• OPEN ACCESS

Impact of Onset Time, Number, Type, and Sequence of Extrahepatic Organ Failure on Prognosis of Acute-on-chronic Liver Failure

  • Shaotian Qiu1,2,#,
  • Qian Zhang3,4,#,
  • Jiaxuan Hu1,2,
  • Lewei Wang5,
  • Rui Chen5,
  • Yingying Cao6,
  • Fang Liu6,
  • Zhenjun Yu3,
  • Caiyan Zhao7,
  • Liaoyun Zhang8,
  • Wanhua Ren9,
  • Shaojie Xin10,
  • Yu Chen11,
  • Zhongping Duan11 and
  • Tao Han1,2,3,4,5,6,* 
 Author information
Journal of Clinical and Translational Hepatology 2024;12(3):257-265

DOI: 10.14218/JCTH.2023.00379

Abstract

Background and Aims

The impact of the characteristics of extrahepatic organ failure (EHOF) including the onset time, number, type, and sequence on the prognosis of acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) patients remains unknown. This study aimed to identify the association between the characteristics of EHOF and the prognosis of ACLF patients.

Methods

ACLF subjects enrolled at six hospitals in China were included in the analysis. The risk of mortality based on the characteristics of EHOF was evaluated. Survival of study groups was compared by Kaplan–Meier analysis and log-rank tests.

Results

A total of 736 patients with ACLF were included. EHOF was observed in 402 patients (54.6%), of which 295 (73.4%) developed single EHOF (SEHOF) and 107 (26.6%) developed multiple EHOF (MEHOF). The most commonly observed EHOF was coagulation failure (47.0%), followed by renal (13.0%), brain (4.9%), respiratory (4.3%), and circulatory (2.3%) failure. Survival analysis found that MEHOF or SEHOF patients with brain failure had a worse prognosis. However, no significant outcome was found in the analysis of the effect of onset time and sequence of failed organs on prognosis. Patients were further divided into three risk subgroups by the EHOF characteristics. Kaplan–Meier analysis showed that risk stratification resulted in the differentiation of patients with different risks of mortality both in the training and validation cohorts.

Conclusions

The mortality of ACLF patients was determined by the number and type, but not the onset time and sequence of EHOF. Risk stratification applicable to clinical practice was established.

Keywords

Extrahepatic organ failure, Acute-on-chronic liver failure, Prognosis, Brain failure

Introduction

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) refers to an entity characterized by acute deterioration on a background of chronic liver disease caused by precipitating events or non-identifiable triggers, which carries high short-term mortality.1,2 Although it is widely recognized that the prognosis of ACLF is poor, the definitions of ACLF vary worldwide.3 Three major definitions of ACLF have been proposed. The European Association for the Study of the Liver–Chronic Liver Failure (EASL-CLIF) Consortium and North American Consortium for the Study of End-Stage Liver Disease (NACSELD) defined ACLF mainly by the existence of extrahepatic organ failure (EHOF).4,5 The Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the liver (APASL) focused more on the deterioration of liver failure, and EHOF was not essential in the identification of ACLF.6

The divergent opinions on East-West definitions of ACLF may be attributed to differences in the etiology of chronic liver disease in Eastern and Western countries.7 In Eastern patients the main etiology is hepatitis B virus (HBV)-related ACLF. Alcohol-related ACLF is the main etiology in Western patients. Despite the differences of the definitions of ACLF in the East and West, EHOF is always observed in ACLF, and it was reported that EHOF was associated with the prognosis of ACLF patients.5,8,9 Several studies have reported that the number of failed organs was associated with the mortality of ACLF patients.5,9,10 However, the effects of EHOF characteristics including onset time, type, and sequence on the prognosis of ACLF remain unknown. Therefore, this study investigated the association between the characteristics of EHOF development and the prognosis of ACLF patients in a large multicenter cohort.

Methods

Patients, study design, and data collection

This retrospective multicenter cohort study was performed in China (ChiCTR1900021539). Patients who were diagnosed as ACLF on admission at the Tianjin Third Central Hospital, Fifth Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing You’an Hospital, Shandong Provincial Hospital, First Hospital of Shanxi Medical University, and Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University between November 1, 2012 and October 7, 2019 were included in the analysis. In addition, ACLF patients hospitalized at Tianjin Third Central Hospital between January 1, 2021 and June 30, 2021 were included for validation.

Considering the controversy between the East and West in the definitions of ACLF, the World Gastroenterology Organization (WGO) generalized a globally harmonized consensus definition of ACLF applicable in both the East and West. They stated that ACLF can occur at all stages of the natural history of chronic liver disease, including in the absence of cirrhosis as well as against a background of compensatory cirrhosis and decompensated cirrhosis.11 Based on the WGO recommendation and the APASL definition, the inclusion criteria of ACLF in this study were: deterioration of liver function within 28 days after an acute insult, manifesting as jaundice (serum total bilirubin [TBil] ≥5 mg/dL) and coagulation dysfunction (international normalized ratio [INR] ≥1.5 or prothrombin activity <40%), on the backdrop of chronic liver disease including noncirrhosis, compensatory cirrhosis, and decompensated cirrhosis. Patients were divided into three WGO categories,11 namely type A patients without cirrhosis, type B patients with well-compensated cirrhosis, and type C patients with previous hepatic decompensation.

