| Literature DB >> 30984902 |
Christian Jansen1, Anna Schröder1, Robert Schueler2, Jennifer Lehmann1, Michael Praktiknjo1, Frank E Uschner1,3, Robert Schierwagen1, Daniel Thomas4, Sofia Monteiro1,5, Georg Nickenig2, Christian P Strassburg1, Carsten Meyer4, Vicente Arroyo6, Christoph Hammerstingl2, Jonel Trebicka1,3,6,7,8.
Abstract
Acute deterioration of liver cirrhosis (e.g., infections, acute-on-chronic liver failure [ACLF]) requires an increase in cardiac contractility. The insufficiency to respond to these situations could be deleterious. Left ventricular global longitudinal strain (LV-GLS) has been shown to reflect left cardiac contractility in cirrhosis better than other parameters and might bear prognostic value. Therefore, this retrospective study investigated the role of LV-GLS in the outcome after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) and the development of ACLF. We included 114 patients (48 female patients) from the Noninvasive Evaluation Program for TIPS and Their Follow-Up Network (NEPTUN) cohort. This number provided sufficient quality and structured follow-up with the possibility of calculating major scores (Child, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease [MELD], Chronic Liver Failure Consortium acute decompensation [CLIF-C AD] scores) and recording of the events (development of decompensation episode and ACLF). We analyzed the association of LV-GLS with overall mortality and development of ACLF in patients with TIPS. LV-GLS was independently associated with overall mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.123; 95% confidence interval [CI],1.010-1.250) together with aspartate aminotransferase (HR, 1.009; 95% CI, 1.004-1.014) and CLIF-C AD score (HR, 1.080; 95% CI, 1.018-1.137). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) analysis for LV-GLS for overall survival showed higher area under the curve (AUC) than MELD and CLIF-C AD scores (AUC, 0.688 versus 0.646 and 0.573, respectively). The best AUROC-determined LV-GLS cutoff was -16.6% to identify patients with a significantly worse outcome after TIPS at 3 months, 6 months, and overall. LV-GLS was independently associated with development of ACLF (HR, 1.613; 95% CI, 1.025-2.540) together with a MELD score above 15 (HR, 2.222; 95% CI, 1.400-3.528).Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30984902 PMCID: PMC6444053 DOI: 10.1002/hep4.1308
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Hepatol Commun ISSN: 2471-254X
General Patient Characteristics of the Cohort
| Parameters | Values | |
|---|---|---|
| General Characteristics | Sex (male/female) | 66/48 |
| Indication (bleeding/ascites/both) | 40/71/3 | |
| Age median (range) | 59 (18‐80) | |
| Etiology (alcohol/viral/other) | 74/14/26 | |
| Child category (A/B/C) | 26/76/12 | |
| MELD score median (range) | 11 (6‐40) | |
| Ascites (absent/present) | 40/74 | |
| Previous HRS (no/yes) | 85/29 | |
| Previous HE (0/I‐II/III‐IV) | 92/21/1 | |
| Central venous pressure (mm Hg) | 8 (0‐23) | |
| Portal pressure (mm Hg) | 28 (10‐49) | |
| Pressure gradient (mm Hg) | 19 (7‐42) | |
| CLIF‐C AD score | 21 (7‐27) | |
| Biochemical Characteristics | Sodium (mmol/L) | 138 (114‐146) |
| Creatinine (mg/dL) | 1.3 (0.5‐8.5) | |
| Bilirubin (mg/dL) | 1.0 (0.2‐30.3) | |
| CRP (mg/L) | 10.3 (0.3‐107.0) | |
| Albumin (g/L) | 31.1 (14.6‐43.9) | |
| INR | 1.1 (0.9‐2.3) | |
| TWC (G/L) | 6.0 (1.7‐20.7) | |
| Hb (g/dL) | 10.3 (6.5‐15.7) | |
| Platelets (G/L) | 120 (28‐679) | |
| GGT (U/L) | 126 (23‐788) | |
| ALT (U/L) | 24 (8‐120) | |
| AST (U/L) | 39 (11‐361) | |
| Cardiac Parameters | EDV (mL) | 97 (39‐195) |
| ESV (mL) | 34 (12‐85) | |
| EF (%) | 67 (51‐85) | |
| Diastolic dysfunction present (no/yes) | 61/53 | |
| LV‐GLS (%) | −16.6 (−7.0 to −26.7) |
Unless otherwise specified, values represent median (range).
