4.6 Article

Liver stiffness as surrogate parameter in emergency assessment for inpatient health care utilization

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 17, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0266069

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study tested the feasibility and utility of transient elastography in the emergency department, and investigated its ability to predict hospitalization duration and costs for non-elective patients. The study found that transient elastography can help identify patients in need of increased healthcare resources.
BackgroundTransient elastography (TE) allows non-invasive quantification of liver stiffness (LSM) and steatosis (controlled attenuation parameter, CAP). Here we test the feasibility and utility of TE in the emergency department (ED) and investigate whether LSM predicts longer hospitalization and reimbursement for non-elective patients. MethodsLSM and CAP were determined in prospectively recruited consecutive adult patients admitted to the ED of a tertiary referral center. Patients were stratified according to the 9.1 kPa and 13.0 kPa LSM cut-offs. Elastography measurements were correlated with clinical and outcome parameters, including duration of hospital stay and hospitalization costs. ResultsIn 200 ED patients (133 men, age 18 - 97 years), median LSM was 5.5 kPa (2.4 - 69.1 kPa), and median CAP was 252 dB/m (100 - 400 dB/m). In total, 39 patients (19.5%) presented with LSM >= 9.1 kPa, and 24 patients (12.0%) presented with LSM >= 13.0 kPa. Heart failure (n = 19) was associated with higher LSM (p = 0.045). Patients with LSM >= 9.1 kPa were significantly (p < 0.01) more likely to require longer hospitalization than those with lower LSM. Patients with LSM >= 13.0 kPa generated significantly (p = 0.001) higher costs as compared to patients with low LSM. ConclusionsTransient elastography represents an easily accessible screening tool in ED that might help identify patients in need of increased health care resources.

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