Literature DB >> 3957233

Value of ascitic lipids in the differentiation between cirrhotic and malignant ascites.

D Jüngst, A L Gerbes, R Martin, G Paumgartner.   

Abstract

Ascitic fluid concentrations of cholesterol, triglycerides and phospholipids, were compared with ascitic fluid total protein in 40 patients with chronic liver disease, 51 patients with various neoplasms and 1 patient with cardiac failure. Seven patients with both chronic liver disease and malignancy were considered separately. The first 54 patients (23 cirrhotic and 31 with malignancy) were used to determine median values and ranges and to define the most suitable cutoff concentrations between both groups. Median values for cholesterol (75 mg per dl), phospholipids 0.79 mmole per liter), triglycerides (75 mg per dl) and protein (3.8 gm per dl) were higher in malignant ascites compared to ascitic fluid concentrations of cholesterol (20 mg per dl), phospholipids (0.33 mmole per liter), triglycerides (51 mg per dl) and protein (1.9 gm per dl) in patients with cirrhosis. The best discrimination values were 48 mg per dl for cholesterol, 0.6 mmole per liter for phospholipids, 65 mg per dl for triglycerides and 2.5 gm per dl for protein. Application of these cutoff points to 38 subsequent patients (17 cirrhotic, 1 with cardiac failure and 20 with malignancy) revealed an efficiency of 86.8% for cholesterol, 86.8% for phospholipids, 68.4% for triglycerides and 79.0% for protein. From the data of all 92 patients, an efficiency of 92.3% for cholesterol, 79.4% for phospholipids, 72.8% for triglycerides and 79.4% for protein was calculated. We conclude that ascitic fluid cholesterol determination offers an excellent, cost-effective discrimination of ascites due to cirrhosis vs. ascites caused by malignancies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1986        PMID: 3957233     DOI: 10.1002/hep.1840060214

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hepatology        ISSN: 0270-9139            Impact factor:   17.425


  8 in total

1.  Value of combined detection of AFU and TCH in differential diagnosis between malignant and non-tuberculous benign ascites.

Authors:  Hong Zhang; Feng Li; Qun Wei; Yu-Fei Zhu
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2010-11-02       Impact factor: 3.064

2.  Discrimination between malignant and nonmalignant ascites using serum and ascitic fluid proteins in a multivariate analysis model.

Authors:  M G Alexandrakis; J A Moschandrea; S A Koulocheri; E Kouroumalis; G D Eliopoulos
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 3.199

3.  Isolated chylous injury due to blunt abdominal trauma: Report of a case and a review of the literature.

Authors:  Tunç Eren; Mustafa Demir; Süleyman Orman; Metin Leblebici; İbrahim Ali Özemir; Orhan Alimoğlu
Journal:  Turk J Surg       Date:  2015-07-06

4.  Chylous ascites secondary to hyperlipidemic pancreatitis with normal serum amylase and lipase.

Authors:  Fahmi-Yousef Khan; Issa Matar
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2007-01-21       Impact factor: 5.742

5.  Serum-ascites albumin gradients in nonalcoholic liver disease.

Authors:  M A Kajani; Y K Yoo; J A Alexander; J S Gavaler; R E Stauber; V J Dindzans; D H Van Thiel
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  1990-01       Impact factor: 3.199

6.  Diagnostic accuracy of ascitic cholesterol concentration for malignant ascites: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Hong Zhu; Yongchun Shen; Kai Deng; Xia Liu; Yaqin Zhao; Taiguo Liu; Ying Huang
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2015-10-15

7.  Tumour associated antigens in diagnosis of serous effusions.

Authors:  J Mezger; W Permanetter; A L Gerbes; W Wilmanns; R Lamerz
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  1988-06       Impact factor: 3.411

8.  Diagnosis of malignant ascites. Comparison of ascitic fibronectin, cholesterol, and serum-ascites albumin difference.

Authors:  M Prieto; M J Gómez-Lechón; M Hoyos; J V Castell; D Carrasco; J Berenguer
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  1988-07       Impact factor: 3.199

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.