Acute variceal bleeding

急性静脉曲张出血
  • 文章类型: Case Reports
    特利加压素是加压素的类似物,可作为静脉曲张出血和肝肾综合征的一线治疗。低钠血症是特利加压素的罕见并发症,因为它对位于肾脏的加压素V2受体的影响较小。与特利加压素使用相关的严重低钠血症是一种罕见的并发症,需要注意。我们描述了一个35岁以前健康的男人,因乙型肝炎相关肝硬化导致的食管静脉曲张破裂出血入院。他的基线钠水平正常(Na139mmol/L),并出现严重低钠血症119mmol/L(等容量,低渗)在特利加压素治疗72小时。拿着药之后,低钠血症在24小时内迅速纠正至135mmol/L。再次给予特利加压素作为低钠血症的过度矫正疗法,钠水平在稳定之前降低,而没有神经系统后果。严重低钠血症是特利加压素治疗的罕见并发症;然而,我们的案例强调了在所有患者特利加压素治疗期间监测钠以预防这种并发症的重要性,更重要的是,以避免持有后可能发生的快速修正。
    Terlipressin is an analogue of vasopressin that is indicated as first-line therapy for variceal hemorrhage and hepatorenal syndrome. Hyponatremia is an uncommon complication of terlipressin because it has less effect on vasopressin V2 receptors located in the kidneys. Profound hyponatremia related to terlipressin use is a rare complication that needs to be aware of. We described a 35-year-old previously healthy man, who was admitted for esophageal variceal bleeding that was attributed to hepatitis B-related liver cirrhosis. He had a normal baseline sodium level (Na 139 mmol/L) and developed severe hyponatremia 119 mmol/L (euvolemic, hypo-osmolar) at 72 hours of terlipressin therapy. After holding the medication, the hyponatremia corrected rapidly to 135 mmol/L within 24 hrs. Terlipressin was given again as therapy for overcorrection of hyponatremia and the sodium level decreased before being stabilized without neurological consequences. Severe hyponatremia is an uncommon complication of terlipressin therapy; however, our case emphasizes the importance of sodium monitoring during terlipressin therapy in all patients to prevent this complication, and more importantly, to avoid rapid correction that could happen after holding it.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:内镜治疗+部分脾栓塞术(PSE)与Hassab手术治疗肝硬化食管静脉曲张破裂出血的预后比较尚不清楚。本研究旨在比较内镜治疗+PSE(EP)与脾切除+心包血管离断术联合治疗的结果。称为Hassab手术(SH),用于肝硬化脾功能亢进患者的食管静脉曲张破裂出血。
    方法:我们招募了328名患者,包括125和203例接受EP和SH的患者,分别。每组由110例倾向评分匹配(PSM)后的患者组成。随后,我们记录并分析了治疗后6个月和1,2和5年的出血事件和死亡率.
    结果:EP组和SH组的中位随访时间分别为53和64个月,分别。EP组治疗后6个月出血发生率低于SH组(1.8%vs.10.0%,P=0.010)。此外,围手术期并发症无显著差异(0%vs.3.6%,P=0.008)。然而,治疗后1、2和5年,两组之间的出血率没有显着差异(7.3%vs.12.7%,P=0.157;10.9%vs.16.4%,P=0.205;30.6%vs.31.8%,P=0.801),以及死亡率(4.5%和7.3%,P=0.571)。
    结论:与SH治疗相比,EP治疗后6个月出血率较低,但长期出血率相似。
    BACKGROUND: The prognosis comparison between endoscopic therapy + partial splenic embolization (PSE) and Hassab\'s operation is unclear in the treatment of esophageal variceal bleeding in patients with liver cirrhosis. This study aimed to compare the outcome of endoscopic therapy + PSE (EP) with a combination of splenectomy + pericardial devascularization procedure, known as Hassab\'s operation (SH) for esophageal variceal bleeding in patients with liver cirrhosis with hypersplenism.
    METHODS: We enrolled 328 patients, including 125 and 203 patients who underwent EP and SH, respectively. Each group consisted of 110 patients after propensity score matching (PSM). Subsequently, we recorded and analyzed bleeding episodes and mortality in 6 months and 1, 2, and 5 years after therapies.
