Prognostic evaluation of ALC patients remains an important challenge in clinical decision-making. Accurate prediction of prognosis is essential to plan the best treatment program as well as the choice of major procedures for ALC patients. Currently, several simple scoring systems have been widely used in clinical practice to evaluate the prognosis of ALC. However, it is still an open question which is the most appropriate scoring system for evaluating the prognosis of ALC. To the best of our knowledge, our study was the first to better assess the appropriate score for the prognosis of ALC patients.
In this study, we compared the prognostic accuracy of six score systems commonly used for ALC. We confirmed that, overall, the MELD score performed better than the other five scoring systems to predict short-term and long-term mortality for ALC. Of note, for 1-month mortality, both MELD score and MDF exhibited a high predictive power, consistent with a study by Kadian et al. that showed that both MELD and MDF had strong and equally predictive power for 28-day survival (
20). However, a global study involving 85 tertiary centers in 11 countries and 2581 AH patients showed that the AUROCs for 28-day mortality were 0.776 for MELD and 0.701 for MDF, respectively, and concluded that the MELD score has the best performance in predicting short-term mortality (
13). The reason may be that the number of patients enrolled in our study was relatively small. For 3-, 6-, 12-, and 24-month survival, the MELD score showed a significantly higher prediction capacity than all the other five scores in ALC patients. We demonstrated that the MELD score had a superior performance than the other five scores for short-term and long-term mortality. Our results are consistent with previous studies. For example, a longitudinal study of 110 patients with decompensated liver cirrhosis showed that the MELD score had a positive predictive value of 93.6% and sensitivity of 72.7% with the AUROC of 0.926 for 1-month mortality (
21). A prospective observation study of 216 consecutive cases of liver cirrhosis patients showed that the MELD score was superior to the CP score in predicting survival (
22). Similarly, a study of 308 patients with liver cirrhosis showed that MELD was the best predictor of mortality in outpatients with cirrhosis (
23).
In our study, the MELD score was significantly better than the other five scores in predicting 3-, 6-, 12-, and 24-month survival of decompensated ALC patients. Our finding was in accordance with a study that demonstrated the MELD score had the best discriminative ability for identifying ALC patients with a high mortality risk (
24). In multivariate analysis, we found that age, MELD, and MDF were independent prognostic factors. In agreement with our study, a study found that MELD was significantly associated with in-hospital mortality (
25).
The MELD score was widely used in cirrhotic patients. Nevertheless, different liver cirrhosis etiologies exhibited different pathogenesis, which may have different prognoses and outcomes. A series of studies were dedicated to evaluating the appropriate score for different etiology of liver cirrhosis (
26-
29). A study of 5,138 cirrhosis patients revealed that compared to non-ALC, ALC patients were more often with high liver-related complications and had higher mortality after hospitalization (
30). Currently, several studies have explored effective and simplified scores for the prognostic assessment of ALC patients. A multicenter prognostic cohort study performed in Korea enrolled 1,096 ALC patients and compared the predictive abilities of MELD, MELD-Na, and MELD 3.0, but showed that the differences were not statistically significant (
31). Moreover, a recent study analyzed 316 hospitalized ALC patients with non-severe alcoholic hepatitis (Non-SAH) from the Korean Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure cohort and developed a new prognostic model with four variables: Vasopressor use, neutrophil proportion > 70%, past deterioration, and Na < 128 mmol/L, which may accurately predict the prognosis of ALC patients with non-SAH (
32). Another study evaluated the role of inflammatory biomarker NLR in predicting 30-day mortality in ALC patients and found that NLR had a similar prognostic value to MELD (
33). However, our study failed to show a high prognostic ability of NLR in predicting short-term and long-term mortality of ALC patients. This may be explained by a relatively small number of ALC patients enrolled in our study. In addition, a case-control study evaluated the prognostic ability of NLR in cirrhosis patients and showed that NLR was significant in predicting liver-related mortality in NLR ≥ 4 and NLR ≥ 6.8 groups. However, in NLR ≥ 1.9 group, NLR showed a low predictive ability (
34). In addition, a study reported that NLR with an optimal cut-off of > 1.95 had a sensitivity of 84.75% and specificity of 93.91% in predicting complications during the 1-year follow-up (
35). The median NLR in our study was 3.43, indicating that most enrolled patients were in a low level of NLR, which may also affect the results to a certain extent.
Our study has several limitations. First, it was a retrospective study performed in a single tertiary hospital, so selection bias could not be avoided. Second, a relatively small number of patients were enrolled in our study. Finally, no female ALC patients were included in this study since the incidence of ALC is extremely low in females.