4.6 Article

Health-related quality of life in patients with compensated and decompensated liver cirrhosis

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
卷 70, 期 -, 页码 54-59

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejim.2019.09.004

关键词

Liver impairment; Patient related outcomes; Frailty; Hepatic encephalopathy; Liver cirrhosis; Health-related quality of life

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Compensated (Child-Pugh [CP] A) and decompensated (CP B/C) liver cirrhosis significantly differs in terms of impairment of health-related quality of life (HRQoL). However, sufficient data on potentially treatable factors associated with HRQoL in both stages of the disease are still lacking. Consequently, aims of this study were to determine differences in HRQoL between patients with compensated and decompensated liver cirrhosis and to identify potentially treatable factors associated with HRQoL. Methods: 218 patients with liver cirrhosis were enrolled into this study. Chronic Liver Disease Questionnaire (CLDQ) was used to assess HRQoL. Covert hepatic encephalopathy (CHE) was diagnosed according to a combination of Psychometric Hepatic Encephalopathy Score and Critical Flicker Frequency. Frailty was assessed by Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). Results: HRQoL differed between patients with CPA (n = 133) and CP B/C (n = 85) liver cirrhosis (CLDQ total score: 5.6 vs. 4.8, p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis identified a history of falls in the recent year, presence of CHE, female gender, active smoking, higher CFS, and higher serum levels of CRP as independent predictors of impaired HRQoL (all p < 0.05) in patients with CP A liver cirrhosis. In patients with CP B/C liver cirrhosis, female gender, a history of overt hepatic encephalopathy, and lower hemoglobin were independently associated with impaired HRQoL (all p < 0.05). Conclusions: Predictors of impaired HRQoL differ in patients with CP A or CP B/C liver cirrhosis. Focusing on treatable factors in routine clinical practice may improve HRQoL in all stages of liver cirrhosis.

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