4.6 Article

Clinical impact of arterial ammonia levels in ICU patients with different liver diseases

期刊

INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE
卷 39, 期 7, 页码 1227-1237

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-013-2926-8

关键词

Hypoxic hepatitis; Acute liver failure; Liver cirrhosis; Ammonia; Mortality

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Increased arterial ammonia levels are associated with high mortality in patients with acute liver failure (ALF). Data on the prognostic impact of arterial ammonia is lacking in hypoxic hepatitis (HH) and scarce in critically ill patients with cirrhosis. The patient cohort comprised 72 patients with HH, 43 patients with ALF, 100 patients with liver cirrhosis and 45 patients without evidence for liver disease. Arterial ammonia concentrations were assessed on a daily basis in all patients and the results were compared among these four patient groups and between 28-day survivors and 28-day non-survivors overall and in each group. Overall 28-day mortality rates in patients with HH, ALF and cirrhosis and in the control group were 54, 30, 49 and 27 %, respectively. Peak arterial ammonia levels differed significantly between transplant-free 28-day survivors and non-survivors in the HH and ALF groups (p < 0.01 for both). Multivariate regression identified peak arterial ammonia concentrations as an independent predictor of 28-day mortality or liver transplantation in patients with HH and ALF, respectively (p < 0.01). There was no association between mortality and arterial ammonia in patients with liver cirrhosis and in the control group. Admission arterial ammonia levels were independently linked to hepatic encephalopathy grades 3/4 in patients with HH (p < 0.01), ALF (p < 0.05) and cirrhosis (p < 0.05), respectively. Elevated arterial ammonia levels indicate a poor prognosis in acute liver injury and are associated with advanced HE in HH, ALF and cirrhosis. Arterial ammonia levels provide additional information in the risk assessment of critically ill patients with liver disease.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据