4.6 Article

Characteristics and outcomes of chronic liver disease patients with acute deteriorated liver function by severity of underlying liver disease

Journal

WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
Volume 22, Issue 14, Pages 3785-3792

Publisher

BAISHIDENG PUBLISHING GROUP INC
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i14.3785

Keywords

Acute-on chronic liver failure; Classification; Injury; Organ failure; Survival

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AIM: To analyze characteristics and outcome of patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) according to the severity of underlying liver disease. METHODS: One hundred and sixty-seven adult patients with chronic liver disease and acute deteriorated liver function, defined by jaundice and coagulopathy, were analyzed. Predisposition, type of injury, response, organ failure, and survival were analyzed and compared between patients with non-cirrhosis (type A), cirrhosis (type B) and cirrhosis with previous decompensation (type C). RESULTS: The predisposition was mostly hepatitis B in type A, while it was alcoholic liver disease in types B and C. Injury was mostly hepatic in type A, but was non-hepatic in type C. Liver failure, defined by CLIF-SOFA, was more frequent in types A and B, and circulatory failure was more frequent in type C. The 30-d overall survival rate (85.3%, 81.1% and 83.7% for types A, B and C, respectively, P = 0.31) and the 30-d transplant-free survival rate (55.9%, 65.5% and 62.5% for types A, B and C, respectively P = 0.33) were not different by ACLF subtype, but 1-year overall survival rate were different (85.3%, 71.7% and 58.7% for types A, B and C, respectively, P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: There were clear differences in predisposition, type of injury, accompanying organ failure and long-term mortality according to spectrum of chronic liver disease, implying classifying subtype according to the severity of underlying liver disease is useful for defining, clarifying and comparing ACLF.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available