In:
Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Wiley, Vol. 33, No. 4 ( 2018-04), p. 900-909
Abstract:
The aim of this study was to validate the chronic liver failure‐sequential organ failure assessment score (CLIF‐SOFAs), CLIF consortium organ failure score (CLIF‐C OFs), CLIF‐C acute‐on‐chronic liver failure score (CLIF‐C ACLFs), and CLIF‐C acute decompensation score in Korean chronic liver disease patients with acute deterioration. Methods Acute‐on‐chronic liver failure was defined by either the Asian Pacific Association for the study of the Liver ACLF Research Consortium (AARC) or CLIF‐C criteria. The diagnostic performances for short‐term mortality were compared by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Results Among a total of 1470 patients, 252 patients were diagnosed with ACLF according to the CLIF‐C (197 patients) or AARC definition (95 patients). As the ACLF grades increased, the survival rates became significantly lower. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic of the CLIF‐SOFAs, CLIF‐C OFs, and CLIF‐C ACLFs were significantly higher than those of the Child–Pugh, model for end‐stage liver disease, and model for end‐stage liver disease‐Na scores in ACLF patients according to the CLIF‐C definition (all P 〈 0.05), but there were no significant differences in patients without ACLF or in patients with ACLF according to the AARC definition. The CLIF‐SOFAs, CLIF‐C OFs, and CLIF‐C ACLFs had higher specificities with a fixed sensitivity than liver specific scores in ACLF patients according to the CLIF‐C definition, but not in ACLF patients according to the AARC definition. Conclusions The CLIF‐SOFAs, CLIF‐C OFs, and CLIF‐C ACLFs are useful scoring systems that provide accurate information on prognosis in patients with ACLF according to the CLIF‐C definition, but not the AARC definition.
Type of Medium:
Online Resource
ISSN:
0815-9319
,
1440-1746
DOI:
10.1111/jgh.2018.33.issue-4
Language:
English
Publisher:
Wiley
Publication Date:
2018
detail.hit.zdb_id:
2006782-3
Permalink
