McGill Mitchell R
Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Fay W. Boozman College of Public Health, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, College of Medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.
Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci. 2025 Aug;62(5):386-403. doi: 10.1080/10408363.2025.2481081. Epub 2025 Mar 27.
Acute liver failure (ALF) is an uncommon but severe condition with high morbidity and mortality. Advances in supportive care have improved patient outcomes, but liver transplantation remains the only life-saving intervention in many cases. Unfortunately, healthy donor livers are in short supply. In addition, transplant recipients face several potentially fatal risks including organ rejection, biliary and vascular complications, and infection. It is therefore critical to accurately identify patients who need a new liver while sparing those who do not. This also needs to be done quickly, within the first few days of hospital admission, due to the rapid progression of ALF. Prognostic tools, like the Clichy criteria, the King's College Criteria (KCC), the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score, the Acute Liver Failure Study Group Prognostic Index (ALFSGPI), and others have been available for this purpose since at least the 1980s and are commonly used today, but their performance is imperfect, leading to many efforts over the last several decades - and especially in recent years - to identify new noninvasive biomarkers. This review begins with a description of the earliest liver function (e.g. the levulose [fructose] test) and liver injury (e.g. alkaline phosphatase [ALP] and alanine aminotransferase [ALT]) tests and continues through the most recent proposed biomarkers, with critical evaluation of the prognostic utility of each using the KCC and MELD as benchmarks for comparison. Overall, there is as-yet no single biomarker that clearly and consistently performs better than the latter tools, though many may modestly improve the performance of the KCC or MELD when used in combination with them. The search for a better, single biomarker is therefore likely to continue.
急性肝衰竭(ALF)是一种罕见但严重的疾病,发病率和死亡率都很高。支持性治疗的进展改善了患者的预后,但在许多情况下,肝移植仍然是唯一的救命干预措施。不幸的是,健康供体肝脏供不应求。此外,移植受者面临多种潜在的致命风险,包括器官排斥、胆道和血管并发症以及感染。因此,准确识别需要新肝脏的患者,同时避免不必要的检查,这一点至关重要。由于ALF进展迅速,这也需要在入院后的头几天内迅速完成。至少从20世纪80年代起,就有一些预后工具,如克利希标准、国王学院标准(KCC)、终末期肝病模型(MELD)评分、急性肝衰竭研究组预后指数(ALFSGPI)等,如今仍被广泛使用,但它们的表现并不完美,这导致在过去几十年里,尤其是近年来,人们一直在努力寻找新的非侵入性生物标志物。这篇综述首先描述了最早的肝功能检查(如果糖试验)和肝损伤检查(如碱性磷酸酶[ALP]和丙氨酸转氨酶[ALT]),并一直介绍到最近提出的生物标志物,同时以KCC和MELD作为比较基准,对每种生物标志物的预后效用进行批判性评估。总体而言,目前还没有一种生物标志物能明显且始终优于后两种工具,不过许多生物标志物与它们联合使用时,可能会适度提高KCC或MELD的性能。因此,寻找更好的单一生物标志物的工作可能会继续下去。