Gastroenterology · 2023
Dynamics in Liver Stiffness Measurements Predict Outcomes in Advanced Chronic Liver Disease.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Semmler Georg, Yang Zhenwei, Fritz Laurenz, Köck Fiona, Hofer Benedikt Silvester, Balcar Lorenz, Hartl Lukas, Jachs Mathias, Stopfer Katharina, Schedlbauer Anna, Neumayer Daniela, Maurer Jurij, Müllner-Bucsics Theresa, Simbrunner Benedikt, Scheiner Bernhard, Trauner Michael, Mandorfer Mattias, Reiberger Thomas, Bauer David Josef Maria
Аннотация
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Liver stiffness measurements (LSMs) provide an opportunity to monitor liver disease progression and regression noninvasively. We aimed to determine the prognostic relevance of LSM dynamics over time for liver-related events and death in patients with chronic liver disease.
METHODS: Patients with chronic liver disease undergoing 2 or more reliable LSMs at least 180 days apart were included in this retrospective cohort study and stratified at baseline (BL) as nonadvanced chronic liver disease (non-ACLD, BL-LSM < 10 kPa), compensated ACLD (cACLD; BL-LSM ≥ 10 kPa), and decompensated ACLD. Data on all consecutive LSMs and clinical outcomes were collected.
RESULTS: There were 2508 patients with 8561 reliable LSMs (3 per patient; interquartile range, 2-4) included: 1647 (65.7%) with non-ACLD, 757 (30.2%) with cACLD, and 104 (4.1%) with decompensated ACLD. Seven non-ACLD patients (0.4%) and 83 patients with cACLD (10.9%) developed hepatic decompensation (median follow-up, 71 months). A 20% increase in LSM at any time was associated with an approximately 50% increased risk of hepatic decompensation (hazard ratio, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.41-1.79; P < .001) and liver-related death (hazard ratio, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.28-1.68; P < .001) in patients with cACLD. LSM dynamics yielded a high accuracy to predict hepatic decompensation in the following 12 months (area under the receiver operating characteristics curve = 0.933). The performance of LSM dynamics was numerically better than dynamics in Fibrosis-4 score (0.873), Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (0.835), and single time-point LSM (BL-LSM: 0.846; second LSM: 0.880). Any LSM decrease to <20 kPa identified patients with cACLD with a substantially lower risk of hepatic decompensation (hazard ratio, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.07-0.24). If reliable, LSM also confers prognostic information in decompensated ACLD.
CONCLUSIONS: Repeating LSM enables an individual and updated risk assessment for decompensation and liver-related mortality in ACLD.
METHODS: Patients with chronic liver disease undergoing 2 or more reliable LSMs at least 180 days apart were included in this retrospective cohort study and stratified at baseline (BL) as nonadvanced chronic liver disease (non-ACLD, BL-LSM < 10 kPa), compensated ACLD (cACLD; BL-LSM ≥ 10 kPa), and decompensated ACLD. Data on all consecutive LSMs and clinical outcomes were collected.
RESULTS: There were 2508 patients with 8561 reliable LSMs (3 per patient; interquartile range, 2-4) included: 1647 (65.7%) with non-ACLD, 757 (30.2%) with cACLD, and 104 (4.1%) with decompensated ACLD. Seven non-ACLD patients (0.4%) and 83 patients with cACLD (10.9%) developed hepatic decompensation (median follow-up, 71 months). A 20% increase in LSM at any time was associated with an approximately 50% increased risk of hepatic decompensation (hazard ratio, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.41-1.79; P < .001) and liver-related death (hazard ratio, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.28-1.68; P < .001) in patients with cACLD. LSM dynamics yielded a high accuracy to predict hepatic decompensation in the following 12 months (area under the receiver operating characteristics curve = 0.933). The performance of LSM dynamics was numerically better than dynamics in Fibrosis-4 score (0.873), Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (0.835), and single time-point LSM (BL-LSM: 0.846; second LSM: 0.880). Any LSM decrease to <20 kPa identified patients with cACLD with a substantially lower risk of hepatic decompensation (hazard ratio, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.07-0.24). If reliable, LSM also confers prognostic information in decompensated ACLD.
CONCLUSIONS: Repeating LSM enables an individual and updated risk assessment for decompensation and liver-related mortality in ACLD.