Minireviews
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2021.
World J Transplant. Jun 18, 2021; 11(6): 187-202
Published online Jun 18, 2021. doi: 10.5500/wjt.v11.i6.187
Table 2 Problems with prognostic scoring systems in acute liver failure
Sr NoIssuesRemarks
1All available prognostic scoring systems have limited accuracyError of both commission and omission can happen
2Heterogeneity in the studies evaluating prognosis in ALF: Variations in the definitions of ALF, etiologies, & management protocolThe heterogeneity makes it difficult to compare the results between studies and draw a uniform conclusion
3Survival rates of ALF patients on medical treatment have improved but models used are still the old onesReduced performance of old models (e.g., KCC) have been noted in the newer studies compared to the old ones
4Many studies have considered and analyzed transplanted patients as ‘non-survivors’This may falsely elevate the positive predictive value of a prognostic, increasing the risk of unnecessary LT in some patients
5Lack of reproducibility and validation studies for many prognostic scoresA model cannot be implemented in the clinical practise without adequate validation studies
6Dynamic models are better than models based on baseline parameters, but critical time at which decision should be made is not clearA very late decision may results in loss of opportunity to transplant, and very early decision may lead to unnecessary LT
7Many models have included non-ideal parameters, such as factor V, apoptotic markers, monocyte HLA, etcThese markers are not routinely available and their measurement involve additional investigations and cost
8Some prognostic markers, such as serum bilirubin and INR, are subject to laboratory variationsThis may cause error in selection of LT candidates
9Inclusion of advanced HE in some prognostic modelsHE is subjective markers, and advanced HE is usually a late feature of ALF
10Inclusion of CE in prognostic modelsCE is difficult to diagnosed clinically, and a clinically overt CE is usually a late feature