In-hospital and outpatient data were collected from electronic medical records. The exclusion criteria were: (1) liver tumor and other malignant tumors; (2) severe chronic extrahepatic disease, such as severe chronic kidney disease with renal failure, severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with respiratory failure, severe coronary heart disease with heart failure, or severe coagulation failure caused by hematological system diseases; (3) post-liver transplantation; (4) patients with incomplete clinical indicator information. The study procedures complied with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Because it was a retrospective study, the Ethics Committees approved it and waived the need for informed consent.

Definitions

The precipitating events were classified into the following categories: non-identifiable, hepatic insult, extrahepatic insult or both. EHOF was diagnosed by the following criteria:4,12 (1) brain failure West-Haven grade III–IV, (2) renal failure creatinine (Cr) ≥2 mg/dL or use of renal replacement therapy, (3) coagulation failure INR≥2.5, (4) circulation failure use of vasoactive drugs, (5) respiratory failure PaO2/FiO2≤200 or SpO2/FiO2≤214 or the need for mechanical ventilation.

Patients who developed EHOF within 24 h from the diagnosis of ACLF were defined as early-onset EHOF, while patients who developed EHOF more than 24 h from the time point when patients met the diagnostic criteria of ACLF were defined as late-onset EHOF. According to the number of EHOF, patients were classified into three groups: none, single extrahepatic organ failure (SEHOF), and multiple extrahepatic organ failure (MEHOF, two or more extrahepatic organs failure). The information on the sequence of failed organs in patients with MEHOF was collected. MEHOF patients were classified according to the type of first failed extrahepatic organ diagnosed, as (1) brain failure, (2) renal failure, (3) respiratory or circulatory failure (RC), or (4) two or more EHOF diagnosed simultaneously (Simul).

Statistical analysis

Continuous data were reported as median and interquartile range or mean±standard deviation. Between-group differences were assessed with Mann-Whitney or t tests as appropriate. Categorical variables were reported as frequency and percentage and compared with chi-squared or Fisher’s exact tests. The effect of the characteristics of EHOF and risk stratification on the mortality of ACLF patients were analyzed by Cox regression. Risk factors for EHOF were identified by univariate and multivariate logistic regressions. The Kaplan–Meier method and log-rank tests were used to analyze between-group survival. The statistical analysis was performed by R software version 4.1.3. A two-sided p-value <0.05 was considered significant.

Results

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of the included patients

The inclusion and exclusion flowchart of ACLF patients is shown in Figure 1. Of the 736 patients who were included, 402 (54.6%) developed EHOF, of which 271 (36.8%) were early-onset and 131 (17.8%) were late-onset (Fig. 1). Table 1 shows the clinical characteristics of the study patients and the comparison between patients with and without EHOF. The mean age was 49 years-old and most (78.7%) were male. HBV infection was the most frequent etiology (58.0%), followed by alcoholic liver disease (19.7%), and 7.7% of the patients had HBV infection combined with alcoholic liver disease while 14.5% had other etiologies. Hepatic insults were observed in 25.8% of patients, while 16.3% of patients had extrahepatic insults, and 6.2% had both hepatic and extrahepatic insults. The overall 28- and 90-day survival rates were 78.3% and 64.6%, respectively. Compared with patients without EHOF, those with EHOF were older (p=0.003). The Child-Pugh, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD), chronic liver failure Consortium sequential organ failure assessment (CLIF-SOFA), chronic liver failure Consortium organ failure score (CLIF-C OF), and chronic liver failure Consortium acute-on-chronic liver failure (CLIF-C ACLF) scores were higher in patients with EHOF (p<0.001). Extrahepatic insults were more likely to be observed in patients with EHOF compared to patients without EHOF. Besides, patients with EHOF were more likely to develop acute variceal bleeding and bacterial infection.

Inclusion and exclusion flowchart of ACLF patients.
Fig. 1  Inclusion and exclusion flowchart of ACLF patients.

ACLF, acute-on-chronic liver failure; EHOF, extrahepatic organ failure.

