4.6 Article

Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation Score Predicts Mortality in Patients with Liver Disease and Low Fibrinogen Level

期刊

THROMBOSIS AND HAEMOSTASIS
卷 122, 期 12, 页码 1980-1987

出版社

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1055/a-1925-2300

关键词

coagulation; disseminated intravascular coagulation; fibrinogen; liver diseases

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The DIC score from the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis can predict 30-day mortality in patients with liver disease and low fibrinogen levels, suggesting its significance in the assessment of these patients.
Background Alongside its original diagnostic intention, the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis' (ISTH) disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) score predicts mortality in various patient groups. Objectives We investigated whether coagulopathy quantified by the DIC score can predict 30-day mortality in patients with liver disease and low fibrinogen levels. Methods We retrospectively analyzed all patients admitted to the Vienna General Hospital between 2003 and 2014 with a fibrinogen level of <150 mg/dL, a history of liver disease, and >= 2 pathological DIC parameters. We used a Cox regression and receiver operating characteristic analysis to assess the predictive value of the ISTH DIC score in its original (DIC-2001) and revised form (DIC-2018). Results A total of 1,333 patients were screened, and 388 of these patients (38% female, median age: 58 years, interquartile range: 48-66 years) were analyzed. The DIC-2001 (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.08, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.78-2.59, p < 0.001) and DIC-2018 (HR: 1.73, 95% CI: 1.51-2.05, p < 0.001) predicted 30-day mortality. The results remained robust in several sensitivity analyses. Conclusions The ISTH DIC-2001 and DIC-2018 scores predicted 30-day mortality in patients with liver disease and low fibrinogen levels. The DIC score deserves further investigation in this population as it likely reflects different dimensions of the underlying 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