Cargando…

Comparison of Current Diagnostic Criteria for Acute-On-Chronic Liver Failure

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Currently, acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) has been defined differently by Asia–Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL) and Chinese Medical Association (CMA) in the East, as well as EASL-Chronic Liver Failure (EASL-CLIF) Consortium in the West. This study ai...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhang, Qian, Li, Ying, Han, Tao, Nie, CaiYun, Cai, JunJun, Liu, Hua, Liu, Ying
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4364726/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25785855
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0122158
_version_ 1782362115997171712
author Zhang, Qian
Li, Ying
Han, Tao
Nie, CaiYun
Cai, JunJun
Liu, Hua
Liu, Ying
author_facet Zhang, Qian
Li, Ying
Han, Tao
Nie, CaiYun
Cai, JunJun
Liu, Hua
Liu, Ying
author_sort Zhang, Qian
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Currently, acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) has been defined differently by Asia–Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL) and Chinese Medical Association (CMA) in the East, as well as EASL-Chronic Liver Failure (EASL-CLIF) Consortium in the West. This study aimed to compare current different diagnostic criteria for ACLF and to determine predictors of the progression into post-enrollment EASL-CLIF ACLF from ACLF at enrollment defined by APASL alone or by both APASL and CMA but not by EASL-CLIF Consortium. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed clinical data from 394 eligible cirrhotic patients fulfilling at least APASL criteria for ACLF at enrollment. Patient survival was estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis and subsequently compared by log-rank test. Independent predictors of disease progression were determined using univariate analysis and multivariate Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: The 90-day mortality rate was 13.1% in patients with ACLF at enrollment defined by APASL alone, 25.3% in patients with ACLF at enrollment defined by both APASL and CMA but not EASL-CLIF Consortium, and 59.3% in patients with ACLF at enrollment defined by EASL-CLIF Consortium in addition to APASL. Baseline Chronic Liver Failure-Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (CLIF-SOFA) score, and the maximum rising rates of CLIF-SOFA score, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease-Sodium (MELD-Na) score and total bilirubin were independent predictors of progression into post-enrollment EASL-CLIF ACLF from ACLF at enrollment defined by APASL alone or by both APASL and CMA but not by EASL-CLIF Consortium. CONCLUSION: Different diagnostic criteria for ACLF caused different patient prognosis. So, it is imperative to formulate a unifying diagnostic criteria for ACLF worldwide, thus attaining early identification and treatment, and eventual improvement in survival of ACLF patients. Baseline CLIF-SOFA score, and the maximum rising rates of CLIF-SOFA score, MELD-Na score and total bilirubin may early predict post-enrollment development of EASL-CLIF ACLF.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4364726
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-43647262015-03-23 Comparison of Current Diagnostic Criteria for Acute-On-Chronic Liver Failure Zhang, Qian Li, Ying Han, Tao Nie, CaiYun Cai, JunJun Liu, Hua Liu, Ying PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Currently, acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) has been defined differently by Asia–Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL) and Chinese Medical Association (CMA) in the East, as well as EASL-Chronic Liver Failure (EASL-CLIF) Consortium in the West. This study aimed to compare current different diagnostic criteria for ACLF and to determine predictors of the progression into post-enrollment EASL-CLIF ACLF from ACLF at enrollment defined by APASL alone or by both APASL and CMA but not by EASL-CLIF Consortium. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed clinical data from 394 eligible cirrhotic patients fulfilling at least APASL criteria for ACLF at enrollment. Patient survival was estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis and subsequently compared by log-rank test. Independent predictors of disease progression were determined using univariate analysis and multivariate Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: The 90-day mortality rate was 13.1% in patients with ACLF at enrollment defined by APASL alone, 25.3% in patients with ACLF at enrollment defined by both APASL and CMA but not EASL-CLIF Consortium, and 59.3% in patients with ACLF at enrollment defined by EASL-CLIF Consortium in addition to APASL. Baseline Chronic Liver Failure-Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (CLIF-SOFA) score, and the maximum rising rates of CLIF-SOFA score, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease-Sodium (MELD-Na) score and total bilirubin were independent predictors of progression into post-enrollment EASL-CLIF ACLF from ACLF at enrollment defined by APASL alone or by both APASL and CMA but not by EASL-CLIF Consortium. CONCLUSION: Different diagnostic criteria for ACLF caused different patient prognosis. So, it is imperative to formulate a unifying diagnostic criteria for ACLF worldwide, thus attaining early identification and treatment, and eventual improvement in survival of ACLF patients. Baseline CLIF-SOFA score, and the maximum rising rates of CLIF-SOFA score, MELD-Na score and total bilirubin may early predict post-enrollment development of EASL-CLIF ACLF. Public Library of Science 2015-03-18 /pmc/articles/PMC4364726/ /pubmed/25785855 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0122158 Text en © 2015 Zhang et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Zhang, Qian
Li, Ying
Han, Tao
Nie, CaiYun
Cai, JunJun
Liu, Hua
Liu, Ying
Comparison of Current Diagnostic Criteria for Acute-On-Chronic Liver Failure
title Comparison of Current Diagnostic Criteria for Acute-On-Chronic Liver Failure
title_full Comparison of Current Diagnostic Criteria for Acute-On-Chronic Liver Failure
title_fullStr Comparison of Current Diagnostic Criteria for Acute-On-Chronic Liver Failure
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Current Diagnostic Criteria for Acute-On-Chronic Liver Failure
title_short Comparison of Current Diagnostic Criteria for Acute-On-Chronic Liver Failure
title_sort comparison of current diagnostic criteria for acute-on-chronic liver failure
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4364726/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25785855
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0122158
work_keys_str_mv AT zhangqian comparisonofcurrentdiagnosticcriteriaforacuteonchronicliverfailure
AT liying comparisonofcurrentdiagnosticcriteriaforacuteonchronicliverfailure
AT hantao comparisonofcurrentdiagnosticcriteriaforacuteonchronicliverfailure
AT niecaiyun comparisonofcurrentdiagnosticcriteriaforacuteonchronicliverfailure
AT caijunjun comparisonofcurrentdiagnosticcriteriaforacuteonchronicliverfailure
AT liuhua comparisonofcurrentdiagnosticcriteriaforacuteonchronicliverfailure
AT liuying comparisonofcurrentdiagnosticcriteriaforacuteonchronicliverfailure