4.8 Article

Terlipressin in patients with cirrhosis and type 1 hepatorenal syndrome:: A retrospective multicenter study

Journal

GASTROENTEROLOGY
Volume 122, Issue 4, Pages 923-930

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1053/gast.2002.32364

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background & Aims: Type 1 hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) is a severe complication of cirrhosis associated with a short median survival time (<2 weeks). Although the administration of terlipressin improves renal function, its effect on survival is unknown. This study investigated predictive factors of survival in patients with type 1 HRS treated with terlipressin. Methods: Ninety-nine patients with type :1 HRS treated with terlipressin in 24 centers were retrospectively studied. Terlipressin-induced improved renal function was defined as a decrease in serum creatinine value to <130 mumol/L or a decrease of at least 20% at the end of treatment. Results: At inclusion, the Child-Pugh score was 118 +/- 1.6 (mean +/- SD). Terlipressin (3.2 +/- 1.3 mg/day) was administered for:11 :12 days. Renal function improved in 58% of patients (serum creatinine decreased by 46% +/- 17% from 272 +/- 114 mumol/L). Median survival time was 21 days. Survival rate was 40% at 1 month. Multivariate analysis showed that improved renal function and Child-Pugh score less than or equal to11 at inclusion were independent predictive factors of survival (P < 0.0001 and 0.02, respectively). Thirteen patients underwent liver transplantation (92 +/- 95 days after HRS onset), 10 of whom had received terlipressin and had had improved renal function. Conclusions: This retrospective uncontrolled study shows that in patients with type 1 HRS, terlipressin-induced improved renal function is associated with an increase in survival. Thus, a randomized trial investigating the effect of terlipressin on survival in patients with type 1 HRS should be performed.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available