©The Author(s) 2022.
World J Hepatol. Feb 27, 2022; 14(2): 420-428
Published online Feb 27, 2022. doi: 10.4254/wjh.v14.i2.420
Published online Feb 27, 2022. doi: 10.4254/wjh.v14.i2.420
Table 4 The distribution of patients by the European Association for the Study of the Liver-Chronic Liver Failure Consortium and modified European Association for the Study of the Liver-Chronic Liver Failure Consortium grades of the acute-on-chronic liver failure and their 30-d all-cause mortality
| EASL-CLIF grade | Number of patients mEACLF Grade (all-cause mortality%) | ||||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | Total | |
| 0 | 24227 (1.2) | 5114 (3.3) | 1372 (10.2) | 0 | 30713 (2.0) |
| 1 | 556 (4.1) | 2720 (6.5) | 23 (10.2) | 0 | 3299 (6.1) |
| 2 | 0 | 229 (13.1) | 2875 (11.8) | 653 (15.0) | 3757 (12.5) |
| 3 | 0 | 0 | 152 (21.7) | 2436 (24.5) | 2588 (24.4) |
| Total | 24783 (1.3) | 8063 (4.7) | 4422 (11.7) | 3089 (22.5) | 40357 (4.7) |
- Citation: Thuluvath PJ, Li F. Modified EASL-CLIF criteria that is easier to use and perform better to prognosticate acute-on-chronic liver failure. World J Hepatol 2022; 14(2): 420-428
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-5182/full/v14/i2/420.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4254/wjh.v14.i2.420