不同评分系统对乙型肝炎相关慢加急性肝衰竭短期预后的诊断价值

摘要

目的 比较终末期肝病模型联合血清钠(MELD-Na)、慢性肝衰竭-序贯器官衰竭评估(CLIF-SOFA)、亚太肝脏研究协会慢加急性肝衰竭研究小组评分(AARC-ACLF)对乙型肝炎相关慢加急性肝衰竭患者短期预后的诊断价值.方法 选取72例乙型肝炎相关慢加急性肝衰竭患者,根据3个月时的预后分为2组,经内科治疗病情稳定或好转为A组(29例),治疗无效死亡或行肝移植者为B组(43例).收集患者确诊或入院时的临床资料,选取患者住院期间国际标准化比值(INR)最低时的同期临床指标,比较2组总胆红素(TBIL)、凝血酶原时间(PT)、INR、血清肌酐(Cr)、血清钠(Na)、白蛋白(ALB)、MELD-Na、CLIF-SOFA、AARC-ACLF分值,应用受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线下面积(AUC)评价上述评分系统对慢加急性肝衰竭短期预后的预测价值.结果 B组的TBIL、INR、MELD-Na、AARC-ACLF、CLIF-SOFA高于A组,Na低于A组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05).CLIF-SOFA评分AUC(0.887)优于MELD-Na评分AUC(0.764),差异有统计学意义(Z=2.255,P<0.0167),CLIF-SOFA与AARC-ACLF评分AUC(0.825)、MELD-Na与AARC-ACLF评分AUC差异均无统计学意义(Z分别为1.361、1.127,P>0.0167);MELD-Na、CLIF-SOFA、AARC-ACLF评分所得最佳临界值分别为23.84、8.50、8.50.结论 3种评分系统均能较好地预测乙型肝炎相关慢加急性肝衰竭患者的短期临床预后,AARC-ACLF评分系统临床应用价值更高.%Objective To investigate the diagnostic values of model of end-stage with incorporation of serum sodium (MELD-Na) score, chronic liver failure-sequential organ failure assessment (CLIF-SOFA) score and APASL-ACLF research consortium score (AARC-ACLF) for evaluation of prognosis of hepatitis B virus related acute-on-chronic liver failure (HBV-ACLF). Methods A total of 72 consecutive patients with HBV-ACLF were included in the study and divided into two groups (group A and group B) according to the prognosis in three-month. Group A were included 29 patients with stable disease or better after medical treatment at least for 3 months, and group B included 43 patients who were dead after treatment or received liver transplantation as failure of medical treatment. When the patients were diagnosed as ACLF or after admission, the data were collected. Results of the laboratory examination were collected when the international normalized ratio (INR) was minimum. Data of total bilirubin (TBIL), prothrombin time (PT), INR, serum creatinine (Cr), serum sodium (Na), albumin (ALB), MELD-Na, CLIF-SOFA and AARC-ACLF scores were calculated respectively. The comparative analysis was performed. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) of MELD-Na and CLIF-SOFA scores were used to assess the short-term prognosis in patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure. Results The values of TBIL, INR, MELD-Na, AARC-ACLF and CLIF-SOFA were significantly higher in group B than those in group A (P<0.05). The serum level of Na was significantly lower in group B than that of group A (P<0.05). The area under curve (AUC) values generated by the ROC curves was higher for CLIF-SOFA score (AUC 0.887) than that of MELD-Na score (AUC 0.764) (Z=2.255, P<0.0167). The AUC values generated by the ROC curves showed no significant differences between CLIF-SOFA score and AARC-ACLF score (AUC 0.825) or MELD-Na score and AARC-ACLF score (Z=1.361, 1.127, P>0.0167). The cut-off scores of MELD-Na, CLIF-SOFA and AARC-ACLF were 23.84, 8.50 and 8.50 respectively. Conclusion MELD-Na, CLIF-SOFA and AARC-ACLF scores have appreciable values to evaluate the prognosis in patients with HBV-related ACLF. AARC-ACLF is better than that of MELD-Na and CLIF-SOFA in assessing prognosis of HBV-related ACLF.