hepatic encephalopathy, renal failure, and immune dysfunction or indeed potential to promote liver regeneration. Creation of an extracorporeal bioartificial liver able to completely replace liver function remains an unmet need. This review will describe a number of technologies suitable for clinical trials in humans, which have resulted from decades of engineering and biological research to develop a bioreactor able to adequately sustain functional hepatocytes. In addition, this review will describe artificial liver support devices that are primarily designed to replace the detoxifying functions of the liver and will consider the current data available or studies required to support their use in liver failure patients on the transplant waiting list. Liver Transplantation 22 839-848 2016 AASLD.

Should We Exclude Live Donor Liver Transplantation for Liver Transplant Recipients Requiring Mechanical Ventilation and Intensive Care Unit Care?

Patients with acute and chronic liver disease often require admission to intensive care unit (ICU) and mechanical ventilation support before liver transplantation (LT). Rapid disease progression and high mortality on LT waiting lists makes live donor LT (LDLT) an attractive option for this patient population.

Liver transplantation in acute-on-chronic liver failure: lessons learnt from acute liver failure setting

Acute-on-chronic liver failure is a clinical entity with high risk of mortality. These patients can have severe liver dysfunction complicated with multiple organ failure. Liver transplantation is the definitive treatment for these patients. Literature regarding management of acute liver failure with special emphasis on liver transplantation was reviewed. Lessons learnt from the management of patients with acute liver failure which could be extrapolated to the management of patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure are discussed. Significant improvement in outcomes of acute liver failure has been reported across the world. Several aspects in transplantation for acute liver failure were found to be relevant to the management of acute-on-chronic liver failure. These include defining criteria to identify patients needing early liver transplantation, prioritizing patients with acute liver failure on the waiting list, defining when to abandon transplantation in acute liver failure, emphasis on graft quality and the need for a multi-disciplinary approach to manage multiple organ dysfunction. Useful lessons can be learnt from the progress made in the management of acute liver failure and these can be extrapolated to the management of patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure.

Prognostic scores for cirrhotic patients admitted to an intensive care unit: which consequences for liver transplantation?

Mortality is increased in cirrhotic patients admitted in ICU whatever the admission reason. Prognosis scores assessed in critically ill cirrhotic patients in ICU can be classified in three main categories: liver-specific (CTP and MELD) scores, general (SAPS II and APACHE) scores, and organ failure (OSF and SOFA) scores. The components of the liver-specific scores can be influenced by the acute disease indicating the admission to ICU but those of the non liver-specific scores can be influenced by the underlying liver cirrhosis. Many studies reported that organ failure scores are the best predictors of outcome in cirrhotic patients in ICU. We may wonder if cirrhotic patients with acute organ failures should receive prioritization for organ allocation to save their life or should be denied for a potential futile LT. According to recent studies, the SOFA score is associated with a higher risk of death for patients waiting for LT but could not be associated with a worse outcome after LT. It becomes of paramount importance to correctly identify the cirrhotic patients who will maximally benefit from LT after admission to ICU. The EASL-CLIF Consortium defines the CLIF-SOFA score, redefining the SOFA score with cut-off levels based on mortality prediction. The CLIF-SOFA could represent the ideal score in ICU since it is based on organ failures with cut-off values specifically identified in cirrhotic patients. The validation of the CLIF-SOFA score in critically ill cirrhotic patients admitted to ICU and its usefulness to identify patients who could benefit from LT should be the next steps.

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

Introduction

Critically ill cirrhosis patients awaiting liver transplantation (LT) often receive prioritization for organ allocation. Identification of patients most likely to benefit is essential. The purpose of this study was to examine whether the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score can predict 90-day mortality in critically ill recipients of LT and whether it can predict receipt of LT among critically ill cirrhosis listed awaiting LT.

Methods

We performed a multicenter retrospective cohort study consisting of two datasets: (a) all critically-ill cirrhosis patients requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission before LT at five transplant centers in Canada from 2000 through 2009 (one site, 1990 through 2009), and (b) critically ill cirrhosis patients receiving LT from ICU (n = 115) and those listed but not receiving LT before death (n = 106) from two centers where complete data were available.