    RESULTS: The median follow-up time in the EP and SH groups was 53 and 64 months, respectively. Bleeding incidence 6 months after therapies in the EP group was lower than that in the SH group (1.8% vs. 10.0%, P = 0.010). Additionally, complications in the perioperative period were not significantly different (0% vs. 3.6%, P = 0.008). However, the bleeding rate between the two groups was not significantly different at 1, 2, and 5 years after therapies (7.3% vs. 12.7%, P = 0.157; 10.9% vs. 16.4%, P = 0.205; 30.6% vs. 31.8%, P = 0.801), as well as mortality rate (4.5% vs 7.3%, P = 0.571).
    CONCLUSIONS: Compared with SH therapy, the bleeding rate 6 months after EP therapy was lower, but the long-term bleeding rate was similar.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    根据BavenoVII协商一致意见的建议,采用先发性经颈静脉肝内门体分流术(pTIPS)被认为是治疗肝硬化相关急性静脉曲张破裂出血(AVB)的标准治疗方法.,但是pTIPS的72小时窗口太窄了。本研究旨在比较接受<72hpTIPS和72h-5dpTIPS的患者的临床结果。在这项研究中,本回顾性研究共纳入了2016年10月至2021年12月期间接受pTIPS治疗的63例肝硬化AVB患者.将其分为<72h组(n=32)和72h-5d组(n=31),根据干预的时机。Kaplan-Meier曲线表明,累积死亡发生率没有显着差异(22.3%±7.4%vs.19.9%±7.3%,对数秩P=0.849),静脉曲张再出血(9.7%±5.3%vs.17.8%±7.3%,对数秩P=0.406),OHE(28.5%±8.0%vs.23.9%±8.0%,log-rankP=0.641)和分流功能障碍(8.6%±6.0%vs.17.4%±8.1%,<72h和72h-5d组之间的log-rankP=0.328)。在总队列中,肌肉减少症被确定为死亡的独立危险因素(HR=11.268,95%CI=1.435-88.462,P=0.021)和OHE(HR=12.504,95%CI=1.598-97.814,P=0.016)。总之,发现在72小时至5天窗内接受pTIPS的肝硬化AVB患者的临床结局与72小时窗内接受的患者相当.
    As recommended by Baveno VII consensus, the utilization of pre-emptive transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (pTIPS) has been considered as standard therapeutic approach for the management of acute variceal bleeding (AVB) associated with cirrhosis., but the 72-h window for pTIPS is too narrow. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between patients who received <72 h pTIPS and 72 h-5d pTIPS. In this study, a total of 63 cirrhotic patients with AVB who underwent pTIPS between October 2016 and December 2021 were included in this retrospective study. They were divided into <72 h group (n = 32) and 72 h-5d group (n = 31), based on the timing of the intervention. The Kaplan-Meier curves demonstrated that there were no significant differences in the cumulative incidence of death (22.3% ± 7.4% vs. 19.9% ± 7.3%, log-rank P = 0.849), variceal rebleeding (9.7% ± 5.3% vs. 17.8% ± 7.3%, log-rank P = 0.406), OHE (28.5% ± 8.0% vs. 23.9% ± 8.0%, log-rank P = 0.641) and shunt dysfunction (8.6% ± 6.0% vs. 17.4% ± 8.1%, log-rank P = 0.328) between <72 h and 72 h-5d groups. In the total cohort, sarcopenia was identified as an independent risk factor for mortality (HR = 11.268, 95% CI = 1.435-88.462, P = 0.021) and OHE(HR = 12.504, 95% CI = 1.598-97.814, P = 0.016). In conclusion, the clinical outcomes of cirrhotic patients with AVB who underwent pTIPS within the 72-h to 5-day window were found to be comparable to those treated within the 72-h window.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Editorial
    根据大多数临床指南,肝硬化和急性静脉曲张破裂出血患者的抗生素预防是护理标准的一部分。然而,最近有证据反对抗生素预防,这种干预的作用已经变得不那么清楚了。
    Antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with cirrhosis and acute variceal bleeding is part of the standard of care according to most clinical guidelines. However, with recent evidence arguing against antibiotic prophylaxis, the role of this intervention has become less clear.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:门静脉高压症(PHT)通常会使肝细胞癌(HCC)的治疗和预后复杂化。我们旨在评估PHT对AtezoBev结局的影响,并确定急性静脉曲张破裂出血(AVB)和临床腹水发生的预测因子。
    方法:对200例接受AtezoBev治疗的HCC患者进行前瞻性队列研究,同时对123例接受索拉非尼治疗的患者进行回顾性队列研究。我们评估了影响无进展生存期(PFS)的因素,总生存期(OS),AVB和临床腹水发展,专注于PHT参数,并比较两个队列内部和之间的结局(时间依赖性Cox模型和调整后的生存曲线)。