Table 1

Clinical characteristics of ACLF patients with and without EHOF

VariableAll (n=736)Without EHOF (n=334)With EHOF (n=402)p-value
Basic characteristics
  Age, years49±1247±1250±120.003
  Male sex, n (%)579 (78.7)265 (79.3)314 (78.1)0.752
  Etiology, n (%)0.678
    HBV427 (58.0)194 (58.1)233 (58.0)
    Alcohol145 (19.7)63 (18.9)82 (20.4)
    HBV + alcohol57 (7.7)30 (9.0)27 (6.7)
    Other107 (14.5)47 (14.1)60 (14.9)
  WGO type, n (%)0.707
    A144 (19.6)66 (19.8)78 (19.4)
    B327 (44.4)153 (45.8)174 (43.3)
    C265 (36.0)115 (34.4)150 (37.3)
  Insult, n (%)0.043
    Not identified380 (51.6)181 (54.2)199 (49.5)
    Hepatic190 (25.8)93 (27.8)97 (24.1)
    Extrahepatic120 (16.3)41 (12.3)79 (19.7)
    Both46 (6.2)19 (5.7)27 (6.7)
  Child-Pugh score11.00 (10.00–11.00)10.00 (9.00–11.00)11.00 (10.00–11.00)<0.001
  MELD score23.27 (19.38–27.10)21.13 (17.63–24.43)25.67 (21.12–28.70)<0.001
  CLIF-SOFA8.00 (7.00–9.00)7.00 (7.00–8.00)8.00 (7.00–10.00)<0.001
  CLIF-C OF9.00 (8.00–10.00)8.00 (8.00–9.00)10.00 (9.00–10.00)<0.001
  CLIF-C ACLF40.92 (36.12–46.41)37.75 (33.66–42.05)43.69 (39.10–49.49)<0.001
Complications
  W-H classification, n (%)<0.001
    0590 (80.2)298 (89.2)292 (72.6)
    I58 (7.9)20 (6.0)38 (9.5)
    II52 (7.1)16 (4.8)36 (9.0)
    III26 (3.5)0 (0.0)26 (6.5)
    IV10 (1.4)0 (0.0)10 (2.5)
  Ascites, n (%)573 (77.9)263 (78.7)310 (77.1)0.660
  AVB, n (%)85 (11.5)26 (7.8)59 (14.7)0.005
  Bacterial infection, n (%)354 (48.1)137 (41.0)217 (54.0)0.001
Laboratory results at admission
  ALT, U/L155.00 (54.00–455.00)141.25 (59.50–445.50)160.85 (51.25–471.20)0.793
  AST, U/L177.00 (91.93–414.55)168.50 (96.00–362.25)179.90 (86.83–433.50)0.975
  Alb, g/L29.00 (25.60–32.00)29.05 (26.30–32.30)28.30 (25.00–32.00)0.044
  TBil, µmol/L290.20 (206.15–399.25)292.60 (211.95–391.85)285.30 (193.08–404.18)0.771
  PTA, %34.00 (26.98–41.00)39.00 (34.50–45.00)28.00 (23.00–35.00)<0.001
  INR2.13 (1.81–2.61)1.87 (1.69–2.09)2.56 (2.13–3.07)<0.001
  BUN, mmol/L4.90 (3.42–7.48)4.70 (3.30–6.55)5.10 (3.59–9.06)<0.001
  Cr, µmol/L73.00 (58.00–95.00)70.00 (56.00–90.00)76.50 (59.00–101.00)0.003
  Hb, g/L120.00 (104.00–137.00)122.00 (107.00–137.00)119.00 (101.00–137.50)0.102
  WBC, ×109/L6.79 (4.90–9.55)6.17 (4.63–8.71)7.36 (5.23–10.13)<0.001
  PLT, ×109/L89.50 (59.75–127.00)91.70 (62.00–127.00)87.50 (56.00–126.75)0.196

Characteristics of EHOF

Of the 736 patients, 402 (54.6%) developed 527 EHOF events. The numbers, and types of EHOF are shown in Figure 2. Coagulation failure was the most common type of EHOF (346, 47.0%), followed by renal (96, 13.0%), brain (36, 4.9%), respiratory (32, 4.3%), and circulatory (17, 2.3%) failures. Of the patients with EHOF, early-onset EHOF occurred in 67.4% of the patients and late-onset EHOF occurred in 32.5% (Fig. 3A). Of the patients with EHOF, 295 (73.4%) developed SEHOF, 91 (22.6%) developed two EHOF, and 16 (4.0%) patients developed three or more EHOF (Fig. 3B). For patients who had MEHOF (n=107), 5.6% developed brain failure first, 10.3% developed renal failure first, 45.8% developed coagulation failure first, 5.6% developed respiratory or circulatory failure first, and 32.7% of patients had two or more organs failure diagnosed Simul (Fig. 3C).

Type and number of EHOF in ACLF patients.
Fig. 2  Type and number of EHOF in ACLF patients.

ACLF, acute-on-chronic liver failure; EHOF, extrahepatic organ failure.

Distribution of ACLF patients with EHOF.
Fig. 3  Distribution of ACLF patients with EHOF.

(A–C) Onset (A), number of organs affected (B), and sequence of organ failed (C) in patients with MEHOF (n=107). Simul: Two or more organ failures diagnosed simultaneously. ACLF, acute-on-chronic liver failure; Coag, coagulation; EHOF, extra-hepatic organ failure; MEHOF, multiple extrahepatic organ failures; RC, respiratory or circulatory failure.

The characteristics of EHOF according to the etiology and bacterial infection are shown in Table 2. When divided by etiology, alcohol-related ACLF patients were more likely to develop renal failure compared with HBV-related ACLF patients (p=0.001). In addition, patients with infections were more likely to develop renal and coagulation failure (p<0.05). MEHOF was more frequently observed in patients with infection than in patients without infection. Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions identified age and infection as independent risk factors for the development of EHOF (Supplementary Table 1).

