4.6 Article

Analysis of prognosis on patients with severe viral hepatitis using the model for end-stage liver disease

Journal

WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
Volume 11, Issue 6, Pages 899-902

Publisher

BAISHIDENG PUBL GRP CO LTD
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v11.i6.899

Keywords

Prognosis; Severe Viral Hepatitis; Model for end-stage liver disease

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AIM: To study the practical use of the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) on clinic and assess its validity by the concordance (C)-statistic in predicting the prognosis of the patient with severe viral hepatitis. METHODS: One hundred and twenty-one patients were divided into plasma exchange group and non-plasma exchange group, and were graded with MELD formula. The death rate was observed within 3 mo. RESULTS: Eighty-one patients died within 3 mo (35 cases in PE group, 46 cases in non-PE group). The mortality of patients in PE group whose MELD score between 20-30 and 30-40 were 31.6% and 57.7%, respectively, but in non-PE cases they were 67.6%, 81.3% respectively. There was significant difference between PE group and non-PE group (P<0.05). However, the mortality of patients whose MELD score higher than 40 were 93.3% in PE group and 100% in non-PE group and there was no significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.65>0.05). The optimal cut-off values of MELD to predict the prognosis of patients were 30 in PE group whose sensitivity, specificity and C-statistic were 80.0%, 52.0% and 0.777, but in non-PE group they were 25, 82.6%, 86.7% and 0.869, respectively. CONCLUSION: The MELD score can act as a disease severity index for patients with severe viral hepatitis, and the mortality of the patient increases with the increase of the MELD score. The MELD can accurately predict the short-term prognosis of patients with severe viral hepatitis. (C) 2005 The WJG Press and Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available