4.7 Article

Outcomes of critically ill patients with cirrhosis admitted to intensive care: an important perspective from the non-transplant setting

Journal

ALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
Volume 32, Issue 2, Pages 233-243

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2010.04341.x

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. St George's Hospital Charity
  2. National Institute of Healthcare Research

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Hospital admissions for cirrhosis have been increasing in the United Kingdom, leading to increased pressure on intensive care (ICU) services. Outcome data for patients admitted to ICU are currently limited to transplant centre reports, with mortality rates exceeding 70%. These tertiary reports could fuel a negative bias when patients with cirrhosis are reviewed for ICU admission in secondary care. Aims To determine whether disease severity and mortality rates in non-transplant general ICU are less severe than those reported by tertiary datasets. Methods A prospective dual-centre non-transplant ICU study. Admissions were screened for cirrhosis and physiological and biochemical data were collected. Disease-specific and critical illness scoring systems were evaluated. Results Cirrhosis was present in 137/4198 (3.3%) of ICU admissions. ICU and hospital mortality were 38% and 47%, respectively; median age 50 [43-59] years, 68% men, 72% alcoholic cirrhosis, median Child Pugh Score (CPS) 10 [8-11], Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) 18 [12-24], Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score (APACHE II) 16 [13-22]. Conclusions Mortality rates and disease staging were notably lower than in the published literature, suggesting that patients have a more favourable outlook than previously considered. Transplant centre data should therefore be interpreted with caution when evaluating the merits of intensive care admission for patients in general secondary care ICUs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available