Table 2

Characteristics of EHOF according to the etiology and infection

Etiology
Bacterial infection
HBV, n=427Alcohol, n=145p-valueNo, n=382Yes, n=354p-value
Brain, n (%)21 (4.9)7 (4.8)1.00018 (4.7)18 (5.1)0.865
Renal, n (%)47 (11.0)32 (22.1)0.00130 (7.9)66 (18.6)<0.001
Coagulation, n (%)209 (48.9)64 (44.1)0.337161 (42.1)185 (52.3)0.006
Respiratory, n (%)20 (4.7)9 (6.2)0.51116 (4.2)16 (4.5)0.858
Circulatory, n (%)11 (2.6)5 (3.4)0.5665 (1.3)12 (3.4)0.084
Number of EHOF, n (%)0.514<0.001
  None194 (45.4)63 (43.4)197 (51.6)137 (38.7)
  SEHOF168 (39.3)54 (37.2)144 (37.7)151 (42.7)
  MEHOF65 (15.2)28 (19.3)41 (10.7)66 (18.6)
Onset time of EHOF, n (%)n=233n=820.585n=185n=2170.286
  Early onset159 (68.2)53 (64.6)130 (70.3)141 (65.0)
  Late onset74 (31.8)29 (35.4)55 (29.7)76 (35.0)
Sequence of EHOF in MEHOF, n (%)n=65n=280.575n=41n=660.006
  Brain first4 (6.2)2 (7.1)4 (9.8)2 (3.0)
  Renal first6 (9.2)4 (14.3)0 (0.0)11 (16.7)
  Coagulation first34 (52.3)10 (35.7)20 (48.8)29 (43.9)
  Respiratory or circulatory first3 (4.6)3 (10.7)0 (0.0)6 (9.1)
  Two or more organs simultaneously18 (27.7)9 (32.1)17 (41.5)18 (27.3)

Effect of EHOF on the prognosis of ACLF patients

Patients with EHOF had a lower 28- and 90-day survival compared with those without EHOF (no EHOF vs. EHOF 28-day survival was 89.9% vs. 68.6% and 90-day mortality was 79.6% vs. 52.3%; OR 2.95, [95% CI: 2.28–3.82]; p<0.001), as shown in Table 3. Patients with MEHOF were also 2.47 times more likely to not survive than those with SEHOF (p<0.001). We also investigated whether different types of EHOF had the same impact on the prognosis of ACLF patients. Analysis was first conducted in patients with SEHOF. As shown in Table 3, we found that in those with SEHOF, those with single brain failure had a worse prognosis than those with coagulation failure (coagulation vs. brain: OR 0.32, [95% CI: 0.13–0.78], p=0.012), respiratory or circulatory failure (respiratory or circulatory vs. brain: OR 0.15, [95% CI: 0.04–0.57], p=0.005). In ACLF patients with MEHOF, the effects of different types of EHOF on the survival were not significant (Supplementary Table 2).

Table 3

Survival of ACLF patients based on the characteristics of EHOF

Subgroup28-day survival (%)90-day survival (%)OR (95% CI)p-value
By existence of EHOF<0.001
  No89.979.6Ref
  Yes68.652.32.95 (2.28–3.82)
By number of EHOF<0.001
  SEHOF76.260.0Ref
  MEHOF48.230.62.47 (1.87–3.26)
By onset of EHOF0.910
  Early onset65.753.2Ref
  Late onset74.751.11.02 (0.77–1.34)
By organ type in SEHOF
  Brain50.033.3Ref
  Renal65.750.40.47 (0.18–1.25)0.131
  Coagulation77.561.20.32 (0.13–0.78)0.012
  Respiratory or circulatory91.775.00.15 (0.04–0.57)0.005
By organ sequence in MEHOF
  Brain first33.30.0Ref
  Renal first72.731.20.52 (0.17–1.56)0.241
  Coagulation first42.325.90.66 (0.26–1.70)0.392
  Respiratory or circulatory first66.744.40.45 (0.12–1.69)0.236
  Two or more organs simultaneously47.942.60.58 (0.22–1.53)0.267

Impact of the onset time of EHOF on the prognosis of ACLF patients was also investigated. Comparison of the clinical characteristics of early-onset and late-onset ACLF patients is shown in Supplementary Table 3. As shown in Table 3, the onset time was not associated with prognosis (p=0.910). The prognosis of late-onset ACLF patients was similar to that of early-onset ACLF patients (Supplementary Fig. 1, p=0.910). In patients with MEHOF (n=107), the sequence of organ failure was not associated with the prognosis (Table 3).