Abbreviations: ALT, alanine aminotransferase; CRP, C‐reactive protein; EDV, end diastolic volume; EF, ejection fraction; ESV, end systolic volume; GGT, gamma‐glutamyltransferase; Hb, hemoglobin; HE, hepatic encephalopathy; HRS, hepatorenal syndrome; INR, international normalized ratio; TWC, total white blood cell count.
Univariate Time‐To‐Event Analysis of Collected Data to Predict Aclf Occurrence and Multivariable Cox Regression Analysis (Forward Stepwise Likelihood Quotient) using the Variable from Univariate Analysis to Predict Aclf Occurrence
| Parameters | Univariate Analysis | Multivariable Analysis | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| HR | 95% CI for HR |
| HR | 95% CI for HR | |||
| Lower | Upper | Lower | Upper | |||||
| Sex | n.s. | 1.1 | 0.632 | 1.9 | ||||
| Age | n.s. | 1 | 0.986 | 1.03 | ||||
| Bilirubin | n.s. | 1 | 0.997 | 1.0 | ||||
| Albumin | n.s. | 1 | 0.937 | 1.1 | ||||
| AST | n.s. | 1 | 0.97 | 1.1 | ||||
| MELD score above 15 | <0.001 | 2.348 | 1.482 | 3.719 | 0.001 | 2.222 | 1.400 | 3.528 |
| LV‐GLS | 0.016 | 1.740 | 1.109 | 2.731 | 0.039 | 1.613 | 1.025 | 2.540 |
Abbreviation: n.s., nonsignificant.
Univariate Time‐to‐Event Analysis of Collected Data to Predict Survival and Multivariable Cox Regression Analysis (Forward Stepwise Likelihood Quotient) using the Variable from Univariate Analysis to Predict Survival
| Parameters | Univariate Analysis | Multivariable Analysis | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| HR | 95% CI for HR |
| HR | 95% CI for HR | |||
| Lower | Upper | Lower | Upper | |||||
| Sex | n.s. | 1.071 | 0.549 | 2.092 | ||||
| Age | 0.035 | 1.032 | 1.002 | 1.064 | ||||
| MELD score | 0.025 | 1.474 | 1.247 | 1.909 | ||||
| Bilirubin | 0.002 | 1.131 | 1.045 | 1.224 | ||||
| Albumin | 0.051 | 0.952 | 0.906 | 1.000 | ||||
| AST | 0.002 | 1.008 | 1.003 | 1.014 | <0.001 | 1.009 | 1.004 | 1.014 |
| LV‐GLS | 0.017 | 1.441 | 1.224 | 1.866 | 0.03 | 1.123 | 1.010 | 1.250 |
| CLIF‐C AD score | 0.014 | 1.136 | 1.030 | 1.260 | 0.01 | 1.080 | 1.018 | 1.137 |
Abbreviation: n.s., nonsignificant.
Figure 1Time association of LV‐GLS and ACLF development. Kaplan‐Meier analysis shows development of ACLF in patients stratified by LV‐GLS (cutoff, −16.6%). Lower LV‐GLS levels mean better cardiac contractility, whereas higher LV‐GLS levels reflect worse cardiac contractility. Rates of ACLF development are shown using Kaplan‐Meier plots and are analyzed by the log‐rank test.
Figure 2Survival after TIPS stratified by their cardiac contractility, assessed using LV‐GLS. Kaplan‐Meier analysis shows survival of patients stratified by LV‐GLS (cutoff, −16.6%). Lower LV‐GLS levels mean better cardiac contractility, whereas higher LV‐GLS levels reflect worse cardiac contractility. Survival rates are shown using Kaplan‐Meier plots and are analyzed by the log‐rank test.