article · Egyptian Liver Journal
Abstract Background Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is characterized by rapid deterioration of different liver function tests resulting in high short-term and even long-term mortality. This study was designed to validate the applicability of ACLF different scoring models and compare their ability in predicting the inhospital 28-day mortality rate to facilitate early treatment options and thereby decrease mortality rates. Materials and methods This was a prospective observational study. One hundred twenty-eight patients admitted in Aswan University Hospital were enrolled in the study between October 2023 and December 2024. ACLF was diagnosed by applying EASL-CLIF criteria. The demographic, clinical, laboratory, and radiological characteristics of the patients were obtained. Variable scores (CTP, MELD, CLIF SOFA, and CLIF-C ACLF scores) were calculated at admission. All patients were observed until loss to follow-up or 28 days after admission. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used with the aim to measure these scores’ performance for the prediction of 28-day mortality. Results Seventy patients (54.69%) were survivors, while 38 patients (29.69%) were non-survivors. Twenty patients (15.62%) were lost during follow-up. The non-surviving patients had a higher CTP, MELD, CLIF-SOFA, and CLIF-C ACLF scores, compared with surviving patients ( P < 0.001). When comparing different scores, only CLIF-C ACLF score showed area under the curve (AUC) value above 0.9. AUC values of CLIF-SOFA, CTP, and MELD were 0.86, 0.84, and 0.79, respectively. Therefore, it was superior to the other three scores as regards 28-day mortality. Conclusion CLIF-SOFA, CLIF-C ACLF, CTP, and MELD scores represent effective measures for prediction of 28-day mortality in ACLF patients. Among these valuable scores, CLIF-C ACLF score is found to have the highest accuracy for predicting mortality.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.1186/s43066-026-00494-8
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.