    结果:在AtezoBev队列中,10%有AVB经验,24%有高危食管静脉曲张(EV)和46%的血管侵犯。AtezoBev队列的PFS和OS中位数分别为5.13和12.2个月。AVB(HR=1.81;[95CI:1.03-3.17])和临床腹水发生率(HR=2.29;[95CI:1.52-3.45])与死亡率独立相关。AtezoBev患者在12个月时AVB发生率为12%,AVB病史<6个月和血管侵犯与AVB独立相关.索拉非尼队列的中位PFS和OS较短,AVB的发生率相似,只有EV与AVB相关。
    结论:PHT相关事件不仅显著影响AtezoBev治疗患者的肝脏失代偿,也影响OS。我们建议更广泛地使用NSBB来预防肝脏失代偿,加强对高危患者的预防。
    BACKGROUND: Portal hypertension (PHT) often complicates hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treatment and prognosis. We aimed to assess PHT\'s impact on AtezoBev outcomes and identify predictors of acute variceal bleeding (AVB) and clinical ascites occurrence.
    METHODS: A prospective cohort of 200 HCC patients treated with AtezoBev was studied alongside a retrospective cohort of 123 patients treated with Sorafenib. We assessed factors influencing progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), AVB and clinical ascites development, focusing on PHT parameters, and comparing outcomes within and between the two cohorts (time-dependent Cox model and adjusted survival curves).
    RESULTS: Among the AtezoBev cohort, 10% experienced AVB, 24% had high-risk esophageal varices (EV) and 46% vascular invasion. Median PFS and OS in the AtezoBev cohort was 5.13 and 12.2 months. AVB (HR=1.81;[95%CI:1.03-3.17]) and clinical ascites occurrence (HR=2.29;[95%CI:1.52-3.45]) were independently associated with mortality. AVB incidence was 12% at 12 months in AtezoBev patients and EV, history of AVB<6months and vascular invasion were independently associated with AVB. The Sorafenib cohort had shorter median PFS and OS, with similar AVB incidence and only EV were associated with AVB.
    CONCLUSIONS: PHT-related events significantly affect not only liver decompensation but also OS in AtezoBev-treated patients. We suggest a more widespread use of NSBB to prevent liver decompensation, with intensified prophylaxis for high-risk patients.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目的:评估经颈静脉肝内门体分流术(TIPS)用于肝硬化肝细胞癌(HCC)患者急性静脉曲张破裂出血(AVB)的安全性和有效性。
    方法:纳入2016年1月至2022年1月33例AVB和HCC患者的数据并进行回顾性分析。主要结果是紧急TIPS创建的安全性,出血控制率,和再出血率。次要结局包括总生存期(OS),肝功能,明显的肝性脑病(HE),和分流功能障碍。
    结果:在33例患者(100%)和1例(3.0%)患者中,紧急TIPS的创建在技术上是成功的。出血控制率(5天内)为100%。在平均26.3个月的随访期间,6例(18.2%)患者发生再出血.中位OS为20.0个月。6周和1年生存率分别为87%和65%,分别。实验室测试显示TIPS创建后肝功能无明显损害。显性HE和分流功能障碍的发生率分别为24.2%和6.1%,分别。
    结论:紧急TIPS创建对于治疗肝硬化HCC患者的AVB是可行且有效的。
    To estimate the safety and effectiveness of emergent transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) creation for acute variceal bleeding (AVB) in cirrhotic patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).
    Data of thirty-three patients with AVB and HCC undergoing emergent TIPS creation from January 2016 to January 2022 were enrolled and were retrospectively analyzed. The primary outcomes were the safety of emergent TIPS creation, the bleeding control rate, and the rebleeding rate. The secondary outcomes included overall survival (OS), liver function, overt hepatic encephalopathy (HE), and shunt dysfunction.
    Emergent TIPS creation was technically successful in 33 patients (100%) and one (3.0%) patient suffered a major procedure-related adverse event. The control rate of bleeding (within 5 days) was 100%. During a median follow-up period of 26.3 months, rebleeding occurred in 6 (18.2%) patients. The median OS was 20.0 months. The 6-week and 1-year survival rates were 87% and 65%, respectively. Laboratory tests showed no significant impairment of liver function following TIPS creation. The incidences of overt HE and shunt dysfunction were 24.2% and 6.1%, respectively.
