The CLIF-C ACLFs at ACLF diagnosis is superior to the MELDs and MELD-Nas in predicting mortality. The CLIF-C ACLFs is a clinically relevant, validated scoring system that can be used sequentially to stratify the risk of mortality in ACLF patients.

Acute‐on‐chronic liver failure (ACLF) is characterized by acute decompensation (AD) of cirrhosis, organ failure(s), and high 28‐day mortality. We investigated whether assessments of patients at specific time points predicted their need for liver transplantation (LT) or the potential futility of their care. We assessed clinical courses of 388 patients who had ACLF at enrollment, from February through September 2011, or during early (28‐day) follow‐up of the prospective multicenter European Chronic Liver Failure (CLIF) ACLF in Cirrhosis study. We assessed ACLF grades at different time points to define disease resolution, improvement, worsening, or steady or fluctuating course. ACLF resolved or improved in 49.2%, had a steady or fluctuating course in 30.4%, and worsened in 20.4%. The 28‐day transplant‐free mortality was low‐to‐moderate (6%‐18%) in patients with nonsevere early course (final no ACLF or ACLF‐1) and high‐to‐very high (42%‐92%) in those with severe early course (final ACLF‐2 or ‐3) independently of initial grades. Independent predictors of course severity were CLIF Consortium ACLF score (CLIF‐C ACLFs) and presence of liver failure (total bilirubin ≥12 mg/dL) at ACLF diagnosis. Eighty‐one percent had their final ACLF grade at 1 week, resulting in accurate prediction of short‐ (28‐day) and mid‐term (90‐day) mortality by ACLF grade at 3‐7 days. Among patients that underwent early LT, 75% survived for at least 1 year. Among patients with ≥4 organ failures, or CLIF‐C ACLFs >64 at days 3‐7 days, and did not undergo LT, mortality was 100% by 28 days. Conclusions: Assessment of ACLF patients at 3‐7 days of the syndrome provides a tool to define the emergency of LT and a rational basis for intensive care discontinuation owing to futility. (Hepatology 2015;62:243‐252)

No abstract

Hepatorenal syndrome (HRS), a serious complication of cirrhosis, is associated with high mortality without treatment. Terlipressin with albumin is effective in the reversal of HRS. Where terlipressin is not available, as in the United States, midodrine and octreotide with albumin are used as an alternative treatment of HRS. The aim was to compare the effectiveness of terlipressin plus albumin versus midodrine and octreotide plus albumin in the treatment of HRS in a randomized controlled trial. Twenty‐seven patients were randomized to receive terlipressin with albumin (TERLI group) and 22 to receive midodrine and octreotide plus albumin (MID/OCT group). The TERLI group received terlipressin by intravenous infusion, initially 3 mg/24 hours, progressively increased to 12 mg/24 hours if there was no response. The MID/OCT group received midodrine orally at an initial dose of 7.5 mg thrice daily, with the dose increased to a maximum of 12.5 mg thrice daily, together with octreotide subcutaneously: initial dose 100 μg thrice daily and up to 200 μg thrice daily. Both groups received albumin intravenously 1 g/kg of body weight on day 1 and 20‐40 g/day thereafter. There was a significantly higher rate of recovery of renal function in the TERLI group (19/27, 70.4%) compared to the MID/OCT group (6/21, 28.6%), P = 0.01. Improvement in renal function and lower baseline Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease score were associated with better survival. Conclusion: Terlipressin plus albumin is significantly more effective than midodrine and octreotide plus albumin in improving renal function in patients with HRS (Hepatology 2015;62:567–574

Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) is a common, life-threatening complication of liver cirrhosis. Third-generation cephalosporins have been considered the first-line treatment of SBP. In 2014, a panel of experts suggested a broader spectrum antibiotic regimen for nosocomial SBP, according to the high rate of bacteria resistant to third-generation cephalosporins found in these patients. However, a broader-spectrum antibiotic regimen has never been compared to third-generation cephalosporins in the treatment of nosocomial SBP. The aim of our study was to compare meropenem plus daptomycin versus ceftazidime in the treatment of nosocomial SBP. Patients with cirrhosis and nosocomial SBP were randomized to receive meropenem (1 g/8 hours) plus daptomycin (6 mg/kg/day) or ceftazidime (2 g/8 hours). A paracentesis was performed after 48 hours of treatment. A reduction in ascitic fluid neutrophil count <25% of pretreatment value was considered a treatment failure. The primary outcome was the efficacy of treatment defined by the resolution of SBP after 7 days of treatment. Thirty-two patients were randomized and 31 were analyzed. The combination of meropenem plus daptomycin was significantly more effective than ceftazidime in the treatment of nosocomial SBP (86.7 vs. 25%; P < 0.001). Ninety-day transplant-free survival (TFS) was not significantly different between the two groups. In the multivariate analysis, ineffective response to first-line treatment (hazard ratio [HR]: 20.6; P 5 0.01), development of acute kidney injury during hospitalization (HR: 23.2; P 5 0.01), and baseline mean arterial pressure (HR: 0.92; P 5 0.01) were found to be independent predictors of 90-day TFS. Conclusion: The combination of meropenem plus daptomycin is more effective than ceftazidime as empirical antibiotic treatment of nosocomial SBP. Efficacy of the empirical antibiotic treatment is a strong predictor of 90-day survival in patients with nosocomial SBP.