Skip to main content
. 2022 Jun 4;49:101476. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101476

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Comparison of the predictive value of APASL and EASL-CLIF criteria for the survival of cirrhosis patients after LT. Patients were divided into three groups. When the both criteria provided the same grade, patients were included in the ACLF-AARC consistent group. “AARC overestimated” (orange circles) represented patients in whom the APASL grade was higher than the EASL-CLIF grade, and “AARC underestimated” represented patients in whom the APASL grade was lower than the EASL-CLIF grade (green circles). A. 90-day overall survival rate after LT. B. 3-year overall survival rate after LT. For patients with consistent ACLF grading according to both criteria, the 3-year OS was 76% for the ACLF2/AARC2 group and 61% for the ACLF3/AARC3 group. For patients with inconsistent classifications, using the EASL-CLIF classification as a reference, the 3-year OS rates of the APASL criteria overestimated patients (e.g., AARC3 but ACLF2) relative to the related EASL-CLIF standards (e.g., ACLF2). In contrast, the 3-year OS rates of the APASL criteria underestimated patients (e.g., AARC2 but ACLF3) relative to the related APASL criteria (AARC2).