Risk stratification of ACLF patients based on the number and type of EHOF

We divided the patients into subgroups that differed in risk based on the type and number of EHOF. Patients were first classified into four groups: no EHOF, SEHOF without brain failure, single brain failure, and MEHOF. However, the prognosis of patients with MEHOF was not significantly different from those with single brain failure. For single brain failure vs. MEHOF, 28-day survival was 50.0% vs. 48.2% and 90-day survival was 33.3% vs. 30.6% (p=0.611). Hence, single brain failure and MEHOF were reclassified into one subgroup. Risk stratification based on the EHOF characteristics included three risk subgroups: low-risk (no EHOF), middle-risk (SEHOF without brain failure), and high-risk (single brain failure or MEHOF). According to the risk stratification, 45.4% of the patients were in low-risk, 39.3% were in middle-risk, and 15.4% were in high-risk subgroups (Supplementary Fig. 2).

Twenty-eight-day survival was 89.9% in the low-, 76.7% in the middle-, and 48.4% in the high-risk subgroups and 90-day survival was 79.6% in the low-, 60.6% in the middle-, and 30.8% in the high-risk subgroups. Kaplan–Meier analysis and log-rank tests showed that risk stratification differentiated patients with different risks of mortality (Fig. 4A, low vs. middle, p<0.001; low vs. high, p<0.001; and middle vs. high p<0.001).

Kaplan–Meier analysis of ACLF patients.
Fig. 4  Kaplan–Meier analysis of ACLF patients.

(A–D) Training cohort (A), HBV-related ACLF (B), alcohol-related ACLF patients (C) and validation cohort (D) based on risk stratification. Group 1, low-risk subgroup; Group 2, middle-risk subgroup; Group 3, high-risk subgroup. ACLF, acute-on-chronic liver failure; HBV, hepatitis B virus.

Risk stratification also performed well in the differentiation of both HBV-related ACLF (Fig. 4B, p<0.001) and alcohol-related ACLF patients (Fig. 4C, p=0.004) in different risk subgroups. In HBV-related ACLF patients, prognosis of the low-risk subgroup was significantly better than that of the middle- and high-risk subgroups (low vs. middle, p<0.001; low vs. high, p<0.001, log-rank test). The prognosis of the middle-risk subgroup was also significantly better than that of the high-risk subgroup. The 28-day survival was 77.5% vs. 41.9% and the 90-day survival was 61.9% vs. 18.9% (p<0.001) in the middle-, and high-risk subgroup. In alcohol-related ACLF patients, a survival benefit was observed in the low-risk subgroup compared with the middle- and high-risk subgroups (p<0.001). The prognosis of the middle-risk subgroup was better than that of the high-risk subgroup but did not reach significance. The 28-day survival was 79.5% vs. 69.8% and the 90-day survival was 64.9% vs. 56.5% (p=0.305).

The effect of EHOF onset time in different risk subgroups was also investigated. The percentage of high-risk patients was higher in early-onset EHOF patients than in late-onset EHOF patients (Supplementary Fig. 3, p<0.001). In middle-risk subgroups, the prognosis of early-onset EHOF patients was not different from late-onset EHOF patients, with 28-day survival 76.7% vs. 77.0% and 90-day survival 63.7% vs. 56.3% (p=0.160) (Supplementary Fig. 4A). In high-risk subgroups, the prognosis of early-onset EHOF patients was similar to that of late-onset EHOF patients with 28-day survival of 44.6% vs. 63.6% and 90-day survival of 32.9% vs. 23.1% (p=1.000) (Supplementary Fig. 4B). Multivariate Cox regression identified EHOF risk stratification as associated with the prognosis of ACLF patients (Supplementary Table 4), which further demonstrated that EHOF risk stratification was associated with the prognosis of ACLF patients.

Performance of the risk stratification system in the validation cohort

A total of 62 patients were included in the validation cohort. The mean age was 57 years and 61.2% of the patients were male. The etiology included 34 cases (54.8%) with HBV, 12 (19.3%) with alcoholic liver disease, 2 (3.2%) with HBV infection combined with alcohol liver disease, and 14 (22.5%) with other etiologies. Thirty-four patients (54.8%) developed EHOF. The most commonly observed EHOF was coagulation failure (28, 45.1%), followed by renal (12, 19.3%), respiratory (6, 9.6%), brain (4, 6.4%), and circulatory (2, 3.2%) failures. Of the patients with EHOF, 21 (61.7%) developed SEHOF, 10 (29.4%) developed two EHOFs, and 3 (8.8%) developed three or more EHOFs.

According to the risk stratification system, 28 patients (45.2%) were in the low-, 21 (33.9%) were in the middle-, and 13 (21.0%) were in the high-risk subgroups. Risk stratification also performed well in the differentiation of patients at different risks in the validation cohort (Fig. 4D, p<0.001). The 28-day survival was 100% in the low-, 71.4% in the middle- and 15.4% in the high-risk subgroups. The 90-day survival was 89.3% in the low-, 66.7% in the middle- and 15.4% in the high-risk subgroups. Kaplan–Meier analysis and log-rank tests showed that the risk stratification differentiated patients with different mortality risks (Fig. 4D; low vs. middle, p=0.036, low vs. high, p<0.001, and middle vs. high, p=0.002).

