| Literature DB >> 29236915 |
Qing Lei1, Kangjian Ao1, Yinhua Zhang1, Deqiang Ma1, Deping Ding1, Changzheng Ke1, Yue Chen1, Jie Luo2, Zhongji Meng1,3.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of the baseline status of patients with hepatitis B virus-associated acute-on-chronic liver failure on short-term outcomes.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29236915 PMCID: PMC5706059 DOI: 10.6061/clinics/2017(11)07
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clinics (Sao Paulo) ISSN: 1807-5932 Impact factor: 2.365
Figure 1Case screening and enrollment. No statistically significant difference was observed between the poor prognosis group and the good prognosis group in terms of disease stage at admission.
General information of the patients.
| Good prognosis | Poor prognosis | Statistics value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 43.16±12.44 | 48.08±9.08 | t′ = 2.621 | 0.010 |
| Gender (male/female) | 52/12 | 59/15 | χ2 = 0.05 | 0.822 |
| W/wo liver cirrhosis | 19/45 | 32/42 | χ2 = 2.707 | 0.100 |
| W/wo drug-withdrawal rebound | 6/5 | 10/22 | χ2 = 1.035 | 0.309 |
| W/wo ascites | 41/23 | 55/19 | χ2 = 1.707 | 0.191 |
| W/wo ALST | 54/10 | 36/38 | χ2 = 19.31 | 0.000 |
| Number of treatments | 1.62 (0.79, 2.55) | 0.64 (0, 1.61) | Z = -4.422 | 0.000 |
Note: W/wo indicates with/without; ALST is the abbreviation of artificial liver support therapy.
Clinical indicators of the baseline status of the patients.
| Good prognosis | Poor prognosis | Statistics value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WBC (× 1012/L) | 5.31 (4.12, 6.79) | 6.40 (4.48, 9.07) | Z = -2.291 | 0.022 |
| NE (× 1012/L) | 3.16 (2.28, 4.99) | 4.03 (2.86, 6.57) | Z = -2.248 | 0.025 |
| LY (× 1012/L) | 1.13 (0.84, 1.43) | 1.21±0.63 | Z = -0.566 | 0.572 |
| NE/LY | 2.70 (1.79, 5.37) | 3.96 (2.93, 6.69) | Z = -2.517 | 0.012 |
| PLT (× 1012/L) | 88.0 (65.25, 125.67) | 85.0 (46.0, 122.33) | Z = -1.087 | 0.277 |
| ALT (U/L) | 507.5 (175.5, 902.0) | 198.0 (81.0, 674.0) | Z = -2.589 | 0.01 |
| AST (U/L) | 289.5 (124.0, 767.5) | 210.0 (95.67, 424.0) | Z = -1.543 | 0.123 |
| GGT (U/L) | 108.5 (62.5, 159.5) | 66.0 (47.0, 125.0) | Z = -2.735 | 0.006 |
| Alb (g/L) | 33.74±5.174 | 30.71±5.56 | t = -3.30 | 0.001 |
| TBil (μmol/L) | 234.24±106.27 | 301.62±144.45 | t′ = 3.147 | 0.002 |
| Urea (mmol/L) | 4.17 (2.98, 5.44) | 4.54 (3.54, 7.52) | Z = -2.002 | 0.045 |
| Cr (μmol/L) | 55.75 (42.7, 77.95) | 56.95 (42.7, 85.5) | Z = -0.431 | 0.666 |
| Na (mmol/L) | 138.91±4.209 | 136.07±6.33 | t′ = -3.136 | 0.002 |
| PT (s) | 22.45 (18.5, 26.03) | 25.0 (18.6, 30.9) | Z = -1.738 | 0.082 |
| PTA (%) | 28.27 (22.64, 36.97) | 26.37±12.80 | Z = -1.964 | 0.05 |
| APTT (s) | 52.83±14.70 | 56.33±18.69 | t′ = 1.231 | 0.22 |
| INR | 1.98±0.62 | 2.05 (1.6, 2.72) | Z = -1.642 | 0.101 |
Note: Normally distributed data are represented as x̅±s. Non-normally distributed data are represented as medians (P25 and P75).
