Suppr超能文献

急性-慢性肝衰竭现行诊断标准的比较

Comparison of current diagnostic criteria for acute-on-chronic liver failure.

作者信息

Zhang Qian, Li Ying, Han Tao, Nie CaiYun, Cai JunJun, Liu Hua, Liu Ying

机构信息

The Third Central Clinical College of Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China; Department of Hepatology, Tianjin Third Central Hospital, Tianjin, China.

Department of Hepatology, Tianjin Third Central Hospital, Tianjin, China; Tianjin Institute of Hepatobiliary Disease, Tianjin, China; Tianjin Key Laboratory of Artificial Cells, Tianjin, China.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2015 Mar 18;10(3):e0122158. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0122158. eCollection 2015.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Currently, acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) has been defined differently by Asia-Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL) and Chinese Medical Association (CMA) in the East, as well as EASL-Chronic Liver Failure (EASL-CLIF) Consortium in the West. This study aimed to compare current different diagnostic criteria for ACLF and to determine predictors of the progression into post-enrollment EASL-CLIF ACLF from ACLF at enrollment defined by APASL alone or by both APASL and CMA but not by EASL-CLIF Consortium.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed clinical data from 394 eligible cirrhotic patients fulfilling at least APASL criteria for ACLF at enrollment. Patient survival was estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis and subsequently compared by log-rank test. Independent predictors of disease progression were determined using univariate analysis and multivariate Cox regression analysis.

RESULTS

The 90-day mortality rate was 13.1% in patients with ACLF at enrollment defined by APASL alone, 25.3% in patients with ACLF at enrollment defined by both APASL and CMA but not EASL-CLIF Consortium, and 59.3% in patients with ACLF at enrollment defined by EASL-CLIF Consortium in addition to APASL. Baseline Chronic Liver Failure-Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (CLIF-SOFA) score, and the maximum rising rates of CLIF-SOFA score, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease-Sodium (MELD-Na) score and total bilirubin were independent predictors of progression into post-enrollment EASL-CLIF ACLF from ACLF at enrollment defined by APASL alone or by both APASL and CMA but not by EASL-CLIF Consortium.

CONCLUSION

Different diagnostic criteria for ACLF caused different patient prognosis. So, it is imperative to formulate a unifying diagnostic criteria for ACLF worldwide, thus attaining early identification and treatment, and eventual improvement in survival of ACLF patients. Baseline CLIF-SOFA score, and the maximum rising rates of CLIF-SOFA score, MELD-Na score and total bilirubin may early predict post-enrollment development of EASL-CLIF ACLF.

摘要

背景与目的

目前,亚太肝脏研究协会(APASL)和中国医学会(CMA)在东方对急性慢性肝衰竭(ACLF)的定义有所不同,西方的欧洲肝脏研究学会慢性肝衰竭(EASL-CLIF)联盟也是如此。本研究旨在比较当前不同的ACLF诊断标准,并确定从仅由APASL定义或由APASL和CMA共同定义但不由EASL-CLIF联盟定义的入组时的ACLF进展为入组后EASL-CLIF ACLF的预测因素。

方法

我们回顾性分析了394例符合至少APASL入组时ACLF标准的肝硬化患者的临床数据。通过Kaplan-Meier分析估计患者生存率,随后通过对数秩检验进行比较。使用单因素分析和多因素Cox回归分析确定疾病进展的独立预测因素。

结果

仅由APASL定义的入组时ACLF患者的90天死亡率为13.1%,由APASL和CMA共同定义但不由EASL-CLIF联盟定义的入组时ACLF患者为25.3%,由EASL-CLIF联盟除APASL外定义的入组时ACLF患者为59.3%。基线慢性肝衰竭-序贯器官衰竭评估(CLIF-SOFA)评分、CLIF-SOFA评分的最大上升率、终末期肝病-钠(MELD-Na)评分和总胆红素是从仅由APASL定义或由APASL和CMA共同定义但不由EASL-CLIF联盟定义的入组时的ACLF进展为入组后EASL-CLIF ACLF的独立预测因素。

结论

ACLF的不同诊断标准导致不同的患者预后。因此,迫切需要在全球范围内制定统一的ACLF诊断标准,从而实现早期识别和治疗,并最终改善ACLF患者的生存率。基线CLIF-SOFA评分、CLIF-SOFA评分的最大上升率、MELD-Na评分和总胆红素可能早期预测入组后EASL-CLIF ACLF的发生。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/94e4/4364726/b42d4fce6c87/pone.0122158.g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验