Division of Gastroenterology and HepatologyIndiana University School of MedicineIndianapolisINUSA.
Division of Internal MedicineIndiana University School of MedicineIndianapolisINUSA.
Hepatol Commun. 2022 May;6(5):1090-1099. doi: 10.1002/hep4.1874. Epub 2021 Dec 3.
Differences in mortality between critically ill patients with severe alcohol-associated hepatitis (sAH) and acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) and non-sAH ACLF (i.e., ACLF not precipitated by sAH) are unknown. Such differences are important, as they may inform on prognosis and optimal timing of liver transplantation (LT). Thus, we aimed to compare short-term and longer-term mortality between patients with sAH ACLF and patients with non-sAH ACLF who were admitted to the intensive care unit. Patients with ACLF admitted from 2016-2018 at two tertiary care intensive care units were analyzed. SAH was defined by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism's Alcoholic Hepatitis Consortium and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score >20. Mortality without LT was compared between sAH ACLF and non-sAH ACLF using Fine and Gray's competing-risks regression. A total of 463 patients with ACLF (18% sAH and 82% non-sAH) were included. Compared to patients with non-sAH ACLF, patients with sAH ACLF were younger (49 vs. 56 years; P < 0.001) and had higher admission Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) (35 vs. 25; P < 0.001) and Chronic Liver Failure Consortium (CLIF-C) scores (61 vs. 57; P = 0.002). There were no significant differences between the two groups for vasopressor, mechanical ventilation, and hemodialysis use. The cumulative incidence of death was significantly higher in patients with sAH ACLF compared to patients with non-sAH ACLF: 30-day 74.7% versus 45.3%; 90-day 81.9% versus 57.4%; 180-day 83.2% versus 63.0% (unadjusted subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR] 1.88 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.44-2.46]; P < 0.001). After adjusting for CLIF-C score and infection in a multivariable competing-risk model, patients with sAH ACLF had significantly higher risk of death (sHR 1.57 [95% CI 1.20-2.06]; P = 0.001) compared to patients with non-sAH ACLF. Conclusion: Critically ill patients with sAH ACLF have worse mortality compared to patients with non-sAH ACLF. These data may inform prognosis in patients with sAH and ACLF, and early LT referral in potentially eligible patients.
患有严重酒精相关性肝炎(sAH)和慢加急性肝衰竭(ACLF)的重症患者与非 sAH ACLF(即不由 sAH 引发的 ACLF)之间的死亡率差异尚不清楚。这些差异很重要,因为它们可能提示预后和肝移植(LT)的最佳时机。因此,我们旨在比较重症监护病房收治的 sAH ACLF 患者和非 sAH ACLF 患者的短期和长期死亡率。对 2016-2018 年在两家三级护理重症监护病房收治的 ACLF 患者进行了分析。SAH 通过国家酒精滥用和酒精中毒研究所酒精性肝炎联合会和终末期肝病模型评分>20 来定义。使用 Fine 和 Gray 的竞争风险回归比较 sAH ACLF 和非 sAH ACLF 患者无 LT 死亡率。共纳入 463 例 ACLF 患者(18%为 sAH,82%为非 sAH)。与非 sAH ACLF 患者相比,sAH ACLF 患者年龄更小(49 岁比 56 岁;P<0.001),入院时终末期肝病模型(MELD)评分更高(35 比 25;P<0.001),慢性肝衰竭联盟(CLIF-C)评分更高(61 比 57;P=0.002)。两组患者在使用血管加压药、机械通气和血液透析方面无显著差异。sAH ACLF 患者的死亡累积发生率明显高于非 sAH ACLF 患者:30 天 74.7%比 45.3%;90 天 81.9%比 57.4%;180 天 83.2%比 63.0%(未调整的亚分布风险比[ sHR] 1.88 [95%置信区间(CI)1.44-2.46];P<0.001)。在多变量竞争风险模型中调整 CLIF-C 评分和感染后,sAH ACLF 患者的死亡风险显著高于非 sAH ACLF 患者(sHR 1.57 [95% CI 1.20-2.06];P=0.001)。结论:与非 sAH ACLF 患者相比,患有 sAH ACLF 的重症患者死亡率更高。这些数据可能有助于预测 sAH 和 ACLF 患者的预后,并为可能符合条件的患者早期转 LT。