4.0 Article

Risk factors for the presence of varices in cirrhotic patients without a history of variceal hemorrhage

期刊

ARCHIVES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
卷 161, 期 21, 页码 2564-2570

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archinte.161.21.2564

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Current medical management dictates that all cirrhotic patients without a history of variceal hemorrhage undergo endoscopic screening to detect large varices. However, referral for endoscopic screening of only patients at highest risk for varices may be most cost-effective. The aim of this case-control study was to identify clinical, laboratory, and radiologic findings that predict the presence of varices in patients with cirrhosis. Methods: Three hundred patients without a history of variceal hemorrhage underwent upper endoscopy as part of an evaluation before liver transplantation. Cases defined as the presence of any varices and cases defined as the presence of large varices were used for examining the risks associated with finding varices on upper endoscopy. Logistic regression was performed to evaluate associations between the presence of varices and patient characteristics. Results: Platelet count and Child-Pugh class were independent risk factors for the presence of any varices and the presence of large varices. For the presence of any varices, a platelet count of 90 X 10(3)/muL or less (odds ratio [OR], 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-4.0) and advanced Child-Pugh class (OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.6-5.6) were independent risk factors. For large varices, a platelet count of 80 X 10(3)/muL or less (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.4-3.9) and advanced Child-Pugh class (OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.3-5.8) were independent risk factors associated with varices. Conclusions: Low platelet count and advanced Child-Pugh class were associated with the presence of any varices and with large varices. These factors allow identification of a subgroup of cirrhotic patients who would benefit most from referral for endoscopic screening for varices.

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

4.0
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