Experience of Combined Liver-Kidney Transplantation for Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure Patients With Renal Dysfunction

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.

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.

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.

Liver transplantation in patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is a dynamic syndrome associated with a very high short-term mortality. Hence, the ongoing assessment of treatment response, an expedited liver transplant evaluation and listing, and the determination of futility of treatment are critical for optimal outcomes. In this review, we appraise our current understanding of the timing and futility of liver transplantation, and the short- and long-term outcomes including the quality of life after deceased or live donor liver transplantation in those with ACLF.

A comparison between combined liver kidney transplants to liver transplants alone: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Since the introduction of the Model for End-stage Liver disease criteria in 2002, more combined liver kidney transplants are performed. Until 2017, no standard allocation policy for combined liver kidney transplant (CLKT) was available and each transplant center decided eligibility for CLKT or liver transplant alone (LTA) on a case-by-case basis. The aim of this systematic review was to compare the clinical outcomes of CLKT compared to LTA in patients with renal dysfunction.

METHODS

Databases were systematically searched for studies published between January 2010 and March 2021. Outcomes were expressed as risk ratios and pooled with a random-effects model. The primary outcome was patient survival.

RESULTS

Four studies were included. No differences were observed for mortality risk at 1 year (risk ratio (RR) 1.03 [confidence interval (CI) 0.97-1.09], 3 years (RR 1.06 [CI 0.99-1.13]) and 5 years (RR 1.08 [CI 0.98-1.19]). The risk of graft loss was similar in the first year (RR 1.10 [CI 0.93-1.30], while 3-year risk of graft loss was significantly lower in CLKT patients (RR 1.15 [CI 1.08-1.24]).

CONCLUSIONS

CLKT has similar short-term graft and patient survival as LTA in patients with renal dysfunction. More data is needed to decide from which KDIGO stage patients benefit the most from CLKT.

INASL-ISN Joint Position Statements on Management of Patients with Simultaneous Liver and Kidney Disease

Renal dysfunction is very common among patients with chronic liver disease, and concomitant liver disease can occur among patients with chronic kidney disease. The spectrum of clinical presentation and underlying etiology is wide when concomitant kidney and liver disease occur in the same patient. Management of these patients with dual onslaught is challenging and requires a team approach of hepatologists and nephrologists. No recent guidelines exist on algorithmic approach toward diagnosis and management of these challenging patients. The Indian National Association for Study of Liver (INASL) in association with Indian Society of Nephrology (ISN) endeavored to develop joint guidelines on diagnosis and management of patients who have simultaneous liver and kidney disease. For generating these guidelines, an INASL-ISN Taskforce was constituted, which had members from both the societies. The taskforce first identified contentious issues on various aspects of simultaneous liver and kidney diseases, which were allotted to individual members of the taskforce who reviewed them in detail. A round-table meeting of the Taskforce was held on 20-21 October 2018 at New Delhi to discuss, debate, and finalize the consensus statements. The evidence and recommendations in these guidelines have been graded according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system with minor modifications. The strength of recommendations (strong and weak) thus reflects the quality (grade) of underlying evidence (I, II, III). We present here the INASL-ISN Joint Position Statements on Management of Patients with Simultaneous Liver and Kidney Disease.

Masked acute rejection of the graft kidney under the recovery of native kidneys in a patient who underwent simultaneous liver and kidney transplantation

INTRODUCTION

Simultaneous liver and kidney transplantation is a life-saving procedure for patients with liver failure and irreversible renal dysfunction. However, some studies have reported the recovery of native renal function after simultaneous liver and kidney transplantation.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 33-year-old woman initially underwent living-donor liver transplantation for liver failure. When graft liver failure developed, she also sustained acute renal failure and required continuous hemodiafiltration for 6 weeks. Simultaneous liver and kidney transplantation from a brain-dead donor recovered her liver and renal function. A 1-year protocol graft kidney biopsy revealed acute cellular rejection despite stable serum creatinine levels. Renal scintigraphy showed functional native kidneys masking acute rejection of the graft kidney. The rejection was improved by pulse steroid therapy.

CONCLUSION

Acute rejection of the graft kidney may silently progress due to recovery of the native kidney function after simultaneous liver and kidney transplantation. Renal scintigraphy and graft kidney biopsy should be considered even if blood tests indicate stable total renal function.

