4.8 Article

Cardiac hepatopathy: Clinical, hemodynamic, and histologic characteristics and correlations

期刊

HEPATOLOGY
卷 37, 期 2, 页码 393-400

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO
DOI: 10.1053/jhep.2003.50062

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cardiac hepatopathy, hepatic injury caused by cardiac dysfunction, is a common entity but has been characterized incompletely, particularly the relationship between hemodynamics and histology. We aimed to describe the clinical, biochemical, hemodynamic, and histologic characteristics of this disorder. Eighty-three patients from 2 tertiary referral centers were studied. Patients were divided into 3 groups based on the duration of cardiac dysfunction: (1) acute (n = 12); (2) chronic (n = 53); and (3) acute on chronic (n = 18). Results showed that serum aminotransferase levels were increased typically, particularly in the acute group (median aspartate aminotransferase level was 30.2 times the upper limit of normal [range, 1-100]; P < .0001 vs. the chronic group). The most salient hemodynamic features were elevated right atrial (14 mm Hg [range, 1-29]), and hepatic venous pressures (wedged: 18 mm Hg [range, 5-35]; free: 15 mm Hg [range, 2-30]). The hepatic venous pressure gradient was normal in most (81%), correlated moderately with the aminotransferase levels (aspartate aminotransferase level: r = .59; P < .0001), and associated with the presence of centrilobular necrosis and inflammation, periportal necrosis, and stainable hepatic iron (P < .05 for all comparisons), but not fibrosis. Sinusoidal dilatation was associated with higher right atrial (P = .047) and free hepatic venous pressures (P = .06). Although cirrhosis was rare (n = 1), centrilobular fibrosis was common (74%) and not associated with any hemodynamic measurement. In conclusion, cardiac hepatopathy has diverse clinical, hemodynamic, and histologic manifestations that vary with the temporal course of cardiac dysfunction. Hepatic fibrosis is common, but does not correlate with systemic or hepatic hemodynamics.

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

4.8
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