4.7 Article

Nonlinear Relationship Between Macrocytic Anemia and Decompensated Hepatitis B Virus Associated Cirrhosis: A Population-Based Cross-Sectional Study

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PHARMACOLOGY
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2021.755625

关键词

macrocytic anemia; decompensated HBV associated cirrhosis; MELD score; degree of liver damage; mean corpuscular volume

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81673728]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found a significant correlation between macrocytic anemia and the degree of liver damage in patients with decompensated HBV associated cirrhosis, suggesting that macrocytic anemia may be a reliable predictor for mortality.
Background: Mean corpuscular volume (MCV) is major used as an indicator for the differential diagnosis of anemia. Macrocytic anemia in decompensated cirrhosis is common. However, the relationship between macrocytic anemia and decompensated hepatitis B virus (HBV) associated cirrhosis has not been fully addressed. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, a total of 457 patients diagnosed decompensated HBV associated cirrhosis who met all inclusion criteria from 2011 to 2018 were analyzed. Association between macrocytic anemia and the liver damaged (Model for End Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score) were examined using multiple logistic regression analyses and identified using smooth curve fitting. Results: Compared with normocytic anemia, MCV and MELD are significantly positively correlated in macrocytic anemia (p < 0.001). A non-linear relationship of MCV and MELD association was found though the piecewise linear spline models in patients with decompensated HBV associated cirrhosis. MCV positive correlated with MELD when the MCV was greater than 98.2 fl (regression coefficient = 0.008, 95% CI 0.1, 0.4). Conclusion: Macrocytic anemia may be a reliable predictor for mortality because it is closely related to the degree of liver damage in patients with decompensated HBV associated 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

4.7
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