Acute-on-chronic liver failure: consensus recommendations of the Asian Pacific association for the study of the liver (APASL): an update

The first consensus report of the working party of the Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL) set up in 2004 on acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) was published in 2009. With international groups volunteering to join, the "APASL ACLF Research Consortium (AARC)" was formed in 2012, which continued to collect prospective ACLF patient data. Based on the prospective data analysis of nearly 1400 patients, the AARC consensus was published in 2014. In the past nearly four-and-a-half years, the AARC database has been enriched to about 5200 cases by major hepatology centers across Asia. The data published during the interim period were carefully analyzed and areas of contention and new developments in the field of ACLF were prioritized in a systematic manner. The AARC database was also approached for answering some of the issues where published data were limited, such as liver failure grading, its impact on the 'Golden Therapeutic Window', extrahepatic organ dysfunction and failure, development of sepsis, distinctive features of acute decompensation from ACLF and pediatric ACLF and the issues were analyzed. These initiatives concluded in a two-day meeting in October 2018 at New Delhi with finalization of the new AARC consensus. Only those statements, which were based on evidence using the Grade System and were unanimously recommended, were accepted. Finalized statements were again circulated to all the experts and subsequently presented at the AARC investigators meeting at the AASLD in November 2018. The suggestions from the experts were used to revise and finalize the consensus. After detailed deliberations and data analysis, the original definition of ACLF was found to withstand the test of time and be able to identify a homogenous group of patients presenting with liver failure. New management options including the algorithms for the management of coagulation disorders, renal replacement therapy, sepsis, variceal bleed, antivirals and criteria for liver transplantation for ACLF patients were proposed. The final consensus statements along with the relevant background information and areas requiring future studies are presented here.

Acute kidney injury in children with chronic liver disease

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common accompaniment in patients with liver disease. The causes, risk factors, manifestations and management of AKI in these patients vary according to the liver disease in question (acute liver failure, acute-on-chronic liver failure, post-liver transplantation or metabolic liver disease). There are multiple causes of AKI in patients with liver disease-pre-renal, acute tubular necrosis, post-renal, drug-induced renal failure and hepatorenal syndrome (HRS). Definitions of AKI in liver failure are periodically revised and updated, but pediatric definitions have still to see the light of the day. As our understanding of the pathophysiology of liver disease and renal involvement improves, treatment modalities have become more advanced and rationalized. Treatment includes reversing precipitating factors, such as infections and gastrointestinal bleeding, volume expansion, paracentesis and vasoconstrictors. This approach is tried and tested in adults. A pediatric tailored approach is still lacking due to inadequate numbers of patients, differences in causes of AKI and paucity of literature. In this review, we attempt to explore the pathophysiological basis, treatment modalities and controversies in the diagnosis and treatment of AKI in pediatric patients with chronic liver disease and discuss our own personal practice. We recognize that, although it is not a very commonly encountered entity in pediatric population, HRS has specific diagnostic criteria and treatment modalities that differ from other causes of AKI in patients with chronic liver disease; hence among the etiologies of kidney injury in patients with chronic liver disease, we focus here on HRS.

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

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Multiple organ failures (OFs) are common in patients with cirrhosis, but the independent effect of the number or type of OFs on liver transplantation (LT) outcomes is not well defined.

METHOD

United Network for Organ Sharing data were analyzed from 2002 to 2016 for all adults listed for LT who received an LT within 30 days after listing. We estimated post-LT survival stratified by number and type of pre-transplant OFs before and after adjusting for confounding variables.

RESULTS

During the study period, 4,714 (4.1%) patients died and 19,375 (16.6%) patients were transplanted within 30 days of listing. One or more OF were more common in those who were transplanted (57.4%) compared to those without LT (9.5%). The probability of staying alive more than 30 days on the waiting list without LT decreased with increasing number of OFs; while 90% were alive without OF, only 20% were alive with two OFs, and 2-8% with three or more OFs. The interval between listing and transplantation decreased with an increase in OFs, and the median time to transplant after listing was only 4-5 days with three or more OFs. Although the risk of post-LT mortality increased with increasing number of OFs, the 90-day patient survival was 90% and one-year survival was 81% in the presence of 5-6 OFs. The number of OFs was an independent predictor of survival, but the maximum difference in one-year graft or patient survival between those without OF and those with 5-6 OFs was only 9%. Additionally, the type of OF had minimal impact on outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Liver transplantation is feasible with excellent outcomes, even in the presence of five or six OFs.

LAY SUMMARY

Multiple organ failures, ranging from 1-6, are common in hospitalized patients with cirrhosis. The survival without liver transplant is dismal in the presence of three or more organ failures. Small retrospective studies have shown that liver transplant is feasible with good outcomes even in the presence of multiple organ failures. In this study, using a large national dataset, we show that survival chances for more than 30 days in those with three or more organ failures are less than 8%. However, if a liver transplant is performed quickly, the survival chances are very high with one-year survival ranging from 84% with three organ failures to 81% with 5-6 organ failures.

