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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Dynamic evaluation of critically ill patients is the key to predicting their outcomes. Most scores based on the Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) and acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) utilize point-in-time assessment. This study mainly aimed to investigate the impact of dynamic clinical course change on post-liver transplantation (LT) survival. METHODS: This study included 637 adults (overall cohort) with benign end-stage liver diseases. The authors compared the MELD scores and our ACLF-based dynamic evaluation scores. Patients enrolled or transplanted with ACLF-3 were defined as the ACLF-3 cohort (n=158). The primary outcome was 1-year mortality. ΔMELD and ΔCLIF-OF (Chronic Liver Failure-Organ Failure) represented the respective dynamic changes in liver transplant function. Discrimination was assessed using the area under the curve. A Cox regression analysis identified independent risk factors for specific organ failure and 1-year mortality. RESULTS: Patients were grouped into three groups: the deterioration group (D), the stable group (S), and the improvement group (I). The deterioration group (ΔCLIF-OF ≥2) was more likely to receive national liver allocation (P=0.012) but experienced longer cold ischemia time (P=0.006) than other groups. The area under the curves for ΔCLIF-OF were 0.752 for the entire cohort and 0.767 for ACLF-3 cohorts, both superior to ΔMELD (P<0.001 for both). Compared to the improvement group, the 1-year mortality hazard ratios (HR) of the deterioration group were 12.57 (6.72–23.48) for the overall cohort and 7.00 (3.73–13.09) for the ACLF-3 cohort. Extrahepatic organs subscore change (HR=1.783 (1.266–2.512) for neurologic; 1.653 (1.205–2.269) for circulation; 1.906 (1.324–2.743) for respiration; 1.473 (1.097–1.976) for renal) were key to transplantation outcomes in the ACLF-3 cohort. CLIF-OF at LT (HR=1.193), ΔCLIF-OF (HR=1.354), and cold ischemia time (HR=1.077) were independent risk factors of mortality for the overall cohort, while ΔCLIF-OF (HR=1.384) was the only independent risk factor for the ACLF-3 cohort. Non-ACLF-3 patients showed a higher survival rate than patients with ACLF-3 in all groups (P=0.002 for I, P=0.005 for S, and P=0.001 for D). CONCLUSION: This was the first ACLF-based dynamic evaluation study. ΔCLIF-OF was a more powerful predictor of post-LT mortality than ΔMELD. Extrahepatic organ failures were core risk factors for ACLF-3 patients. CLIF-OF at LT, ΔCLIF-OF, and cold ischemia time were independent risk factors for post-LT mortality. Patients with a worse baseline condition and a deteriorating clinical course had the worst prognosis. Dynamic evaluation was important in risk stratification and recipient selection.