| Literature DB >> 30215040 |
Ken Min Chin1, John Carson Allen2, Jin Yao Teo1,2, Juinn Huar Kam1,2, Ek Khoon Tan1,2, Yexin Koh1, Kim Poh Brian Goh1,2, Peng Chung Cheow1,2, Prema Raj1,2, Kah Hoe Pierce Chow1,2,3, Yaw Fui Alexander Chung1,2, London Lucien Ooi1,2, Chung Yip Chan1,2, Ser Yee Lee1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUNDS/AIMS: To determine the prevalence of post-hepatectomy liver failure/insufficiency (PHLF/I) in patients undergoing extensive hepatic resections for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and to assess the predictive value of preoperative factors for post-hepatectomy liver failure or insufficiency (PHLF/I).Entities:
Keywords: Cirrhosis; Liver; Liver failure; Predictors; Resection
Year: 2018 PMID: 30215040 PMCID: PMC6125273 DOI: 10.14701/ahbps.2018.22.3.185
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ann Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg ISSN: 2508-5859
Population demographics and perioperative variables
Continuous variables are summarized as mean±SD and categorical variables as percent and sample size, i.e., % (n)
SB, Serum bilirubin; PT, Prothrombin time; AFP, Alpha fetoprotein; CTP, Child-Turcotte-Pugh; MELD, Model for End Stage Liver Disease; ICGR15, Indocyanine Green retention rate at 15 minutes
Prevalence of post-hepatectomy liver failure/insufficiency across 50–50, ISGLS and MSKCC criteria
PT, Prothrombin Time; SB, Serum Bilirubin; RH, Right Hepatectomy; ERH, Extended Right Hepatectomy; PHLF, Post-Hepatectomy Liver Failure; PHLI, Post-Hepatectomy Liver Insufficiency; POD, Post-Operative Day; ISGLS, International Study Group for Liver Surgery; MSKCC, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre; INR, International Normalized Ratio
Results of univariate and multiple logistic regression analyses
Univariate analysis was performed on all parameters under Table 1. Results in Table 3 only include parameters with p<0.2 on univariate analysis (only parameters with p<0.20 in the univariate analysis were included as candidate predictors in the stepwise multiple logistic regression. Continuous variables are summarized as mean±SD and categorical variables as percent and sample size, i.e., % (n)
1Only variables significant at p<0.20 in the stepwise regression are listed
SB, Serum bilirubin; PT, Prothrombin time; AFP, Alpha fetoprotein; CTP, Child-Turcotte-Pugh; MELD, Model for End Stage Liver Disease; ICGR15, Indocyanine Green retention rate at 15 minutes
Models for predicting probability of PHLF/I
Using model coefficients. y50–50=−1.8735+[(MELD score) (0.1701)]+[(Platelet count) (−0.0116)]+[(AFP) (0.000048)]. yISGLS=−3.6478+[(Total serum bilirubin) (0.8730)]+[(Prothrombin time) (0.2134)]. yMSKCC=−3.1983+[(Total serum bilirubin) (1.0958)]+[(MELD score) (0.1244)]+[(Platelet count) (−0.00398)]+[(Operative time) (0.00389)]. Model score=ey/(1+ey)), where e=2.72 (mathematical constant). Model score in excess of cut-off values indicates predicted post-hepatectomy liver failure/insufficiency. Model score below cut-off values indicates no predicted post-hepatectomy liver failure/insufficiency
MAP score for clinical prediction of PHLF (50–50 criteria)
A score of at least 4 points suggests an increased risk of post-hepatetcomy liver failure based on the 50–50 criteria. Empty cells in table correspond to outcomes not observed in the data set
Fig. 1Receiver operating characteristic curve for predictive model under 50–50 criteria.