Clinical Outcomes after Liver Transplantation for Hepatorenal Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

AIMS

Hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) decreases survival of cirrhotic patients. The outcomes of HRS after liver transplantation (LT) were inconsistently reported. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis study to estimate the post-LT rates of death and HRS reversal.

METHODS

A thorough search of literatures was performed on PubMed, Scopus, and conference abstracts for reports on post-LT survival and HRS reversal. Data for the posttransplant rates of HRS reversal, death, and acute rejection were extracted. The rates were pooled using inverse variance method if there was no heterogeneity between studies. Otherwise, the random effect model was applied.

RESULTS

Twenty studies were included. Pooling HRS reversal rates indicated high heterogeneity with a pooled rate of 0.834 (95% CI: 0.709-0.933). The pooled overall death rates for HRS and non-HRS after LT were 0.25 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.18-0.33) and 0.19 (95% CI: 0.14-0.26). The risk ratio of death between HRS and non-HRS patients was 1.29 (95% CI: 1.14-1.47, P < 0.001). The probability of death at 1, 3, and 5 years tended to be higher among HRS.

CONCLUSIONS

HRS is reversible in about 83% of patients after LT. However, the posttransplant mortality rate of HRS patients is still increased.

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.

Acute kidney injury in acute-on-chronic liver failure: where does hepatorenal syndrome fit?

Renal dysfunction occurs in 25% to 50% of patients with cirrhosis admitted to the hospital with an acute episode of hepatic decompensation and may be due to underlying chronic kidney disease, an acute deterioration, or both. An acute deterioration in renal function in cirrhotic patients is now collectively referred to as acute kidney injury (AKI), which has been subclassified into different grades of severity that identify prognostic groups. Acute-on-chronic liver failure is characterized by acute hepatic and/or extrahepatic organ failure driven by a dysregulated immune response and systemic inflammatory response. AKI is also one of the defining features of ACLF and a major component in grading the severity of acute-on-chronic liver failure. As such, the pattern of AKI now observed in patients admitted to the hospital with acutely decompensated liver disease is likely to be one of inflammatory kidney injury including acute tubular injury (referred in this review as non-hepatorenal syndrome [HRS]-AKI) rather than HRS. As the management and supportive treatment of non-HRS-AKI potentially differ from those of HRS, then from the nephrology perspective, it is important to distinguish between non-HRS-AKI and HRS-AKI when reviewing patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure and AKI, so that appropriate and early management can be instituted.

Acute-on-chronic Liver Failure

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is a distinct entity that differs from acute liver failure and decompensated cirrhosis in timing, presence of treatable acute precipitant, and course of disease, with a potential for self-recovery. The core concept is acute deterioration of existing liver function in a patient of chronic liver disease with or without cirrhosis in response to an acute insult. The insult should be a hepatic one and presentation in the form of liver failure (jaundice, encephalopathy, coagulopathy, ascites) with or without extrahepatic organ failure in a defined time frame. ACLF is characterized by a state of deregulated inflammation. Initial cytokine burst presenting as SIRS, progression to CARS and associated immunoparalysis leads to sepsis and multi-organ failure. Early identification of the acute insult and mitigation of the same, use of nucleoside analogue in HBV-ACLF, steroid in severe alcoholic hepatitis, steroid in severe autoimmune hepatitis and/or bridging therapy lead to recovery, with a 90-day transplant-free survival rate of up to 50 %. First-week presentation is crucial concerning SIRS/sepsis, development, multiorgan failure and consideration of transplant. A protocol-based multi-disciplinary approach including critical care hepatology, early liver transplant before multi-organ involvement, or priority for organ allocation may improve the outcome. Presentation with extrahepatic organ involvement or inclusion of sepsis as an acute insult in definition restricts the therapy, i.e., liver transplant or bridging therapy, and needs serious consideration. Augmentation of regeneration, cell-based therapy, immunotherapy, and gut microbiota modulation are the emerging areas and need further research.

