4.7 Article

Long-term administration of human albumin improves survival in patients with cirrhosis and refractory ascites

期刊

LIVER INTERNATIONAL
卷 39, 期 1, 页码 98-105

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/liv.13968

关键词

cirrhosis; hospitalization; human albumin; refractory ascites

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background & Aims In patients with cirrhosis, the clinical benefit of the treatment with human albumin for ascites is debated, and no data are available regarding refractory ascites. In this study, in patients with cirrhosis and refractory ascites, we assessed the effect of long-term albumin administration on emergent hospitalization and mortality. Methods Seventy patients with cirrhosis and refractory ascites, followed at the Unit of Internal Medicine and Hepatology, University and General Hospital of Padova, Italy, were included into the study. Forty-five patients were non-randomly assigned to receive long-term administration of human albumin at the doses of 20 g twice per week (n = 45), in addition to standard medical of care (SOC), and compared to those followed according to SOC. Patients were followed up to the end of the study, liver transplantation or death. Results The cumulative incidence of 24-month mortality was significantly lower in patients treated with albumin than in the group of patients treated with SOC (41.6% vs 65.5%; P = 0.032). The period free of emergent hospitalization was significantly longer in patients treated with long-term administration of albumin (P = 0.008). Analysing separately the causes of inpatient admission, patients treated with albumin showed a reduction in the incidence of overt hepatic encephalopathy, ascites, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) and non-SBP infections. In addition, a non-significant trend towards a reduced probability of hepatorenal syndrome was observed. Conclusion In patients with cirrhosis and refractory ascites, long-term treatment with albumin improves survival and reduces the probability of emergent hospitalizations.

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

4.7
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