Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 29, 2025

Inducing Acute Liver Injury in Rats via Carbon Tetrachloride CCl4 Exposure Through an Orogastric Tube
Published on: April 28, 2020
Modified EASL-CLIF criteria that is easier to use and perform better to prognosticate acute-on-chronic liver failure
1Institute of Digestive Health and Liver Diseases, Mercy Medical Center, Baltimore, MD 21202, United States.
Background:
We have recently shown that the European Association for the Study of the Liver-Chronic Liver Failure Consortium (EASL-CLIF) criteria showed a better sensitivity to detect acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) with a better prognostic capability than the North American Consortium for the Study of End-Stage Liver Disease criteria.
Aim:
To simplify EASL-CLIF criteria for ease of use without sacrificing its sensitivity and prognostic capability.
Methods:
Using the United Network for Organ Sharing data (January 11, 2016, to August 31, 2020), we modified EASL-CLIF (mEACLF) criteria; the modified mEACLF criteria included six organ failures (OF) as in the original EASL-CLIF, but renal failure was defined as creatinine ≥ 2.35 mg/dL and coagulation failure was defined as international normalized ratio (INR) ≥ 2.0. The mEACLF grades (0, 1, 2, and ≥ 3) directly reflected the number of OF.
Results:
Of the 40357 patients, 14044 had one or more OF, and 9644 had ACLF grades 1-3 by EASL-CLIF criteria. By the mEACLF criteria, 15574 patients had one or more OF. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) for 30-d all-cause mortality by OF was 0.842 (95%CI: 0.831-0.853) for mEACLF and 0.835 (95%CI: 0.824-0.846) for EASL-CLIF (P = 0.006), and AUROC for 30-d transplant-free mortality by OF was 0.859 (95%CI: 0.849-0.869) for mEACLF and 0.851 (95%CI: 0.840-0.861) for EASL-CLIF (P = 0.001). The AUROC of 30-d all-cause mortality by ACLF grades was 0.842 (95%CI: 0.831-0.853) for mEACLF and 0.793 (95%CI: 0.781-0.806) for EASL-CLIF (P < 0.0001). The AUROC of 30-d transplant-free mortality by ACLF was 0.859 (95%CI: 0.848-0.869) for mEACLF and 0.805 (95%CI: 0.793-0.817) for EASL-CLIF (P < 0.0001).
Conclusion:
Our study showed that EASL-CLIF criteria for ACLF grades could be simplified for ease of use without losing its prognostication capability and sensitivity.

