4.6 Article

Risk Stratification for Surgery in Stricturing Ileal Crohn's Disease: The BACARDI Risk Model

期刊

JOURNAL OF CROHNS & COLITIS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 32-38

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjx110

关键词

Ileocaecal resection; Montreal B2 phenotype; NOD2

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Aim: Transmural inflammation in Crohn's disease [CD] leads to stricturing or penetrating complications. Factors impacting on the need and timing of surgery in ileal stricturing CD [IS-CD] are understudied. Our aim was to identify risk factors in IS-CD associated with the need for surgery over time. Methods: All cross-sectional imaging [XSI] performed for CD between 2006 and 2015 in a tertiary referral centre was analysed. The electronic charts of patients with IS-CD were reviewed for demographic, clinical, biochemical, imaging, genetic, and endoscopic factors. An independent cohort was used for validation. Results: A total of 1803 XSI were performed in 957 patients with CD. IS-CD was diagnosed in 235 patients, and 161 of these [69%] needed surgery. Prestenotic dilation ( hazard ratio [HR] 2.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.22-3.45, p = 0.007], C-reactive protein at diagnosis of IS-CD > 11 mg/L [HR 1.53, 95% CI 1.05-2.24, p = 0.026], Montreal B3 phenotype [HR 1.58, 95% CI 1.06-2.36, p = 0.023], previous/current anti-tumour necrosis factor [TNF] exposure [HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.00-2.06, p = 0.048], and presence of at least one NOD2 rs2066844 risk allele [HR 1.51, 95% CI 1.02-2.23, p = 0.038] significantly impacted on the need for surgery in multivariate analysis. The risk stratification model [BACARDI] yielded a surgery-free survival after 5 years of 77%, 38%, 19%, and 0% for the low, medium, high, and all risk groups, respectively. Based on an independent cohort of 27 patients, the results were validated and demonstrated adequate performance. Conclusions: This risk model can facilitate therapeutic decisions in IS-CD and suggest the correct time for surgery in daily clinical practice.

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