Transplantation for EASL-CLIF and APASL acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) patients: The TEA cohort to evaluate long-term post-Transplant outcomes.

Abstract

SummaryBackgroundThe forecast accuracy of the European Association for the Study of the Liver-Chronic Liver Failure (EASL-CLIF) and Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL) acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) criteria in assessing long-term outcomes after liver transplantation (LT) is still unclear, especially when the staging of the two standards is inconsistent.MethodsA retrospective cohort (NCT05036031) including 565 patients from January 2015 to June 2021 was conducted. The 28 and 90 days, 1- and 3-years overall survival (OS) after LT were compared between different grades.FindingsTotal of 162 (28.7%) and 230 (40.7%) patients met the ACLF standards. In the EASL-CLIF criteria, the 3-year OS rates were 83·0%, 80·3%, and 69·8% for ACLF1-3, respectively. In the APASL criteria, the 3-year OS rates were 85·7% for APASL ACLF Research Consortium (AARC)-1, similar to ACLF-1. The 3-year OS rates were 84·5% for AARC-2, which were slightly better than ACLF-2. Regarding AARC-3, the 3-year OS rate was 5·8% higher than ACLF-3. For patients who met neither set of criteria for ACLF, the 3-year OS rates were 89·8%. The multivariate analysis showed that alanine aminotransferase >100 U/L, respiration failure, and cerebral failure were independent risk factors for post-LT death.InterpretationThis study provides the first large-scale long-term follow-up data in Asia. Both criteria showed favorable distinguishing ability for post-LT survival. Patients with ACLF had a higher post-LT mortality risk, and ACLF-3 and AARC-3 correlated with significantly greater mortality.FundingNational Natural Science Foundation of China and Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality