论文部分内容阅读
AIM To validate prognostic scores for acute decompensation of cirrhosis and acute-on-chronic liver failure in Brazilian patients.METHODS This is a prospective cohort study designed to assess the prognostic performance of the chronic liver failure-consortium(CLIF-C) acute decompensation score(CLIF-C AD) and CLIF-C acute-on-chronic liver failure score(CLIF-C ACLF),regarding 28-d and 90-d mortality,as well as to compare them to other prognostic models,such as Model for End-Stage Liver Disease(MELD),MELD Sodium(MELD-Na),ChildPugh(CP) score,and the CLIF-C Organ Failure score(CLIF-C OF). All participants were adults with acute decompensation of cirrhosis admitted to the Emergency Department of a tertiary hospital in southern Brazil. Prognostic performances were evaluated by means of the receiver operating characteristic(ROC) curves,area under the curves(AUC) and 95%CI.RESULTS One hundred and thirteen cirrhotic patients were included. At admission,18 patients had acute-onchronic liver failure(ACLF) and 95 individuals had acute decompensation(AD) without ACLF,of which 24 eventually developed ACLF during the course of hospitalization(AD evolving to ACLF group). The AD group had significantly lower 28-d(9.0%) and 90-d(18.3%) mortality as compared to the AD evolving to ACLF group and to the ACLF group(both P < 0.001). On the other hand,28-d and 90-d mortalities were not significantly different between AD evolving to ACLF group and ACLF group(P = 0.542 and P = 0.708,respectively). Among patients with ACLF,at 28 d from the diagnosis,CLIF-C ACLF was the only score able to predict mortality significantly better than the reference line,with an AUC(95%CI) of 0.71(95%CI: 0.54-0.88,P = 0.021). Among patients with AD,all prognostic scores performed significantly better than the reference line regarding 28-d mortality,presenting with similar AUCs: CLIF-C AD score 0.75(95%CI: 0.63-0.88),CP score 0.72(95%CI: 0.59-0.85),MELD score 0.75(95%CI: 0.61-0.90),MELD-Na score 0.76(95%CI: 0.61-0.90),and CLIF-C OF score 0.74(95%CI: 0.60-0.88). The same occurred concerning AUCs for 90-d mortality: CLIF-C AD score 0.70(95%CI: 0.57-0.82),CP score 0.73(95%CI: 0.62-0.84),MELD score 0.71(95%CI: 0.59-0.83),MELD-Na score 0.73(95%CI: 0.62-0.84),and CLIF-C OF score 0.65(95%CI: 0.52-0.78).CONCLUSION This study demonstrated that CLIF-C ACLF is the best available score for the prediction of 28-d mortality among patients with ACLF. CLIF-C AD score is also useful for the prediction of mortality among cirrhotic patients with AD not fulfilling diagnostic criteria for ACLF,but it was not superior to other well-established prognostic scores.
AIM To validate prognostic scores for acute decompensation of cirrhosis and acute-on-chronic liver failure in Brazilian patients. METHODS This is a prospective cohort study designed to assess the prognostic performance of the chronic liver failure-consortium (CLIF-C) acute decompensation score (CLIF-C AD) and CLIF-C acute-on-chronic liver failure score (CLIF-C ACLF), regarding 28-d and 90-d mortality, as well as to compare them to other prognostic models, such as Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD), MELD Sodium (MELD-Na), ChildPugh (CP) score, and the CLIF-C Organ Failure score (CLIF-C OF). All participants were adults with acute decompensation of cirrhosis admitted to the Emergency Department of a tertiary hospital in southern Brazil. Prognostications were evaluated by means of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, area under the curves (AUC) and 95% CI.RESULTS One hundred and thirteen cirrhotic patients were included. , 18 patients had acute-onchronic liver failure (ACLF) and 95 individuals had acute decompensation (AD) without ACLF, of which 24 had developed ACLF during the course of hospitalization (AD evolving to ACLF group). The AD group had significantly lower 28-d (9.0%) and 90- d (18.3%) mortality as compared to the AD evolving to ACLF group and to the ACLF group (both P <0.001). On the other hand, 28-d and 90-d mortalities were not significantly different between AD evolving to ACLF group and ACLF group (P = 0.542 and P = 0.708, respectively). Among patients with ACLF, at 28 d from the diagnosis, CLIF-C ACLF was the only score able to predict mortality significantly better than the reference line, with an AUC ( 95% CI: 0.54-0.88, P = 0.021). Among patients with AD, all prognostic scores performed significantly better than the reference line regarding 28-d mortality, presenting with similar AUCs: CLIF-C AD score 0.75 (95% CI: 0.63-0.88), CP score 0.72 (95% CI 0.59-0.85), MELD score 0.75 (95% CI 0.61-0.90), MELD-Na score 0.76 0.90), and CLIF-C OF score 0.74 (95% CI: 0.60-0.88). The same issue concerning AUCs for 90-d mortality: CLIF-C AD score 0.70 (95% CI: 0.57-0.82), CP score 0.73 % CI: 0.62-0.84), MELD score 0.71 (95% CI: 0.59-0.83), MELD-Na score 0.73 (95% CI: 0.62-0.84), and CLIF-C OF score 0.65 0.78) .CONCLUSION This study demonstrates that CLIF-C ACLF is the best available score for the prediction of 28-d mortality among patients with ACLF. CLIF-C AD score is also useful for the prediction of mortality among cirrhotic patients with AD not fulfilling diagnostic criteria for ACLF, but it was not superior to other well-established prognostic scores.