不同的肝损伤定义对重症监护病房继发性肝损伤患者发病率和死亡率的影响。

{"title":"不同的肝损伤定义对重症监护病房继发性肝损伤患者发病率和死亡率的影响。","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.medine.2024.06.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>The aim was to investigate how different hepatic injury (HI) definitions used in the same study population change incidence and mortality rates and which would best diagnose secondary HI.</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>Single-centre retrospective observational cohort study.</div></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><div>Tertiary hospital ICU, ANKARA, Turkey.</div></div><div><h3>Patients</h3><div>Four hundred seventy-eight adult patients were included in the study.</div></div><div><h3>Interventions</h3><div>None.</div></div><div><h3>Main variables of interest</h3><div>Three definitions of HI were compared. Taking the SOFA hepatic criteria (SOFA: Total bilirubin<span> (TBL) &gt; 1.2 mg/dl) as the gold standard, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy of the modified 2017 definition by the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) and the 2019 European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) were calculated.</span></div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Incidence rates ranged from 10% to 45% according to the definition (p &lt; 0.005), while mortality rates ranged from 38% to 57%. When the SOFA1.2 (TBL &gt; 1.2 definition was taken as the gold standard, the diagnostic value of the ACG definition was high, and HI was found to be an independent risk factor that increased mortality four times.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>According to this study’s results, the incidence and mortality rates of secondary HI vary greatly depending on the definition used. A definition that includes minimal increases in ALT, AST, and TBL predicts mortality with reasonable incidence rates.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":94139,"journal":{"name":"Medicina intensiva","volume":"48 11","pages":"Pages 646-653"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The effect of different definitions of hepatic injury on incidence and mortality rates in the ICU patient population with secondary hepatic injury\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.medine.2024.06.002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>The aim was to investigate how different hepatic injury (HI) definitions used in the same study population change incidence and mortality rates and which would best diagnose secondary HI.</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>Single-centre retrospective observational cohort study.</div></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><div>Tertiary hospital ICU, ANKARA, Turkey.</div></div><div><h3>Patients</h3><div>Four hundred seventy-eight adult patients were included in the study.</div></div><div><h3>Interventions</h3><div>None.</div></div><div><h3>Main variables of interest</h3><div>Three definitions of HI were compared. Taking the SOFA hepatic criteria (SOFA: Total bilirubin<span> (TBL) &gt; 1.2 mg/dl) as the gold standard, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy of the modified 2017 definition by the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) and the 2019 European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) were calculated.</span></div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Incidence rates ranged from 10% to 45% according to the definition (p &lt; 0.005), while mortality rates ranged from 38% to 57%. When the SOFA1.2 (TBL &gt; 1.2 definition was taken as the gold standard, the diagnostic value of the ACG definition was high, and HI was found to be an independent risk factor that increased mortality four times.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>According to this study’s results, the incidence and mortality rates of secondary HI vary greatly depending on the definition used. A definition that includes minimal increases in ALT, AST, and TBL predicts mortality with reasonable incidence rates.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94139,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medicina intensiva\",\"volume\":\"48 11\",\"pages\":\"Pages 646-653\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medicina intensiva\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2173572724001401\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicina intensiva","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2173572724001401","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的旨在研究在同一研究人群中使用的不同肝损伤(HI)定义如何改变发病率和死亡率,以及哪种定义最能诊断继发性肝损伤:单中心回顾性观察队列研究:地点:土耳其安卡拉市三级医院重症监护室:干预措施:无:干预措施:无:对三种肝损伤定义进行了比较。以SOFA肝病标准(SOFA:总胆红素(TBL)> 1.2 mg/dl)为金标准,计算了美国胃肠病学院(ACG)和2019年欧洲肝病研究协会(EASL)修改后的2017年定义的敏感性、特异性、阳性和阴性预测值以及准确性:根据定义,发病率从10%到45%不等(P < 0.005),而死亡率从38%到57%不等。如果将 SOFA1.2(TBL > 1.2)定义作为金标准,ACG 定义的诊断价值很高,HI 被认为是一个独立的风险因素,会使死亡率增加 4 倍:根据这项研究的结果,继发性 HI 的发病率和死亡率因所采用的定义不同而有很大差异。包括谷丙转氨酶(ALT)、谷草转氨酶(AST)和总胆红素(TBL)微小升高的定义可预测合理发病率下的死亡率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The effect of different definitions of hepatic injury on incidence and mortality rates in the ICU patient population with secondary hepatic injury

Objective

The aim was to investigate how different hepatic injury (HI) definitions used in the same study population change incidence and mortality rates and which would best diagnose secondary HI.

Design

Single-centre retrospective observational cohort study.

Setting

Tertiary hospital ICU, ANKARA, Turkey.

Patients

Four hundred seventy-eight adult patients were included in the study.

Interventions

None.

Main variables of interest

Three definitions of HI were compared. Taking the SOFA hepatic criteria (SOFA: Total bilirubin (TBL) > 1.2 mg/dl) as the gold standard, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy of the modified 2017 definition by the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) and the 2019 European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) were calculated.

Results

Incidence rates ranged from 10% to 45% according to the definition (p < 0.005), while mortality rates ranged from 38% to 57%. When the SOFA1.2 (TBL > 1.2 definition was taken as the gold standard, the diagnostic value of the ACG definition was high, and HI was found to be an independent risk factor that increased mortality four times.

Conclusions

According to this study’s results, the incidence and mortality rates of secondary HI vary greatly depending on the definition used. A definition that includes minimal increases in ALT, AST, and TBL predicts mortality with reasonable incidence rates.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Academic disobey. Dual therapy with remdesivir plus extended nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in immunocompromised and critically ill patient with suspected persistent COVID-19 infection: Case report. Material and human resources invested in a program aimed at potentially critical trauma patients. Septic shock due to Chromobacterium violaceum after a trip to Azores Islands. A fatal and unusual pathogen. Correlation and concordance of HACOR and IROX scales in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who received non-invasive ventilation in two intensive care units.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1