| Literature DB >> 35093957 |
Chongtu Yang1,2, Xiaoli Zhu3, Jiacheng Liu1,2, Qin Shi1,2, Hang Du3, Yang Chen1,2, Songjiang Huang1,2, Chen Zhou1,2, Yingliang Wang1,2, Tongqiang Li1,2, Yaowei Bai1,2, Bin Xiong1,2.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Overt hepatic encephalopathy (HE) is a major complication of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS). This study aimed to develop and validate prognostic models to identify patients at different risks of overt HE within 3 months after TIPS.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35093957 PMCID: PMC8963844 DOI: 10.14309/ctg.0000000000000461
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Transl Gastroenterol ISSN: 2155-384X Impact factor: 4.396
Figure 1.Flow chart of the patient selection protocol. HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; OHE, overt hepatic encephalopathy; TIPS, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt.
Demographics and baseline characteristics of the derivation cohort
| Total (n = 276) | Without overt HE (n = 215) | With overt HE (n = 61) |
| |
| Demographics and clinical characteristics | ||||
| Age (per year) | 54.6 (11.5) | 53.4 (11.2) | 58.6 (11.9) | 0.003 |
| Sex (male) | 181 (65.6) | 138 (64.2) | 43 (70.5) | 0.446 |
| Etiology of cirrhosis | 0.769 | |||
| Virus-related | 187 (67.8) | 148 (68.8) | 39 (63.9) | |
| Alcohol-related | 24 (8.7) | 18 (8.37) | 6 (9.84) | |
| Others | 65 (23.6) | 49 (22.8) | 16 (26.2) | |
| TIPS indication | 0.529 | |||
| Variceal bleeding | 248 (89.9) | 195 (90.7) | 53 (86.9) | |
| Refractory ascites | 28 (10.1) | 20 (9.30) | 8 (13.1) | |
| Diabetes mellitus | 47 (17.0) | 35 (16.3) | 12 (19.7) | 0.668 |
| L3 SMI (cm2/m2) | ||||
| Male | 45.7 (7.7) | 46.6 (7.8) | 43.0 (6.6) | 0.004 |
| Female | 38.8 (7.1) | 40.3 (7.1) | 37.5 (7.1) | 0.342 |
| Sarcopenia (yes) | 170 (61.6) | 123 (57.2) | 47 (77.0) | 0.008 |
| Child-Pugh score | 7.68 (1.67) | 7.53 (1.69) | 8.22 (1.51) | 0.003 |
| Child-Pugh class | 0.006 | |||
| A | 63 (22.8) | 58 (27.0) | 5 (8.2) | |
| B | 177 (64.1) | 131 (60.9) | 46 (75.4) | |
| C | 32 (11.6) | 22 (10.2) | 10 (16.4) | |
| MELD | 11.8 (3.86) | 11.4 (3.48) | 13.0 (4.82) | 0.022 |
| MELD-Na | 12.6 (4.77) | 12.2 (4.58) | 13.8 (5.23) | 0.038 |
| Laboratory parameters | ||||
| Bilirubin (μmol/L) | 28.0 (29.3) | 27.2 (28.7) | 30.5 (31.6) | 0.468 |
| Albumin (g/L) | 30.7 (5.69) | 31.2 (5.78) | 28.9 (4.98) | 0.002 |
| ALT (U/L) | 37.5 (76.5) | 38.6 (85.3) | 33.6 (29.5) | 0.477 |
| AST (U/L) | 49.4 (76.5) | 48.5 (81.7) | 52.4 (54.8) | 0.672 |
| Creatinine (μmol/L) | 75.8 (62.4) | 70.5 (30.7) | 99.3 (59) | 0.029 |
| Sodium (mmol/L) | 139 (4.80) | 138 (4.81) | 139 (4.74) | 0.378 |
| Prothrombin time (s) | 16.8 (2.65) | 16.6 (2.63) | 17.4 (2.67) | 0.038 |
| INR | 1.39 (0.29) | 1.37 (0.28) | 1.45 (0.28) | 0.040 |
| Hemoglobin (g/L) | 80.8 (22.2) | 80.9 (22.0) | 80.7 (23.1) | 0.949 |
| Platelet count (×109/L) | 102 (83.6) | 104 (87.1) | 95.3 (69.5) | 0.428 |
| Radiological findings | ||||
| Ascites | 0.249 | |||
| Mild | 101 (36.6) | 80 (37.2) | 21 (34.4) | |
| Moderate | 47 (17.0) | 37 (17.2) | 10 (16.4) | |
| Severe | 79 (28.6) | 56 (26.1) | 23 (37.7) | |
| Portal vein thrombosis | 90 (32.6) | 72 (33.5) | 18 (29.5) | 0.667 |
| TIPS procedure | ||||
| Embolization | 168 (60.9) | 138 (64.2) | 30 (49.2) | 0.049 |
| Pre-PPG | 27.6 (5.47) | 28.1 (5.45) | 25.9 (5.26) | 0.013 |
| Post-PPG | 11.7 (3.76) | 12.0 (3.79) | 10.3 (3.30) | 0.002 |
| PPG change | 15.9 (4.28) | 16.0 (4.23) | 15.6 (4.51) | 0.540 |
Data are presented as mean (SD) or n (%) unless otherwise specified.