Results

In the first dataset, 198 critically ill cirrhosis patients receiving LT (mean (SD) age 53 (10) years, 66% male, median (IQR) model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) 34 (26-39)) were included. Mean (SD) SOFA scores at ICU admission, at 48 hours, and at LT were 12.5 (4), 13.0 (5), and 14.0 (4). Survival at 90 days was 84% (n = 166). In multivariable analysis, only older age was independently associated with reduced 90-day survival (odds ratio (OR), 1.07; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.14; P = 0.013). SOFA score did not predict 90-day mortality at any time. In the second dataset, 47.9% (n = 106) of cirrhosis patients listed for LT died in the ICU waiting for LT. In multivariable analysis, higher SOFA at 48 hours after admission was independently associated with lower probability of receiving LT (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.82 to 0.97; P = 0.006). When including serum lactate and SOFA at 48 hours in the final model, elevated lactate (at 48 hours) was also significantly associated with lower likelihood of receiving LT (0.32; 0.17 to 0.61; P = 0.001).

Conclusions

SOFA appears poor at predicting 90-day survival in critically ill cirrhosis patients after LT, but higher SOFA score and elevated lactate 48 hours after ICU admission are associated with a lower probability receiving LT. Older critically ill cirrhosis patients (older than 60) receiving LT have worse 90-day survival and should be considered for LT with caution.

Outcomes following liver transplantation in intensive care unit patients

AIM

To determine feasibility of liver transplantation in patients from the intensive care unit (ICU) by estimating graft and patient survival.

METHODS

This single center retrospective study included 39 patients who had their first liver transplant directly from the intensive care unit and 927 non-ICU patients who were transplanted from hospital ward or home between January 2005 and December 2010.

RESULTS

In comparison to non-ICU patients, ICU patients had a higher model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) at transplant (median: 37 vs 20, P < 0.001). Fourteen out of 39 patients (36%) required vasopressor support immediately prior to liver transplantation (LT) with 6 patients (15%) requiring both vasopressin and norepinephrine. Sixteen ICU patients (41%) were ventilator dependent immediately prior to LT with 9 patients undergoing percutaneous tracheostomy prior to transplantation. Twenty-five ICU patients (64%) required dialysis preoperatively. At 1, 3 and 5 years after LT, graft survival was 76%, 68% and 62% in ICU patients vs 90%, 81% and 75% in non-ICU patients. Patient survival at 1, 3 and 5 years after LT was 78%, 70% and 65% in ICU patients vs 94%, 85% and 79% in non-ICU patients. When formally comparing graft survival and patient survival between ICU and non-ICU patients using Cox proportional hazards regression models, both graft survival [relative risk (RR): 1.94, 95%CI: 1.09-3.48, P = 0.026] and patient survival (RR: 2.32, 95%CI: 1.26-4.27, P = 0.007) were lower in ICU patients vs non-ICU patients in single variable analysis. These findings were consistent in multivariable analysis. Although not statistically significant, graft survival was worse in both patients with cryptogenic cirrhosis (RR: 3.29, P = 0.056) and patients who received donor after cardiac death (DCD) grafts (RR: 3.38, P = 0.060). These findings reached statistical significance when considering patient survival, which was worse for patients with cryptogenic cirrhosis (RR: 3.97, P = 0.031) and patients who were transplanted with DCD livers (RR: 4.19, P = 0.033). Graft survival and patient survival were not significantly worse for patients on mechanical ventilation (RR: 0.91, P = 0.88 in graft loss; RR: 0.69, P = 0.56 in death) or patients on vasopressors (RR: 1.06, P = 0.93 in graft loss; RR: 1.24, P = 0.74 in death) immediately prior to LT. Trends toward lower graft survival and patient survival were observed for patients on dialysis immediately before LT, however these findings did not approach statistical significance (RR: 1.70, P = 0.43 in graft loss; RR: 1.46, P = 0.58 in death).

CONCLUSION

Although ICU patients when compared to non-ICU patients have lower survivals, outcomes are still acceptable. Pre-transplant ventilation, hemodialysis, and vasopressors were not associated with adverse outcomes.

Experience Since MELD Implementation: How Does the New System Deliver?

Because of increasing waiting-list mortality, the MELD (Model for End-Stage Liver Disease) allocation system was implemented within most countries of the Eurotransplant area on December 16, 2006. Five years have now passed, and we review in this paper the effects of the MELD-based allocation upon the waiting list for liver transplantation, on peri-operative management and on postoperative outcome. Giving priority to sicker patients on the waiting list has resulted in a significant increase in mean MELD score at the time of organ allocation. Consequently, there has also been a significant reduction in waiting-list mortality. However, in Germany a worsening in postoperative outcome, mainly in the group of high-MELD recipients (≥30 points), has been reported. This paper presents comprehensive results following liver transplantation within the MELD era. Especially for the group of high-risk recipients, risk factors for impaired survival are presented and discussed.