Discussion

Using a large, retrospective, and multi-center cohort of ACLF patients, a range of clinical outcomes based on EHOF characteristics was captured. This study underscored that single brain failure and MEHOF were associated with an increased risk of mortality in ACLF patients. In addition, a risk stratification system was established based on the characteristics of EHOF, which successfully divided the ACLF patients into different risk subgroups. Our results provide information to guide physicians in identifying the patient subgroups with higher risk of mortality, to help distinguish patients in whom attention should be paid, and to inform discussion with patients and families about disease prognosis.

Coagulation failure was the most frequently observed EHOF, and may have been associated with systemic inflammation response syndrome. Systemic inflammation response syndrome was reported to be the main reason for the progression from acute decompensation to ACLF and may induce coagulation failure.13,14 A study by Blasi et al.15 in 2018 reported that the hypocoagulable features present in ACLF patients were correlated with systemic inflammation. Our study also found that patients with infection were more likely to develop coagulation failure (no infection 42.1% vs. infection 52.3%, p=0.006; Table 2), indicating the association of inflammation and coagulation failure in ACLF patients.

Previous studies reported that organ failure was associated with the prognosis of ACLF. As the increase on severity grade of ACLF defined by the EASL-CLIF Consortium, patient prognosis worsened.4 Similar results relating the number of organ failure with survival was found in ACLF patients admitted to an Intensive Care Unit,9 which was defined by EASL-CLIF. In the NACSELD study, Bajaj et al.5 reported that the survival of ACLF patients was defined by EHOF. Consistent with previous reports, our study found that ACLF patients with EHOF were at significantly greater mortality compared with patients without EHOF. The 28-day survival was 68.6% with EHOF vs. 89.9% without EHOF. The 90-day survival was 52.3% with EHOF vs. 79.6% without EHOF (p<0.001), and the prognosis of ACLF patients got worse as the number of failed EHOF increased (MEHOF vs. SEHOF: 28-day survival was 48.2% vs. 76.2% and the 90-day survival was 30.6% vs. 60.0%, p<0.001).

Studies of the effect of hepatic encephalopathy (HE) on the prognosis of ACLF patients have been performed. As our previous study reported, HE was identified as an independent prognostic factor of ACLF.16 In a study in China, HE was identified as the strongest predictor of death in ACLF patients precipitated by hepatic insult,17 indicating a higher risk of brain failure compared with other organs. Long et al.18 investigated the impact of grade 3 HE in subgroups of INR, TBil, and Cr and found that grade 3–4 HE was associated with a higher risk of adverse outcomes independent of other organ failures. Our study demonstrated that in patients with SEHOF, brain failure was associated with a higher risk of mortality than in other types of EHOF. Patients who had single brain failure had a prognosis similar to that of patients who had ≥2 EHOFs. The reason may be related to cerebral edema in patients with ACLF, but further study of the reasons is needed.19 Our study emphasized the necessity of the prevention, as well as the surveillance, of brain failure in ACLF patients. Attention should be paid to ACLF patients even with just one EHOF when the brain is the involved organ.

The onset time of EHOF was not identified as a factor associated with prognosis. Compared with early-onset EHOF patients, a series of therapies may be applied to late-onset EHOF patients before the development of EHOF and thus may contribute to better survival. However, analysis of the middle-risk subgroup revealed that the prognosis of early-onset EHOF patients was similar to that of late-onset EHOF patients, which may be a result of improvement in the critical care of ACLF but further studies are needed. In the high-risk subgroup, despite the timely therapy of late-onset EHOF, both early-onset and late-onset EHOF patients had poor prognosis with a 90-day survival of <35.0% (p=1.000), indicating the poor prognosis of high-risk subgroup patients. Hence, it is of great importance to prevent the development of brain failure or MEHOF, which was considered high risk.

Several models or scores have been established to predict the prognosis of ACLF patients. The EASL-CLIF Consortium, which was an European cohort, diagnosed and graded the ACLF patients by the number and type of EHOFs.4 The APASL Consortium diagnosed ACLF by liver function (jaundice and coagulopathy), and the severity of ACLF was based on TBil, HE grade, INR, lactate level, and Cr level.20 In 2018, the Intractable Liver Diseases Study Group of Japan proposed a definition of ACLF for patients in Japan: “patients with cirrhosis and a Child-Pugh score of 5–9 were diagnosed as ACLF when a deterioration of liver function caused by severe liver damage develops within 28 days after an acute insult.”21–23 The severity of the condition in Japanese patients was described by four grades depending on the extent of the deterioration in organ function, following the EASL-CLIF Consortium criteria.4,23 In this study, the ACLF patients were included mainly according to the deterioration of liver function and we found that the prognosis of ACLF patients was associated with the number and type of EHOF. Our study result was in accordance with the Japanese study and also confirmed that the number and type of EHOF were useful for the stratification of ACLF patients.

Here, we made a risk stratification system based on the number and type of EHOF that performed well in differentiating patients with different mortality risks. Considering the difference of the main etiology in the West and East, we also validated the efficacy of the risk stratification system in subgroups of alcohol-related ACLF and HBV-related ACLF. In addition, the external validation also proved the good performance of the risk stratification system. The risk stratification system is easy to understand and may be practical in the discussion with patients and families about disease prognosis.

