首页> 外文期刊>The American Journal of Gastroenterology >Development and Validation of a Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement for Symptom Assessment in Cirrhotic Ascites.
【24h】

Development and Validation of a Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement for Symptom Assessment in Cirrhotic Ascites.

机译:肝硬化腹水症状评估的患者报告结果测量的开发与验证。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

As current treatments of cirrhotic ascites are not associated with survival benefit, symptom relief is the major therapeutic end point. We developed a questionnaire (Ascites-Q; modified polycystic liver disease questionnaire) and assessed validity and responsiveness for symptom assessment in cirrhotic ascites. Ascites-Q was compared with Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Ascites Index (FACIT-AI; developed for malignant ascites) and Japanese Ascites Symptom Inventory-7 (ASI-7) in cirrhotics undergoing large-volume paracentesis. Convergent validity was defined as correlation >0.4 between ascites questionnaires and quality of life (QoL) visual analog scale. Responsiveness was assessed by comparing scores at baseline and 7 days after large-volume paracentesis. To test discriminative ability, we compared scores of patients with cirrhotic controls without ascites (n=24) and diuretic-sensitive ascites (n=46). We included 90 patients with refractory cirrhotic ascites (61% male, mean age 59 years, Model of End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score 16, median paracentesis volume 4,100?ml). Higher symptoms scores were correlated with lower QoL (Ascites-Q: r=0.479, P 0.4). Symptoms decreased after paracentesis (Ascites-Q: 57 to 34, FACIT-AI: 44 to 33, and ASI-7: 57 to 25, all P<0.001). Ascites-Q and ASI-7 discriminated between controls without ascites, diuretic-sensitive, and refractory ascites (Ascites-Q: 16 vs. 35 vs. 56 points, ASI-7: 2 vs. 25 vs. 61 points, all P<0.05), whereas FACIT-AI (39 vs. 40 vs. 52 points) could not (P=0.314). Ascites-Q was validated at 3 months in an independent cohort with ascites controlled with a pump. The Ascites-Q is the best ascites-specific outcome to evaluate symptom relief in cirrhotic ascites.
机译:由于目前的肝硬化腹水与生存效益无关,症状浮雕是主要的治疗终点。我们开发了调查问卷(腹水 - Q;改性多囊肝疾病调查问卷),并评估了肝硬化腹水症状评估的有效性和反应性。将腹水Q与慢性疾病治疗 - 腹水指数的功能评估进行比较(Facit-AI;为恶性腹水开发)和日本腹水症状Inventory-7(ASI-7)进行了大量副作用。收敛有效性定义为腹水调查问卷和寿命质量(QOL)视觉模拟规模之间的相关性> 0.4。通过比较基线的评分和大量副腹腔尿谱后7天进行评估响应性。为了测试鉴别能力,我们比较了没有腹水(n = 24)和利尿敏感腹水(n = 46)的肝硬化控制患者的分数。我们包括90名耐火性肝硬化腹水(61%雄性,平均59岁,末期肝病模型(MELD)得分16,中位数腹向体积4,100?mL)。较高的症状分数与下QOL相关(腹水 - Q:r = 0.479,p 0.4)。毒谱后症状减少(腹水 - Q:57至34,Facit-AI:44至33,以及ASI-7:57至25,所有P <0.001)。腹水 - Q和ASI-7在没有腹水的控制之间歧视,利尿敏感和难治性腹水(腹水 - Q:16对35与56点,ASI-7:2对25与61分,所有P < 0.05),而Facit-AI(39与40 vs.52点)不能(p = 0.314)。腹水Q在与泵控制的独立队列中的3个月内验证。腹期Q是评估肝硬化腹水中症状缓解的最佳腹水特异性结果。

著录项

  • 来源
  • 作者单位

    Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre Nijmegen;

    Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre Nijmegen;

    Department of Radiology Mayo Clinic College of Medicine Rochester Minnesota USA;

    Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Mayo Clinic College of Medicine Rochester Minnesota;

    Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Mayo Clinic College of Medicine Rochester Minnesota;

    Radboud Institute for Health Sciences Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center Nijmegen The;

    Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre Nijmegen;

    Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Mayo Clinic College of Medicine Rochester Minnesota;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 消化系及腹部疾病;
  • 关键词

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