Acute-on-chronic liver failure: terminology, mechanisms and management

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is a distinct clinical entity and differs from acute liver failure and decompensated cirrhosis in timing, presence of acute precipitant, course of disease and potential for unaided recovery. The definition involves outlining the acute and chronic insults to include a homogenous patient group with liver failure and an expected outcome in a specific timeframe. The pathophysiology of ACLF relates to persistent inflammation, immune dysregulation with initial wide-spread immune activation, a state of systematic inflammatory response syndrome and subsequent sepsis due to immune paresis. The disease severity and outcome can be predicted by both hepatic and extrahepatic organ failure(s). Clinical recovery is expected with the use of nucleoside analogues for hepatitis B, and steroids for severe alcoholic hepatitis and, possibly, severe autoimmune hepatitis. Artificial liver support systems help remove toxins and metabolites and serve as a bridge therapy before liver transplantation. Hepatic regeneration during ongoing liver failure, although challenging, is possible through the use of growth factors. Liver transplantation remains the definitive treatment with a good outcome. Pre-emptive antiviral agents for hepatitis B before chemotherapy to prevent viral reactivation and caution in using potentially hepatotoxic drugs can prevent the development of ACLF.

Long-Term Outcomes of Simultaneous Liver-Kidney Transplant Patients with Hepatitis B Compared to with Liver Transplant Alone

BACKGROUND

The number and survival rate of simultaneous liver-kidney transplant (SLKT) recipients have increased dramatically since 2002. However, the long-term effectiveness of SLKT in patients with hepatitis B is unknown.

MATERIAL/METHODS

Forty-six patients who visited the Organ Transplant Center of the Shanghai First People's Hospital between January 2001 and May 2005 had hepatitis B virus infection and renal failure (any degree), and underwent organ transplantation: 21 patients underwent SLKT and 25 patients underwent liver transplant (LT) alone.

RESULTS

The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates of SLKT recipients were 90.5%, 81.0%, and 81.0%, respectively. Incidence of acute hepatic allograft rejection between SLKT recipients and LT recipients (33% vs. 16%) did not reach significance (P=0.170). Despite higher infection rate, more prevalent hepatitis B relapse, and longer stay in the intensive care unit, SLKT recipients experienced significantly higher 1-year survival rate (90.5%) compared with LT recipients (60%, P=0.019). Multivariate regression analysis revealed that postoperative renal failure (odds ratio (OR)=48, P=0.003) and Risk/Injury/Failure/Loss/End-stage (RIFLE) stage (OR=8, P=0.012) were independent risk factors for postoperative death after LT.

CONCLUSIONS

SLKT in patients with hepatitis B had higher early-stage infection rate, but had a higher long-term survival rate compared with the LT group. Although the incidence of postoperative hepatitis B relapse in SLKT recipients was higher, timely and reasonable treatment can ensure long-term survival of patients. Worsening RIFLE stage of recipients can predict high mortality when only given LT. SLKT might be a better choice for RIFLE stage 2 or 3 patients than LT alone.

The Clinical Course of Cirrhosis Patients Hospitalized for Acute Hepatic Deterioration: A Prospective Bicentric Study

Patients with cirrhosis are vulnerable to acute hepatic insults and are more likely to develop rapid hepatic deterioration. The aim of this study is to describe the clinical course of patients with cirrhosis and hospitalized for acute hepatic deterioration (AHD).This is a prospective study involving 163 patients with cirrhosis and AHD. The occurrence of organ failures, systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), and infections during hospital stay were recorded and the relationship between organ failure and death or SIRS/infection was subsequently analyzed.Of 163 patients, 35 did not develop any organ failure during in-hospital follow-ups (90-day mortality: 0%); 84 had intrahepatic organ failures (IH-OFs, defined by liver and/or coagulation failure) (90-day mortality: 22.0%); and 44 patients developed extra-hepatic organ failures (EH-OFs, defined by kidney, cerebral, circulation, and respiratory failure) on the basis of IH-OF with a 90-day mortality of 90.9%. On multivariable analysis by a Cox proportion hazard model, age, WBC, presence of IH-OF, and EH-OF all predicted 90-day death. A logistic regression analysis identified SIRS being associated with the development of EH-OF. Furthermore, IH-OF at admission and infections occurred during the hospital stay were shown to be another 2 potential risk factors.The clinical course of cirrhosis patients with acute hepatic injury was characterized by 3 consecutive stages (AHD, IH-OF, and EH-OF), which provided a clear risk stratification. The PIRO criteria provided an accurate frame for prognostication of those patients. The systemic inflammatory response syndrome may be a target for blocking the progression to the EH-OF stage.

Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure

Over the past 2 decades, the concept of acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) has been proposed as an alternate path in the natural history of decompensated cirrhosis. ACLF thus is characterized by the presence of a precipitating event (identified or unidentified) in subjects with underlying chronic liver disease leading to rapid progression of liver injury and ending in multi-organ dysfunction characterized by high short-term mortality. Multiple organ failure and an increased risk for mortality are key to the diagnosis of ACLF. The prevalence of ACLF ranges from 24% to 40% in hospitalized patients. The pathophysiological basis of ACLF can be explained using the following 4-part model: predisposing event, injury caused by a precipitating event, response to injury, and organ failure. Although several mathematic scores have been proposed for identifying outcomes with ACLF, it is as yet unclear whether these organ failure scores are truly prognostic or only reflective of the dying process. Treatment paradigms continue to evolve but consist of early recognition, supportive intensive care, and consideration of liver transplantation before onset of irreversible multiple organ failure.

