CLIF-C ACLF Score

Chronic Liver Failure Consortium — ACLF Prognostic Score

Predicts 28-day and 90-day mortality in acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF). Combines CLIF-SOFA organ failure assessment with age and white cell count. Validated across European and Asian multicentre cohorts.

Hepatology ACLF Critical Care Organ Failure Prognosis
Organ Function Assessment (CLIF-SOFA)
Enter values above

Two-Step Calculation

CLIF-SOFA = Liver + Kidney + Brain + Coagulation + Circulation + Respiratory
CLIF-C ACLF = 10 × [0.33 × CLIF-SOFA + 0.04 × Age + 0.63 × ln(WBC ×10⁹/L) − 2]

WBC = white blood cell count. ln = natural logarithm. Each organ scored 0–3 (liver and coagulation max 2, circulation max 2). Maximum CLIF-SOFA = 15.

CLIF-SOFA Organ Score Reference

Organ Score 0 Score 1 Score 2 Score 3
Liver <102 μmol/L 102–204 >204
Kidney <106 μmol/L 106–353 353–442 ≥442 or RRT
Brain (WH) Grade 0 Grade 1–2 Grade 3 Grade 4
Coagulation INR <2.0 INR 2.0–2.5 INR >2.5
Circulation MAP ≥70 MAP <70 Vasopressors
Respiratory >300 / 357 201–300 / 214–357 101–200 / 89–214 ≤100 / 89

Respiratory values: PaO₂/FiO₂ / SpO₂/FiO₂ thresholds.

ACLF Diagnostic Criteria (EASL-CLIF Definition)

ACLF is diagnosed in patients with acute decompensation of cirrhosis and at least one of the following organ failures defined by CLIF-SOFA:

  • Any single organ failure (score ≥2) for liver, kidney, brain (grade 3/4), or respiratory
  • Coagulation failure (INR >2.5) + kidney dysfunction (Cr ≥133 μmol/L)
  • Circulatory failure + kidney dysfunction (Cr ≥133 μmol/L)

The number of organ failures determines the ACLF grade: ACLF Grade I = 1 organ failure; Grade II = 2 organ failures; Grade III = ≥3 organ failures. Higher grade correlates with markedly worse short-term prognosis.

Prognosis by CLIF-C ACLF Score

CLIF-C ACLF 28-day Mortality 90-day Mortality Risk Category
<30 ~14% ~20% Lower risk
30–34 ~35% ~45% Moderate risk
35–39 ~55% ~65% High risk
40–44 ~65% ~75% Very high risk
≥45 ~75% ~90% Critical

Clinical Application

ACLF Grading and Transplant Urgency: ACLF grade directly informs transplant urgency listing. Grade I patients may stabilise with optimal medical management. Grade II patients require close HDU/ICU monitoring and expedited transplant workup. Grade III patients have the highest short-term mortality and should be assessed urgently for transplant candidacy.

Liver transplantation remains the key life-saving intervention in ACLF. Patients with ACLF grade III who show a response to 3–7 days of intensive treatment may be reassessed; non-responders have very high mortality without transplant. CLIF-C ACLF score is superior to MELD alone for short-term prognostication in ACLF.

ICU management focuses on vasopressor support for circulatory failure, renal replacement therapy for hepatorenal syndrome/AKI, and lung-protective ventilation for respiratory failure. Concurrent management of precipitating events (infection, alcohol, reactivation) is essential.

CLIF-C vs MELD in transplant prioritisation: While MELD is used for standard organ allocation, CLIF-C ACLF provides better short-term (28- and 90-day) mortality prediction specifically in ACLF. Some transplant programmes incorporate CLIF-C score alongside MELD to identify patients at highest immediate risk who may benefit most from urgent listing.

References

  1. Jalan R, et al. Development and validation of a prognostic score to predict mortality in patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure. J Hepatol. 2014;61(5):1038–1047.
  2. Moreau R, et al. Acute-on-chronic liver failure is a distinct syndrome that develops in patients with acute decompensation of cirrhosis. Gastroenterology. 2013;144(7):1426–1437.

Related Calculators