    Emergent TIPS creation is feasible and effective for treatment of AVB in cirrhotic patients with HCC.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:本研究旨在比较部分脾栓塞术(PSE)联合内镜治疗和单纯内镜治疗对急性静脉曲张破裂出血(AVB)和脾功能亢进的肝硬化患者的疗效。
    方法:前瞻性纳入2016年6月至2022年6月在三家医院就诊的AVB肝硬化患者,并按1:1的比例随机分为内镜治疗联合PSE组(EP组)或内镜干预组(E组)。该研究的主要终点是随访期间静脉曲张的再出血,次要终点是静脉曲张的复发,死亡,和不良事件。
    结果:前瞻性纳入了114例患者,其中110人完成了审判。静脉曲张再出血的风险(19.3%vs.40.4%(23/57),p=0.013)和静脉曲张复发(28.1%vs.63.2%,p<0.001)治疗后5年EP组明显低于E组,EP治疗是影响患者静脉曲张再出血和静脉曲张复发的唯一显著独立危险因素。EP组和E组的死亡率相当。随访期间EP组外周血计数和肝功能均较E组明显改善(p<0.05)。
    结论:肝硬化合并AVB和脾功能亢进患者经内镜和PSE联合治疗后,静脉曲张再出血和复发率明显低于仅接受内镜治疗的患者。EP组(NCT02778425)的外周血计数和肝功能也明显改善。
    BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of partial splenic embolization (PSE) combined with endoscopic therapy and endoscopic therapy alone in cirrhosis patients with acute variceal bleeding (AVB) and hypersplenism.
    METHODS: Cirrhosis patients with AVB who visited three hospitals from June 2016 to June 2022 were prospectively enrolled and randomly allocated to either the endoscopic therapy combined with PSE group (EP group) or the endoscopic intervention group (E group) in a 1:1 ratio. The primary endpoint of the study was re-bleeding of varices during follow-up, and the secondary endpoints were the recurrence of varices, death, and adverse events.
    RESULTS: One hundred and fourteen patients were prospectively included, of whom 110 completed the trial. The risk of variceal re-bleeding (19.3% vs. 40.4% (23/57), p = 0.013) and variceal recurrence (28.1% vs. 63.2%, p < 0.001) five years after treatment was significantly lower in the EP group than in the E group, and the EP treatment was the only significant independent risk factor affecting variceal re-bleeding and variceal recurrence in patients. The mortality rate was comparable between the EP and E groups. Peripheral blood counts and liver function all improved significantly in the EP group compared to the E group during the follow-up (p < 0.05).
    CONCLUSIONS: The rates of variceal re-bleeding and recurrence were significantly lower in cirrhosis patients with AVB and hypersplenism after combined endoscopic and PSE treatment compared to those who were provided endoscopic treatment only. The peripheral blood counts and liver function were also improved significantly in EP group (NCT02778425).
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:在目前的指南和研究中,肝硬化急性静脉曲张破裂出血(AVB)的最佳内镜检查时机仍存在争议。
    方法:连续筛选肝硬化和AVB患者。内窥镜检查的时间是从最后一次出现AVB或接受内窥镜检查开始计算的。早期内窥镜检查定义为间隔<12小时,<24小时,或<48小时。进行1:1倾向评分匹配(PSM)分析。评估了五天未能控制出血和院内死亡率。
    结果:总体而言,纳入534例患者。当内窥镜检查的时间从最后一次AVB的出现计算时,PSM分析表明,在定义为<48h的早期内窥镜检查组中,5天出血失败的发生率明显更高(9.7%对2.4%,P=0.009),但不<12小时(8.7%对6.5%,P=1.000)或<24小时(13.4%对6.2%,P=0.091),早期和延迟内窥镜检查组的住院死亡率没有显着差异(<12h:6.5%对4.3%,P=1.000;<24小时:4.1%对3.1%,P=1.000;<48小时:3.0%对2.4%,P=1.000)。当从入院开始计算内窥镜检查的时间时,PSM分析显示,5天未能控制出血的发生率没有任何显着差异(<12h:4.8%对12.7%,P=0.205;<24小时:5.2%对7.7%,P=0.355;<48h:4.5%对6.0%,P=0.501)或住院死亡率(<12小时:4.8%对4.8%,P=1.000;<24小时:3.9%对2.6%,P=0.750;<48h:2.0%对2.5%,早期和延迟内镜组之间的P=1.000)。
    结论:我们的研究不能支持胃镜检查时机与肝硬化AVB患者的任何显著关联。
    BACKGROUND: The optimal timing of endoscopy in liver cirrhosis with acute variceal bleeding (AVB) remains controversial in current guidelines and studies.