Our study has many strengths. First, it was conducted in a large multicenter population of ACLF subjects, allowing for better generalizability. Second, our study not only investigated patients who developed EHOF at admission but also studied subgroups of patients who developed EHOF during hospitalization. Considering the rapid progression nature of ACLF, this would enable more reliable outcomes. Nevertheless, this study was retrospective, and selection bias might have been present. However, its multicenter design, objective inclusion and exclusion criteria, and low data loss helped to mitigate the potential for such bias. Besides, we validated the applicability of the risk stratification system in both the training and the validation cohort, which further confirmed the good performance of the risk stratification system.

In conclusion, our study determined that the survival of ACLF patients depended on the type and number of organ failures. Brain failure was identified as an EHOF with a higher risk of mortality compared with other EHOFs in ACLF patients. In clinical practice, effort should be made to prevent and to perform surveillance of brain failure. In addition, patients with multiple EHOFs had a worse prognosis than patients with a single EHOF. Based on the number and type of EHOFs, a risk stratification system was established, which differentiated patients with different risks of mortality. The risk stratification system is easy to understand, and we consider that it would be applicable in clinical practice.

Supporting information

Supplementary Table 1

Univariate and multivariate logistic regression of the risk factors for the development of EHOF.

(DOCX)

Supplementary Table 2

Survival of ACLF patients based on the type of failed organ in patients with MEHOF.

(DOCX)

Supplementary Table 3

Comparison of clinical characteristics of ACLF patients with early-onset and late-onset EHOF.

(DOCX)

Supplementary Table 4

Multivariate Cox regression of the prognosis of ACLF patients.

(DOCX)

Supplementary Fig. 1

Kaplan-Meier analysis of early-onset and late-onset EHOF patients.

Group1, early-onset; Group2, late-onset; EHOF, extrahepatic organ failure.

(TIF)

Supplementary Fig. 2

Distribution of the risk subgroups of included patients in the training cohort.

(TIF)

Supplementary Fig. 3

Distribution of the risk subgroups of the included patients by onset time (p<0.001).

(TIF)

Supplementary Fig. 4

Kaplan-Meier analysis of early-onset and late-onset EHOF patients in middle-risk subgroup (A) and high-risk subgroup (B).

Group1, early-onset; Group2, late-onset; EHOF, extrahepatic organ failure.

(TIF)

Abbreviations

ACLF: 

acute-on-chronic liver failure

APASL: 

Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver

CLIF-C ACLF: 

chronic liver failure Consortium acute-on-chronic liver failure

CLIF-C OF: 

chronic liver failure Consortium organ failure score

CLIF-SOFA: 

chronic liver failure Consortium sequential organ failure assessment

Cr: 

creatinine

EASL-CLIF: 

the European Association for the Study of the Liver-Chronic Liver Failure Consortium

EHOF: 

extrahepatic organ failure

HBV: 

hepatitis B virus

HE: 

hepatic encephalopathy

INR: 

international normalized ratio

MEHOF: 

multiple extrahepatic organ failure

MELD: 

Model for End-Stage Liver Disease

NACSELD: 

North American Consortium for the Study of End-Stage Liver Disease

SEHOF: 

single extrahepatic organ failure

Simul: 

simultaneously

TBil: 

total bilirubin

WGO: 

World Gastroenterology Organization

Declarations

Ethical statement

All study procedures complied with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The study was approved by the Ethics Committees as a retrospective study (ChiCTR1900021539), and the need for informed consent was waived.

Data sharing statement

All data generated or analyzed in this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Funding

This research was supported primarily by research grants from the National 13th 5-Year Plan for Hepatitis Research (No. 2017ZX10203201-007).

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interests related to this publication.

Authors’ contributions

Study concept and design (SQ, QZ), acquisition of data (YC, FL, ZY), analysis and interpretation of data (SQ, JH, LW), manuscript writing (SQ), critical revision (QZ, TH), statistical analysis (SQ, JH, RC), critical funding (TH), administration (YC, FL), and technical or material support (CZ, LZ, WR, SX, YC, ZD, TH). All authors have made a significant intellectual contribution to this study and have approved the final manuscript.