Liver transplantation in acute on chronic liver failure: challenges and an algorithm for patient selection and management

Acute on chronic liver failure is an entity distinct from acute liver failure and acute decompensation of chronic liver disease. Despite best medical therapy, it is associated with high short-term mortality due to infection and organ failure. Liver transplantation is a potentially curative treatment option that has been shown to have good outcomes in this setting. As there are no reliable ways of predicting which subset of patients will recover spontaneously, early transplantation before establishment of full blown sepsis or organ failure is expected to have favorable outcomes with an acceptable risk. This article reviews current literature on liver transplantation for acute on chronic liver failure, discusses challenges in patient selection, and proposes an algorithm for management.

Outcomes of liver transplantation alone after listing for simultaneous kidney: comparison to simultaneous liver kidney transplantation

BACKGROUND

Data on patient and liver graft survival comparing liver transplantation alone after listing for kidney with simultaneous liver kidney (SLK) transplantation are scanty.

METHODS

United Network Organ Sharing network database (1994-2011) queried for liver transplantation alone after being listed for kidney and SLK transplants.

RESULTS

Of 65,206 first liver transplants, 3549 were listed for simultaneous kidney. Of these, 422 (12%) received only liver (LIST) and differed from SLK recipients for the white race (64% vs. 57%; 0.005), diabetes (27% vs. 37%; P = 0.02), model for end-stage liver disease era (68% vs. 82%; P = 0.0001), serum creatinine (2.9±1.9 vs. 4.3±2.5; P < 0.0001), dialysis (35% vs. 64%; P < 0.0001), and donor risk index (1.6±0.4 vs. 1.5±0.3; P < 0.0001). Overall survival was poorer in the LIST group (55% vs. 76%; P < 0.0001). A higher proportion of patients died within 2 days of transplantation in LIST group (11% vs. 0.5%; P < 0.0001), mostly from cardiovascular causes. After excluding these patients, odds of patient mortality and liver graft loss were about 1.2-fold and twofold higher in the LIST group. A total of 103 (24%) patients needed a renal transplantation in the LIST group with 16 (4%) receiving kidney within first year after transplantation. After excluding patients receiving kidney within first year, about 33% recovered renal function to above estimated GFR of greater than 60 mL per min.

CONCLUSION

Guidelines are needed for patient selection to list for and receipt of simultaneous liver kidney transplantation.

Acute-on-chronic liver failure: consensus recommendations of the Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL) 2014

The first consensus report of the working party of the Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL) set up in 2004 on acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) was published in 2009. Due to the rapid advancements in the knowledge and available information, a consortium of members from countries across Asia Pacific, "APASL ACLF Research Consortium (AARC)," was formed in 2012. A large cohort of retrospective and prospective data of ACLF patients was collated and followed up in this data base. The current ACLF definition was reassessed based on the new AARC data base. These initiatives were concluded on a 2-day meeting in February 2014 at New Delhi and led to the development of the final AARC consensus. Only those statements which were based on the evidence and were unanimously recommended were accepted. These statements were circulated again to all the experts and subsequently presented at the annual conference of the APASL at Brisbane, on March 14, 2014. The suggestions from the delegates were analyzed by the expert panel, and the modifications in the consensus were made. The final consensus and guidelines document was prepared. After detailed deliberations and data analysis, the original proposed definition was found to withstand the test of time and identify a homogenous group of patients presenting with liver failure. Based on the AARC data, liver failure grading, and its impact on the "Golden therapeutic Window," extra-hepatic organ failure and development of sepsis were analyzed. New management options including the algorithms for the management of coagulation disorders, renal replacement therapy, sepsis, variceal bleed, antivirals, and criteria for liver transplantation for ACLF patients were proposed. The final consensus statements along with the relevant background information are presented here.

Acute-on-chronic liver failure

The Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) has been the single best predictor of outcome of the progression of cirrhosis. Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) has been proposed as an alternative path in the natural history of cirrhosis. ACLF occurs in patients with chronic liver disease and is characterized by a precipitating event, resulting in acute deterioration in liver function, multiorgan system failure, and high short-term mortality. In this review, the natural course of patients with ACLF, especially as it relates to management of cirrhotic patients on the transplant waiting list, and its impact on liver transplantation outcomes are defined.