...
首页> 外文期刊>World Journal of Gastroenterology >Chronic Liver Failure-Sequential Organ Failure Assessment is better than the Asia-Pacific Association for the Study of Liver criteria for defining acute-on-chronic liver failure and predicting outcome
【24h】

Chronic Liver Failure-Sequential Organ Failure Assessment is better than the Asia-Pacific Association for the Study of Liver criteria for defining acute-on-chronic liver failure and predicting outcome

机译:慢性肝功能衰竭-序贯器官功能衰竭评估优于定义急性慢性肝功能衰竭和预测结果的亚太肝病研究协会

获取原文
           

摘要

AIM: To compare the utility of the Chronic Liver Failure-Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (CLIF-SOFA) and Asia-Pacific Association for the Study of Liver (APASL) definitions of acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) in predicting short-term prognosis of patients with ACLF. METHODS: Consecutive patients of cirrhosis with acute decompensation were prospectively included. They were grouped into ACLF and no ACLF groups as per CLIF-SOFA and APASL criteria. Patients were followed up for 3 mo from inclusion or mortality whichever was earlier. Mortality at 28-d and 90-d was compared between no ACLF and ACLF groups as per both criteria. Mortality was also compared between different grades of ACLF as per CLIF-SOFA criteria. Prognostic scores like CLIF-SOFA, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE)-II, Child-Pugh and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores were evaluated for their ability to predict 28-d mortality using area under receiver operating curves (AUROC). RESULTS: Of 50 patients, 38 had ACLF as per CLIF-SOFA and 19 as per APASL criteria. Males (86%) were predominant, alcoholic liver disease (68%) was the most common etiology of cirrhosis, sepsis (66%) was the most common cause of acute decompensation while infection (66%) was the most common precipitant of acute decompensation. The 28-d mortality in no ACLF and ACLF groups was 8.3% and 47.4% (P = 0.018) as per CLIF-SOFA and 39% and 37% (P = 0.895) as per APASL criteria. The 28-d mortality in patients with no ACLF (n = 12), ACLF grade 1 (n = 11), ACLF grade 2 (n = 14) and ACLF grade 3 (n = 13) as per CLIF-SOFA criteria was 8.3%, 18.2%, 42.9% and 76.9% (χ2 for trend, P = 0.002) and 90-d mortality was 16.7%, 27.3%, 78.6% and 100% (χ2 for trend, P P = NS). AUROCs for 28-d mortality were 0.795, 0.787, 0.739 and 0.710 for CLIF-SOFA, APACHE-II, Child-Pugh and MELD scores respectively. On multivariate analysis of these scores, CLIF-SOFA was the only significant independent predictor of mortality with an odds ratio 1.538 (95%CI: 1.078-2.194). CONCLUSION: CLIF-SOFA criteria is better than APASL criteria to classify patients into ACLF based on their prognosis. CLIF-SOFA score is the best predictor of short-term mortality.
机译:目的:比较慢性肝功能衰竭-序贯器官功能衰竭评估(CLIF-SOFA)和亚太研究协会(APASL)急性慢性肝功能衰竭(ACLF)在预测短期肝功能衰竭中的效用。 ACLF患者的长期预后。方法:前瞻性纳入连续性急性失代偿期肝硬化患者。根据CLIF-SOFA和APASL标准,它们分为ACLF组和无ACLF组。从入选或死亡中对患者进行3个月的随访,以较早者为准。根据两个标准,比较没有ACLF组和ACLF组在28天和90天的死亡率。还按照CLIF-SOFA标准比较了不同等级ACLF的死亡率。使用接受者操作下的面积评估了诸如CLIF-SOFA,急性生理和慢性健康评估(APACHE)-II,Child-Pugh和终末期肝病模型(MELD)评分等预后评分的能力,以评估其预测28天死亡率的能力。曲线(AUROC)。结果:在50例患者中,按照CLIF-SOFA标准有38例患有ACLF,按照APASL标准有19例。男性(86%)为主要病因,酒精性肝病(68%)是最常见的肝硬化病因,败血症(66%)是急性失代偿的最常见原因,而感染(66%)是急性失代偿的最常见诱因。根据CLIF-SOFA,无ACLF和ACLF组的28天死亡率分别为8.3%和47.4%(P = 0.018),以及根据APASL标准分别为39%和37%(P = 0.895)。根据CLIF-SOFA标准,无ACLF(n = 12),ACLF 1级(n = 11),ACLF 2级(n = 14)和ACLF 3级(n = 13)的患者的28天死亡率为8.3。 %,18.2%,42.9%和76.9%(趋势χ 2 ,P = 0.002)和90-d死亡率分别为16.7%,27.3%,78.6%和100%(χ 2 表示趋势,PP = NS)。 CLIF-SOFA,APACHE-II,Child-Pugh和MELD评分的28天死亡率的AUROC分别为0.795、0.787、0.739和0.710。在对这些评分进行多变量分析时,CLIF-SOFA是死亡率的唯一重要独立预测因子,优势比为1.538(95%CI:1.078-2.194)。结论:CLIF-SOFA标准优于APASL标准,可根据患者的预后将其分类为ACLF。 CLIF-SOFA评分是短期死亡率的最佳预测指标。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号