References

  1. Gustot T, Fernandez J, Garcia E, Morando F, Caraceni P, Alessandria C, et al. Clinical Course of acute-on-chronic liver failure syndrome and effects on prognosis. Hepatology 2015;62(1):243-252 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  2. Tang X, Qi T, Li B, Li H, Huang Z, Zhu Z, et al. Tri-typing of hepatitis B-related acute-on-chronic liver failure defined by the World Gastroenterology Organization. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021;36(1):208-216 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  3. Bajaj JS. Defining acute-on-chronic liver failure: will East and West ever meet?. Gastroenterology 2013;144(7):1337-1339 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  4. Moreau R, Jalan R, Gines P, Pavesi M, Angeli P, Cordoba J, et al. Acute-on-chronic liver failure is a distinct syndrome that develops in patients with acute decompensation of cirrhosis. Gastroenterology 2013;144(7):1426-1437.e9 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  5. Bajaj JS, O’Leary JG, Reddy KR, Wong F, Biggins SW, Patton H, et al. Survival in infection-related acute-on-chronic liver failure is defined by extrahepatic organ failures. Hepatology 2014;60(1):250-256 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  6. Sarin SK, Choudhury A, Sharma MK, Maiwall R, Al Mahtab M, Rahman S, et al. Acute-on-chronic liver failure: consensus recommendations of the Asian Pacific association for the study of the liver (APASL): an update. Hepatol Int 2019;13(4):353-390 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  7. Moreau R, Gao B, Papp M, Bañares R, Kamath PS. Acute-on-chronic liver failure: A distinct clinical syndrome. J Hepatol 2021;75(Suppl 1):S27-s35 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  8. Liu F, Zou Z, Shen L, Wu W, Luo J, Lankford S, et al. A prediction model for outcome in patients with HBV-ACLF based on predisposition, injury, response and organ failure. Sci Rep 2020;10(1):20176 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  9. Cardoso FS, Abraldes JG, Sy E, Ronco JJ, Bagulho L, McPhail MJ, et al. Lactate and number of organ failures predict intensive care unit mortality in patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure. Liver Int 2019;39(7):1271-1280 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  10. Garg H, Kumar A, Garg V, Sharma P, Sharma BC, Sarin SK. Clinical profile and predictors of mortality in patients of acute-on-chronic liver failure. Dig Liver Dis 2012;44(2):166-171 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  11. Jalan R, Yurdaydin C, Bajaj JS, Acharya SK, Arroyo V, Lin HC, et al. Toward an improved definition of acute-on-chronic liver failure. Gastroenterology 2014;147(1):4-10 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  12. Bajaj JS, O’Leary JG, Lai JC, Wong F, Long MD, Wong RJ, et al. Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure Clinical Guidelines. Am J Gastroenterol 2022;117(2):225-252 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  13. Lelubre C, Vincent JL. Mechanisms and treatment of organ failure in sepsis. Nat Rev Nephrol 2018;14(7):417-427 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  14. Arroyo V, Angeli P, Moreau R, Jalan R, Clària J, Trebicka J, et al. The systemic inflammation hypothesis: Towards a new paradigm of acute decompensation and multiorgan failure in cirrhosis. J Hepatol 2021;74(3):670-685 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  15. Blasi A, Calvo A, Prado V, Reverter E, Reverter JC, Hernández-Tejero M, et al. Coagulation Failure in Patients With Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure and Decompensated Cirrhosis: Beyond the International Normalized Ratio. Hepatology 2018;68(6):2325-2337 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  16. Yu Z, Zhang Y, Cao Y, Xu M, You S, Chen Y, et al. A dynamic prediction model for prognosis of acute-on-chronic liver failure based on the trend of clinical indicators. Sci Rep 2021;11(1):1810 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  17. Shi Y, Yang Y, Hu Y, Wu W, Yang Q, Zheng M, et al. Acute-on-chronic liver failure precipitated by hepatic injury is distinct from that precipitated by extrahepatic insults. Hepatology 2015;62(1):232-242 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  18. Long L, Li H, Deng G, Wang X, Lu S, Li B, et al. Impact of Hepatic Encephalopathy on Clinical Characteristics and Adverse Outcomes in Prospective and Multicenter Cohorts of Patients With Acute-on-Chronic Liver Diseases. Front Med (Lausanne) 2021;8:709884 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  19. Nath K, Saraswat VA, Krishna YR, Thomas MA, Rathore RK, Pandey CM, et al. Quantification of cerebral edema on diffusion tensor imaging in acute-on-chronic liver failure. NMR Biomed 2008;21(7):713-722 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  20. Choudhury A, Jindal A, Maiwall R, Sharma MK, Sharma BC, Pamecha V, et al. Liver failure determines the outcome in patients of acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF): comparison of APASL ACLF research consortium (AARC) and CLIF-SOFA models. Hepatol Int 2017;11(5):461-471 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  21. Mochida S, Nakayama N, Ido A, Inoue K, Genda T, Takikawa Y, et al. Proposed diagnostic criteria for acute-on-chronic liver failure in Japan. Hepatol Res 2018;48(4):219-224 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  22. Nakayama N, Uemura H, Uchida Y, Tomiya T, Ido A, Inoue K, et al. A multicenter pilot survey to clarify the clinical features of patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure in Japan. Hepatol Res 2018;48(4):303-312 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  23. Mochida S, Nakayama N, Terai S, Yoshiji H, Shimizu M, Ido A, et al. Diagnostic criteria for acute-on-chronic liver failure and related disease conditions in Japan. Hepatol Res 2022;52(5):417-421 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  • Journal of Clinical and Translational Hepatology
  • pISSN 2225-0719
  • eISSN 2310-8819
  • Copyright © 2022 JCTH. All Rights Reserved.
  • Published by Xia & He Publishing Inc.
  • Address: 14090 Southwest Freeway, Suite 300, Sugar Land, Texas 77478, USA
  • Email: service@xiahepublishing.com