Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2020
Haemorrhagic versus non haemorrhagic ascites in cirrhosis: Their relationship and impact on prognosis of liver cirrhosis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Naqvi Iftikhar Haider, Mahmood Khalid, Talib Abu
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of haemorrhagic ascites on prognosis of patients with advance cirrhosis, this study was further aimed to assess the relationship between haemorrhagic ascites and advance cirrhosis and its effect on prognosis.
METHODS: Eight hundred and thirty-eight patients having liver cirrhosis with ascites were analyzed retrospectively (over three years) while segregated into two groups haemorrhagic and non haemorrhagic ascites. Patient outcome variables were identified among both groups and independent predictors for survival were analyzed. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates determined survival rate comparison between groups.
RESULTS: Haemorrhagic ascites was detected in (26.6%) patients. Spontaneous haemorrhagic ascites(79%) was the main cause of haemorrhagic ascites followed by hepatocellular carcinoma (14%) and iatrogenic (7.6%). Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis and acute kidney injury were statistically significant (p= 0.0001, 0.0001) among groups. Overall mortality at year three was higher (83%) in haemorrhagic ascites group. Survival among both groups (haemorrhagic versus non haemorrhagic) at one month, one year and three year was found to be significant (p= 0.000, 0.000 and 0.000).
CONCLUSION: Haemorrhagic ascites impact overall survival with more mortality in comparison to non haemorrhagic ascites. Haemorrhagic ascites was an independent predictor of survival. Haemorrhagic ascites is possibly considered another predictor of survival among advance cirrhosis.
METHODS: Eight hundred and thirty-eight patients having liver cirrhosis with ascites were analyzed retrospectively (over three years) while segregated into two groups haemorrhagic and non haemorrhagic ascites. Patient outcome variables were identified among both groups and independent predictors for survival were analyzed. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates determined survival rate comparison between groups.
RESULTS: Haemorrhagic ascites was detected in (26.6%) patients. Spontaneous haemorrhagic ascites(79%) was the main cause of haemorrhagic ascites followed by hepatocellular carcinoma (14%) and iatrogenic (7.6%). Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis and acute kidney injury were statistically significant (p= 0.0001, 0.0001) among groups. Overall mortality at year three was higher (83%) in haemorrhagic ascites group. Survival among both groups (haemorrhagic versus non haemorrhagic) at one month, one year and three year was found to be significant (p= 0.000, 0.000 and 0.000).
CONCLUSION: Haemorrhagic ascites impact overall survival with more mortality in comparison to non haemorrhagic ascites. Haemorrhagic ascites was an independent predictor of survival. Haemorrhagic ascites is possibly considered another predictor of survival among advance cirrhosis.