    METHODS: Consecutive patients with liver cirrhosis and AVB were screened. The timing of endoscopy was calculated from the last presentation of AVB or the admission to endoscopy. Early endoscopy was defined as the interval < 12 h, < 24 h, or < 48 h. A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed. Five-day failure to control bleeding and in-hospital mortality were evaluated.
    RESULTS: Overall, 534 patients were included. When the timing of endoscopy was calculated from the last presentation of AVB, PSM analysis demonstrated that the rate of 5-day failure to control bleeding was significantly higher in early endoscopy group defined as < 48 h (9.7% versus 2.4%, P = 0.009), but not < 12 h (8.7% versus 6.5%, P = 1.000) or < 24 h (13.4% versus 6.2%, P = 0.091), and that the in-hospital mortality was not significantly different between early and delayed endoscopy groups (< 12 h: 6.5% versus 4.3%, P = 1.000; <24 h: 4.1% versus 3.1%, P = 1.000; <48 h: 3.0% versus 2.4%, P = 1.000). When the timing of endoscopy was calculated from the admission, PSM analyses did not demonstrate any significant difference in the rate of 5-day failure to control bleeding (< 12 h: 4.8% versus 12.7%, P = 0.205; <24 h: 5.2% versus 7.7%, P = 0.355; <48 h: 4.5% versus 6.0%, P = 0.501) or in-hospital mortality (< 12 h: 4.8% versus 4.8%, P = 1.000; <24 h: 3.9% versus 2.6%, P = 0.750; <48 h: 2.0% versus 2.5%, P = 1.000) between early and delayed endoscopy groups.
    CONCLUSIONS: Our study could not support any significant association of timing of endoscopy with cirrhotic patients with AVB.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目的:评估CT门静脉造影(CTPV)在肝硬化急性静脉曲张破裂出血(AVB)患者术前评估经颈静脉肝内门体分流术(TIPS)的可行性。
    方法:回顾性研究招募了2016年1月至2022年12月在我们机构进行紧急TIPS创建的148例AVB肝硬化患者。主要结果是CTPV和内窥镜检查在胃食管静脉曲张(GEVs)的分类和分级方面的一致性。第二个结果是腔外CTPV结果。通过Kappa值确定CTPV和内窥镜检查在GEV分类和分级中的一致性。
    结果:紧急TIPS创建在所有患者中在技术上都是成功的。45例患者接受了术前内窥镜检查。GEVs分类的CTPV诊断结果为112、28和8例患者被分类为1型胃食管静脉曲张(GOV1),GOV2和孤立的1型胃静脉曲张(IGV1),分别。在诊断GEV的分类和分级时,CTPV与术前内窥镜检查显示出实质性的一致性,Kappa值分别为0.823和0.625。CTPV为紧急TIPS创建提供了GEV的传入和传入血管。
    结论:CTPV是可行和有效的,可以作为内镜检查的另一种术前评估方法,用于发生TIPS的肝硬化AVB患者。
    OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of computed tomography portal venography (CTPV) in the preoperative evaluation of emergent transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) creation for cirrhotic patients with acute variceal bleeding (AVB).
    METHODS: One hundred and forty-eightcirrhotic patients with AVB undergoing emergent TIPS creation from January 2016 to December 2022 in our institution were enrolled in the retrospective study. The primary outcome was the consistency between CTPV and endoscopy in the classification and grading of gastroesophageal varices (GEVs). The second outcome was extraluminal CTPV findings. The consistency of CTPV and endoscopy in the classification and grading of GEVs was determined by Kappa values.
    RESULTS: Emergent TIPS creation was technically successful in all patients. Forty-five patients underwent preoperative endoscopy. The results of CTPV diagnosis of GEVs classification were that 112, 28, and 8 patients were classified as gastroesophageal varices type 1 (GOV1), GOV2, and isolated gastric varices type 1 (IGV1), respectively. In diagnosing the classification and grading of GEVs, CTPV showed substantial agreement with preoperative endoscopy, with Kappa values of 0.823 and 0.625, respectively. CTPV provided the afferent and afferent vessels of GEVs for emergent TIPS creation.
