| Literature DB >> 29699059 |
Min Sun Park1, Soonchang Hong2, Yoo Li Lim1, Seong Hee Kang1,3, Soon Koo Baik1,3, Moon Young Kim1,3.
Abstract
Background/Aims: Acute hepatic dysfunction combined with alcoholic hepatitis (AH) in alcoholic cirrhosis is related to hepatic hypo-perfusion secondary to intrahepatic necroinflammation, neoangiogenesis, and shunt. The hepatic vein arrival time (HVAT) assessed by microbubble contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) is closely correlated with the severity of intrahepatic changes. We investigated the usefulness of HVAT to predict short-term mortality of AH in cirrhosis.Entities:
Keywords: Hepatic veins; Hepatitis, alcoholic; Liver cirrhosis, alcoholic; Ultrasonography, contrast-enhanced
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29699059 PMCID: PMC6143448 DOI: 10.5009/gnl17342
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Gut Liver ISSN: 1976-2283 Impact factor: 4.519
Fig. 1Study design and flow chart HVAT, hepatic vein arrival time.
Fig. 2Hepatic vein arrival time (HVAT) measurement using microbubble contrast enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS). (A) Detection of hepatic vein (HV) enhancement. After contrast injection at 10 seconds of lead time, HV enhancement with microbubble contrast agent was detected (white circle is region of interest [ROI] to measure time intensity curves [TICs]). (B) TICs for HV enhancement intensity were drawn and HVAT was calculated as the time (in seconds) from injection to a sustained signal increase in the TIC to over 10% above baseline intensity point (the 10-second lead time [black arrow] should be subtracted from the measured time point [e.g., 17.5–10.0 seconds=7.5 seconds]).
General Characteristics
| Characteristic | Total population (n=39) | Survival (n=30) | Mortality (n=9) | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male sex | 27 (69.0) | 22 (73.3) | 5 (55.6) | 0.416 |
| Age, yr | 50.0 (35.0–69.0) | 51.0 (35.0–68.0) | 46.0 (42.0–69.0) | 0.921 |
| Child-Pugh score | 9.0 (8.0–11.0) | 9.0 (5.0–10.0) | 10.0 (7.0–13.0) | 0.007 |
| MELD score | 19.5 (6.0–40.0) | 16.0 (6.0–28.0) | 27.0 (7.0–40.0) | <0.001 |
| MDF score | 49.0 (1.6–113.9) | 32.2 (1.6–80.0) | 78.2 (58.4–113.9) | <0.001 |
| HVAT, s | 11.0 (6.4–19.4) | 12.2 (7.1–19.4) | 8.7 (6.4–16.8) | 0.002 |
| Total bilirubin, mg/dL | 8.7 (0.8–54.6) | 4.8 (0.8–28.9) | 21.9 (1.1–54.6) | 0.001 |
| AST, U/L | 165.5 (50.0–2,185.0) | 296.0 (50.0–2,185.0) | 150.0 (61.0–300.0) | 0.005 |
| ALT, U/L | 85.5 (17.0–2,635.0) | 256.0 (20.0–2,635.0) | 37.0 (17.0–252.0) | 0.005 |
| Albumin, g/dL | 3.1 (2.0–4.4) | 3.3 (2.2–4.4) | 3.0 (2.0–3.6) | 0.175 |
| INR | 1.5 (0.9–2.7) | 1.4 (0.9–2.3) | 2.0 (1.0–2.7) | <0.001 |
| WBC, 109/L | 5,765.0 (1,730.0–32,490.0) | 5,500.0 (1,730–32,490) | 6,750.0 (4,150.0–19,000.0) | 0.018 |
| Hb, g/dL | 11.8 (8.3–17.3) | 12.1 (8.5–17.3) | 11.0 (8.3–14.4) | 0.130 |
| Platelet, 109/L | 106.0 (25.0–443.0) | 110.0 (25.0–443.0) | 80.0 (25.0–295.0) | 0.817 |
| CRP, mg/dL | 0.9 (0.1–7.8) | 0.6 (0.1–7.8) | 2.0 (0.3–4.4) | 0.173 |
| Cr, mg/dL | 0.7 (0.2–3.5) | 0.6 (0.2–1.5) | 0.7 (0.2–3.5) | 0.305 |
| Na, mmol/L | 137.0 (117.0–144.0) | 138.0 (117.0–144.0) | 137.0 (125.0–139.0) | 0.360 |
Data are presented as number (%) or median (range).
MELD, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease; MDF, Maddrey’s Discriminant Function; HVAT, hepatic vein arrival time; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; INR, international normalized ratio; WBC, white blood cell; Hb, hemoglobin; CRP, C-reactive protein.
Statistical comparison between survival and mortality.
Univariate and Multivariate Analysis for Risk Factors Associated with 12-Week Mortality
| Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||||||
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | ||||||||||
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||
| OR | 95% CI | p-value | OR | 95% CI | p-value | OR | 95% CI | p-value | OR | 95% CI | p-value | |
| Age | 1.006 | 0.906–1.116 | 0.918 | |||||||||
| Sex, M:F | 2.200 | 0.470–10.302 | 0.317 | |||||||||
| Albumin | 0.363 | 0.083–1.580 | 0.177 | |||||||||
| Total bilirubin | 1.119 | 1.027–1.219 | 0.10 | |||||||||
| Prothrombin time, INR | 72.727 | 4.702–1,124.957 | 0.002 | |||||||||
| Child-Pugh score | 2.469 | 1.172–5.199 | 0.017 | 4.046 | 1.116–14.620 | 0.033 | ||||||
| MELD score | 1.434 | 1.114–1.847 | 0.005 | 2.484 | 0.994–6.209 | 0.052 | ||||||
| MDF | 1.071 | 1.023–1.122 | 0.03 | 5.090 | 1.211–122.87 | 0.0316 | ||||||
| HVAT | 1.481 | 1.050–2.090 | 0.025 | 1.724 | 1.132–3.188 | 0.041 | 6.905 | 1.048–68.915 | 0.046 | 2.620 | 1.135–6.047 | 0.024 |
Model 1: age, sex, HVAT, Child-Pugh score; Model 2: age, sex, HVAT, MELD; Model 3: age, sex, HVAT, MDF. Multivariate analysis was adjusted by age and sex.
OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; M, male; F, female; INR, international normalized ratio; MELD, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease; MDF, Maddrey’s Discriminant Function; HVAT, hepatic vein arrival time.
Fig. 3The additional benefit of using hepatic vein arrival time (HVAT) to make a prognosis based on a Maddrey’s Discriminant Function (MDF) score. Among patients with a baseline MDF of <32, only one mortality developed with a simultaneous HVAT of <11.0 seconds. However, when HVAT was ≥11.0 seconds, the survival rate was 87.5%, although the baseline MDF was ≥32.
Fig. 4The additional benefit of using hepatic vein arrival time (HVAT) to make a prognosis based on Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score. Only one mortality occurred in patients with a HVAT of <11.0 seconds and a MELD of <21. In contrast, 83.3% of patients with a HVAT of ≥11.0 seconds survived despite initially presenting a MELD of ≥21.