BMC Gastroenterology· 2026Q2
Recognizing the limitations of CLIF-C ACLF in predicting outcomes following liver transplantation in acute-on-chronic liver failure
- 0citations
- Q2SCImago
- 2026year
Short summary
The CLIF-C ACLF score and its changes are poor predictors of overall survival post-liver transplant (LT) in acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) patients, with C-indices around 0.53-0.57. However, the static CLIF-C ACLF score at transplant showed modest, superior prediction for graft survival (C-indices around 0.71-0.72) compared to its dynamic change.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- CLIF-C ACLF score at transplant had poor discrimination for overall survival post-LT (C-index: 0.53-0.55).
- Dynamic changes in CLIF-C ACLF score (ΔCLIF-C ACLF) also showed limited predictive ability for overall survival (C-index: 0.57-0.58).
- The static CLIF-C ACLF score at transplant was a modest, significantly superior predictor of graft survival compared to the dynamic score (C-indices: 0.71-0.72 vs. ~0.67).
- High pre-transplant CLIF-C ACLF scores did not preclude favorable outcomes in this cohort of 521 ACLF patients undergoing LT.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is associated with a high short-term mortality. The Chronic Liver Failure-SOFA Consortium ACLF score (CLIF-C ACLF) predicts mortality in patients with ACLF, but its utility in predicting post-liver transplantation (LT) outcomes remains unclear. This study evaluated the predictive ability of CLIF-C ACLF score and its dynamic changes (ΔCLIF-C ACLF) for post-LT outcomes. We conducted a retrospective study of 521 patients with ACLF who underwent LT at Mayo Clinic Florida between January 2010 and December 2021. Prognostic scores were calculated at ICU admission and at transplantation, with ΔCLIF-C ACLF reflecting changes between these time points. Survival was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method, and predictive accuracy was assessed using the concordance index (C-index). The CLIF-C ACLF score at transplant demonstrated poor discrimination for overall survival (C-index: 30-day 0.55 [95% CI 0.49–0.61], 90-day 0.54 [0.48–0.60], 1-year 0.53 [0.47–0.58]). The ΔCLIF-C ACLF showed similarly limited discrimination (30-day 0.57 [0.52–0.63], 90-day 0.58 [0.52–0.63], 1-year 0.57 [0.52–0.62]), with no significant difference at any time point ( p > 0.05). For graft survival, the static score outperformed the dynamic score at all time points (30-day 0.71 [0.58–0.83], 90-day 0.71 [0.59–0.83], 1-year 0.72 [0.61–0.83] vs. 0.67 across all time points; p ≤ 0.008). The CLIF-C ACLF score and its dynamic change have limited utility in predicting post-LT overall survival. However, the static score at transplant demonstrated modest and significantly superior discrimination for graft survival compared to the dynamic score. High pre-transplant CLIF-C ACLF scores should not preclude transplantation, as favorable outcomes were observed even in the highest-risk patients. More robust post-LT prognostic models are needed.
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. BMC Gastroenterology, 2026 · DOI ↗
The rest is in the Pofolia app
Takeaways and questions to the paper; new summaries every day for your field. Free.
Sign in on the web to openField: Hepatology
HepatologyMedicine