ALT, alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; HE, hepatic encephalopathy; INR, international normalized ratio; MELD, model for end-stage liver disease; MELD-Na, model for end-stage liver disease-sodium; PPG, portal pressure gradient; SMI, skeletal muscle index; TIPS, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt.
Figure 2.Continuous association between SMI and risk of post-TIPS overt HE stratified by sex. (a) Male subgroup and (b) female subgroup. ORs were calculated with reference (OR = 1) to SMI = 50 in male patients and 39 in female patients. Restricted cubic splines were fitted using logistic regression models adjusted for age, Child-Pugh class, and post-TIPS PPG. CI, confidence interval; HE, hepatic encephalopathy; OR, odds ratio; PPG portal pressure gradient; SMI, skeletal muscle index; TIPS, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt.
Performance of 3 prediction models in the derivation cohort
| Indices | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 |
| Discrimination | |||
| | 0.68 (0.61 to 0.75) | 0.73 (0.66 to 0.80) | 0.77 (0.71 to 0.83) |
| NRI[ | |||
| NRI for events | Reference | 3.3 (−14.6 to 29.3) | 16.4 (−7.7 to 41.6) |
| NRI for nonevents | Reference | 9.7 (−6.4 to 28.8) | 12.6 (−3.5 to 31.7) |
| Overall NRI | Reference | 13.0 (−4.5 to 33.4) | 29.0 (6.8 to 56.6) |
| | 0.079 | 0.002 | |
| Calibration | |||
| Brier score | 0.16 (0.13 to 0.18) | 0.15 (0.13 to 0.18) | 0.14 (0.12 to 0.17) |
| | 0.83 | 0.66 | 0.52 |
| Overall performance | |||
| | 11.2 | 17.4 | 23.6 |
| AIC | 278 | 268 | 257 |
Model 1/2/3 indicates the core/sarcopenia/full model.
AIC, Akaike information criterion; NRI, net reclassification improvement.
NRI was calculated with reference to model 1 (model 2/model 3 vs model 1).
P value was calculated by the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test.
Figure 3.Model performance in the derivation and validation cohort. (a–c) Model performance in the derivation cohort. (d–f) Model performance in the validation cohort. (a and d) A receiver operating characteristic curve for the models to predict post-TIPS overt HE. (b and e) Calibration plots showed the predicted event probability against the observed probability. (c and f) Decision curve analysis for the outcome prediction. AUC, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; CI, confidence interval; HE, hepatic encephalopathy; TIPS, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt.
Figure 4.Nomograms to predict the risk of post-TIPS overt HE. (a) A nomogram based on the sarcopenia model. (b) A nomogram based on the full model. Each independent predictor associated with the outcome was assigned a weighted score using the regression coefficient from the multivariable analysis. When using the nomogram, first draw a vertical line to the row to assign corresponding points for each variable, then add the points from each variable, and drop a vertical line from the row to the bottom row to obtain the probability of developing overt HE. CTP, Child-Turcotte-Pugh; HE, hepatic encephalopathy; PPG, portal pressure gradient; TIPS, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt.
OR and regression coefficients of each variable in 3 models
| Variable | Core model | Sarcopenia model[ | Full model[ | |||
| OR (95% CI) | Coefficient | OR (95% CI) | Coefficient | OR (95% CI) | Coefficient | |
| Intercept | — | −4.36 | — | −5.14 | — | −2.98 |
| Age | 1.03 (1.01–1.06) | 0.03 | 1.03 (1.01–1.06) | 0.03 | 1.03 (1.01–1.06) | 0.03 |
| Child-Pugh class | ||||||
| B | 4.21 (1.59–14.5) | 1.44 | 3.65 (1.36–12.7) | 1.30 | 3.45 (1.26–12.2) | 1.24 |
| C | 5.82 (1.67–23.8) | 1.76 | 4.85 (1.37–20.2) | 1.58 | 5.38 (1.46–23.1) | 1.68 |
| Sarcopenia | — | — | 3.40 (1.70–7.33) | 1.22 | 3.83 (1.87–8.43) | 1.34 |
| Post-TIPS PPG | — | — | — | — | 0.84 (0.76–0.92) | −0.17 |
CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio; PPG, portal pressure gradient; TIPS, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt.
The sarcopenia model was calculated with the formula: 0.03 × age + (0 × CP-A/1.30 × CP-B/1.58 × CP-C) + 1.22 × sarcopenia (yes) − 5.14.
The full model was calculated with the formula: 0.03 × age + (0 × CP-A/1.24 × CP-B/1.68 × CP-C) + 1.34 × sarcopenia (yes) −2.98.
Figure 5.Forest plot of model discrimination in different subgroups. CI, confidence interval; PVT, portal vein thrombosis; TIPS, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt.