4.7 Article

Liver transplantation and quality of life: relevance of a specific liver disease questionnaire

期刊

LIVER INTERNATIONAL
卷 28, 期 1, 页码 99-106

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1478-3231.2007.01606.x

关键词

cirrhosis; end-stage liver disease; hepatitis C; MELD score

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim: A positive effect of liver transplantation on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) has been well documented in previous studies using generic instruments. Our aim was to re-evaluate different aspects of HRQOL before and after liver transplantation with a relatively new questionnaire the 'liver disease quality of life' (LDQOL). Methods: The LDQOL and the Short Form 36 (SF-36) questionnaires were applied to ambulatory patients, either in the transplant list (n=65) or after 6 months to 5 years of liver transplant (n=61). The aetiology of cirrhosis, comorbidities, model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) Child-Pugh scores and recurrence of liver disease after liver transplantation were analysed using the Mann-Whitney and Kruskall-Wallis tests. Results: In patients awaiting liver transplantation, MELD scores >= 15 and Child-Pugh class C showed statistically significant worse HRQOL, using both the SF-36 and the LDQOL questionnaires. HRQOL in pretransplant patients was found to be significantly worse in those with cirrhosis owing to hepatitis C (n=30) when compared with other aetiologies (n=35) in 2/7 domains of the SF-36 and in 7/12 domains of the LDQOL. Significant deterioration of HRQOL after recurrence of hepatitis C post-transplant was detected with the LDQOL questionnaire although not demonstrated with the SF-36. The statistically significant differences were in the LDQOL domains: symptoms of liver disease, concentration, memory and health distress. Conclusions: The LDQOL, a specific instrument for measuring HRQOL, has shown a greater accuracy in relation to liver symptoms and could demonstrate, with better reliability, impairments before and after liver transplantation.

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

4.7
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