Application of different prognostic scores in liver transplantation decision-making for acute-on-chronic liver failure.
10.3760/cma.j.cn501113-20230202-00031
- VernacularTitle:不同预后评分在慢加急性肝衰竭肝移植决策中的应用
- Author:
Man Man XU
1
;
Yu WU
2
;
Shan Shan LI
1
;
Nan GENG
1
;
Wang LU
1
;
Bin Wei DUAN
3
;
Zhong Ping DUAN
1
;
Guang Ming LI
3
;
Jun LI
4
;
Yu CHEN
1
Author Information
1. Fourth Department of Liver Disease, Beijing Youan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100069 Beijing Municipal Key Laboratory of Liver Failure and Artificial Liver Treatment Research, Beijing 100069.
2. Capital Medical University, Beijing 100069.
3. Department of General Surgery Center, Beijing Youan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100069.
4. The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou 310003, China.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Acute-on-chronic liver failure;
EASL-CLIF C ACLF;
Liver transplantation;
MELD-Na
- MeSH:
Humans;
Acute-On-Chronic Liver Failure;
Prognosis;
Retrospective Studies;
End Stage Liver Disease;
Severity of Illness Index
- From:
Chinese Journal of Hepatology
2023;31(6):574-581
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective: To compare the impact of different prognostic scores in patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) in order to provide treatment guidance for liver transplantation. Methods: The information on inpatients with ACLF admitted at Beijing You'an Hospital Affiliated to Capital Medical University and the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine from January 2015 to October 2022 was collected retrospectively. ACLF patients were divided into liver transplantation and non-liver transplantation groups, and the two groups prognostic conditions were followed-up. Propensity score matching was carried out between the two groups on the basis of liver disease (non-cirrhosis, compensated cirrhosis, and decompensated cirrhosis), the model for end-stage liver disease incorporating serum sodium (MELD-Na), and ACLF classification as matching factors. The prognostic condition of the two groups after matching was compared. The difference in 1-year survival rate between the two groups was analyzed under different ACLF grades and MELD-Na scores. The independent sample t-test or rank sum test was used for inter-group comparison, and the χ (2) test was used for the comparison of count data between groups. Results: In total, 865 ACLF inpatients were collected over the study period. Of these, 291 had liver transplantation and 574 did not. The overall survival rates at 28, 90, and 360 days were 78%, 66%, and 62%, respectively. There were 270 cases of matched ACLF post-liver transplantation and 270 cases without ACLF, in accordance with a ratio of 1:1. At 28, 90, and 360 days, patients with non-liver transplantation had significantly lower survival rates (68%, 53%, and 49%) than patients with liver transplantation (87%, 87%, and 78%, respectively; P < 0.001). Patients were classified into four groups according to the ACLF classification criteria. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed that the survival rates of liver transplantation and non-liver transplantation patients in ACLF grade 0 were 77.2% and 69.4%, respectively, with no statistically significant difference (P = 0.168). The survival rate with an ACLF 1-3 grade was significantly higher in liver transplantation patients than that of non-liver transplantation patients (P < 0.05). Patients with ACLF grades 1, 2, and 3 had higher 1-year survival rates compared to non-liver transplant patients by 50.6%, 43.6%, and 61.7%, respectively. Patients were divided into four groups according to the MELD-Na score. Among the patients with a MELD-Na score of < 25, the 1-year survival rates for liver transplantation and non-liver transplantation were 78.2% and 74.0%, respectively, and the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.149). However, among patients with MELD-Na scores of 25-30, 30-35, and≥35, the survival rate was significantly higher in liver transplantation than that of non-liver transplantation, and the 1-year survival rate increased by 36.4%, 54.9%, and 62.5%, respectively (P < 0.001). Further analysis of the prognosis of patients with different ACLF grades and MELD-Na scores showed that ACLF grades 0 or 1 and MELD-Na score of < 30 had no statistically significant difference in the 1-year survival rate between liver transplantation and non-liver transplantation (P > 0.05), but in patients with MELD-Na score≥30, the 1-year survival rate of liver transplantation was higher than that of non-liver transplantation patients (P < 0.05). In the ACLF grade 0 and MELD-Na score of≥30 group, the 1-year survival rates of liver transplantation and non-liver transplantation patients were 77.8% and 25.0% respectively (P < 0.05); while in the ACLF grade 1 and MELD-Na score of≥30 group, the 1-year survival rates of liver transplantation and non-liver transplantation patients were 100% and 20.0%, respectively (P < 0.01). Among patients with ACLF grade 2, the 1-year survival rate with MELD-Na score of < 25 in patients with liver transplantation was 73.9% and 61.6%, respectively, and the difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05); while in the liver transplantation patients group with MELD-Na score of ≥25, the 1-year survival rate was 79.5%, 80.8%, and 75%, respectively, which was significantly higher than that of non-liver transplantation patients (36.6%, 27.6%, 15.0%) (P < 0.001). Among patients with ACLF grade 3, regardless of the MELD-Na score, the 1-year survival rate was significantly higher in liver transplantation patients than that of non-liver transplantation patients (P < 0.01). Additionally, among patients with non-liver transplantation with an ACLF grade 0~1 and a MELD-Na score of < 30 at admission, 99.4% survived 1 year and still had an ACLF grade 0-1 at discharge, while 70% of deaths progressed to ACLF grade 2-3. Conclusion: Both the MELD-Na score and the EASL-CLIF C ACLF classification are capable of guiding liver transplantation; however, no single model possesses a consistent and precise prediction ability. Therefore, the combined application of the two models is necessary for comprehensive and dynamic evaluation, but the clinical application is relatively complex. A simplified prognostic model and a risk assessment model will be required in the future to improve patient prognosis as well as the effectiveness and efficiency of liver transplantation.