Prognostic scores of the patients at baseline.
| Good prognosis | Poor prognosis | Statistics value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CTP score | 10.11±1.78 | 11.2±1.68 | t = 3.706 | 0.000 |
| MELD score | 18.08±7.10 | 21.58±7.39 | t = 2.828 | 0.005 |
| MELD-Na score | 18.95±7.7 | 24.18±10.11 | t = 3.573 | 0.000 |
| iMELD score | 33.79±9.15 | 40.75±9.90 | t = 4.268 | 0.000 |
| ALBI score | -1.34±0.52 | -1.01±0.54 | t = 3.639 | 0.000 |
Comparison of the five types of prognostic scores.
| Area | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Std. error | Asymptotic Sig. | 95% C.I. | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | ||||||
| CTP | 0.672 | 47.3 | 79.7 | 0.045 | 0.000 | 0.593 | 0.761 |
| MELD | 0.641 | 56.8 | 71.9 | 0.047 | 0.004 | 0.549 | 0.733 |
| MELD-Na | 0.656 | 41.9 | 85.9 | 0.046 | 0.002 | 0.565 | 0.746 |
| iMELD | 0.699 | 74.3 | 62.5 | 0.045 | 0.000 | 0.611 | 0.786 |
| ALBI | 0.682 | 62.2 | 67.2 | 0.045 | 0.000 | 0.594 | 0.771 |
| Logit(p) | 0.656 | 62.2 | 64.1 | 0.046 | 0.002 | 0.565 | 0.746 |
Figure 2ROC curves for CTP, MELD, MELD-Na, iMELD, ALBI score and logit (p) curve.
Area under the ROC curve and the cut-off value of each variable.
| Cut-off value | c-statistic | 95% CI | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | |||
| Age | 43.5 | 0.643 | 0.549 | 0.738 |
| WBC | 6.75 | 0.613 | 0.52 | 0.707 |
| NE | 5.635 | 0.611 | 0.517 | 0.705 |
| NE/LY | 2.947 | 0.624 | 0.53 | 0.719 |
| ALT | 127.5 | 0.372 | 0.279 | 0.465 |
| GGT | 76 | 0.365 | 0.272 | 0.457 |
| Alb | 34.85 | 0.343 | 0.252 | 0.435 |
| TBil | 251.2 | 0.632 | 0.54 | 0.725 |
| Urea | 6.365 | 0.599 | 0.505 | 0.693 |
| Na | 136.3 | 0.361 | 0.268 | 0.454 |
| CTP | 11.5 | 0.672 | 0.593 | 0.761 |
| MELD | 21.448 | 0.641 | 0.549 | 0.733 |
| MELD-Na | 25.636 | 0.656 | 0.565 | 0.746 |
| iMELD | 34.705 | 0.699 | 0.611 | 0.786 |
| ALBI | -1.119 | 0.682 | 0.594 | 0.771 |
Variable assignment.
| Assignment | ||
|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1 | |
| Age | ≤ 43.5 | > 43.5 |
| WBC | ≤ 6.75 | > 6.75 |
| NE | ≤ 5.635 | > 5.635 |
| NE/LY | ≤ 2.947 | > 2.947 |
| ALT | ≤ 127.5 | > 127.5 |
| GGT | ≤ 76 | > 76 |
| Alb | ≤ 34.85 | > 34.85 |
| TBil | ≤ 251.2 | > 251.2 |
| Urea | ≤ 6.365 | > 6.365 |
| Na | ≤ 136.3 | > 136.3 |
| MELD | ≤ 21.448 | > 21.448 |
| MELD-Na | ≤ 25.636 | > 25.636 |
| iMELD | ≤ 34.705 | > 34.705 |
| CTP | ≤ 11.5 | > 11.5 |
| ALBI | ≤ -1.119 | > -1.119 |
| Artificial liver support therapy (ALST) | No | Yes |
| Prognosis | Good prognosis | Poor prognosis |
Logistic regression analysis results.
| B | SE | Wald | Sig | Exp(B) | 95% CI for Exp(B) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | ||||||
| NE/LY | 1.003 | 0.444 | 5.109 | 0.024 | 2.728 | 1.143 | 6.512 |
| GGT | -0.892 | 0.428 | 4.338 | 0.037 | 0.41 | 0.177 | 0.949 |
| Alb | -1.138 | 0.511 | 4.951 | 0.026 | 0.321 | 0.118 | 0.873 |
| Na | -1.364 | 0.455 | 8.979 | 0.003 | 0.256 | 0.105 | 0.624 |
| Artificial liver support therapy | 1.651 | 0.473 | 12.161 | 0.000 | 5.21 | 2.06 | 13.174 |
| Constant term | 3.068 | 1.441 | 4.535 | 0.033 | 21.489 | ||