    CONCLUSIONS: CTPV is feasible and effective to act as an alternative preoperative evaluation method to endoscopy for cirrhotic patients with AVB undergoing emergent TIPS creation.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目的:急性静脉曲张破裂出血(AVB)是一种危及生命的肝硬化并发症。慢性急性肝衰竭(ACLF)是一种以肝硬化急性代偿失调为特征的综合征,多器官衰竭和高短期死亡率。本研究旨在评估ACLF在肝硬化AVB患者的风险分层中的作用。
    方法:从重症监护医学信息集市(MIMIC)-IV数据库中回顾性提取335例因AVB住院的肝硬化患者的前瞻性数据。ACLF由欧洲肝脏-慢性肝功能衰竭研究协会定义,并诊断/分级为慢性肝功能衰竭-器官衰竭(CLIF-OF)评分。进行Cox比例风险回归分析,以确定AVB患者6周道德的危险因素。通过绘制受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线和校准曲线来评估预后评分的辨别和校准,分别。通过计算Brier评分和R2值来评估总体性能。
    结果:共有181例(54.0%)患者被诊断为ACLF(1级:18.2%,二级:33.7%,三年级:48.1%)入学。ACLF患者的6周死亡率明显高于无ACLF患者(43.6%vs.8.4%,P<0.001),并随着ACLF的严重程度而增加(22.5%,ACLF1、2和3级分别为34.2%和63.8%,P<0.001)。在多变量分析中,校正混杂因素后,ACLF的存在仍然是6周死亡率的独立危险因素(HR=2.12,P=0.03).歧视,CLIF-CACLF和CLIF-CAD的校准和总体表现优于传统的预后评分(CTP,MELD和MELD-Na)在预测患有和不患有ACLF的患者的6周死亡率中,分别。
    结论:合并ACLF的肝硬化AVB患者预后较差。入院时ACLF是肝硬化AVB患者6周死亡率的独立预测因子。CLIF-CACLF和CLIF-CAD是有和没有ACLF的AVB患者的最佳预后评分,分别,并可用于这两个不同实体的风险分层。
    OBJECTIVE: Acute variceal bleeding (AVB) is a life-threatening complication of cirrhosis. Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is a syndrome characterized by acute decompensation of cirrhosis, multiple organ failures and high short-term mortality. This study aimed to evaluate the role of ACLF in the risk stratification of cirrhotic patients with AVB.
    METHODS: Prospective data of 335 cirrhotic patients hospitalized for AVB were retrospectively extracted from Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC)-IV database. ACLF was defined by European Association for the Study of Liver-Chronic Liver Failure Consortium and diagnosed/graded with chronic liver failure-organ failure (CLIF-OF) score. Cox-proportional hazards regression analysis was performed to identify the risk factors for 6-week morality in AVB patients. Discrimination and calibration of prognostic scores were evaluated by plotting the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve and calibration curve, respectively. Overall performance was assessed by calculating the Brier score and R2 value.
    RESULTS: A total of 181 (54.0%) patients were diagnosed with ACLF (grade 1: 18.2%, grade 2: 33.7%, grade 3: 48.1%) at admission. The 6-week mortality in patients with ACLF was significantly higher than that in patients without ACLF (43.6% vs. 8.4%, P < 0.001) and increased in line with the severity of ACLF (22.5%, 34.2% and 63.8% for ACLF grade 1, 2 and 3, P < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, presence of ACLF remained as an independent risk factor for 6-week mortality after adjusting for confounding factors (HR = 2.12, P = 0.03). The discrimination, calibration and overall performance of CLIF-C ACLF and CLIF-C AD were superior to the traditional prognostic scores (CTP, MELD and MELD-Na) in the prediction of 6-week mortality of patients with and without ACLF, respectively.
    CONCLUSIONS: The prognosis of cirrhotic patients with AVB is poor when accompanied by ACLF. ACLF at admission is an independent predictor for the 6-week mortality in cirrhotic patients with AVB. CLIF-C ACLF and CLIF-C AD are the best prognostic scores in AVB patients with and without ACLF, respectively, and can be used for the risk stratification of these two distinct entities.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

公众号