4.6 Article

Malnutrition in cirrhosis increases morbidity and mortality

期刊

JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
卷 30, 期 10, 页码 1507-1513

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jgh.12999

关键词

alcoholic liver disease; ascites; encephalopathy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and AimsMalnutrition is frequent in patients with cirrhosis and is associated with complications like ascites, hepatic encephalopathy, infections, and death. We determined the prevalence of malnutrition by various methods and its clinical importance in patients with cirrhosis. MethodsConsecutive patients of cirrhosis from August 2013 to February 2015 were assessed. Nutritional status was assessed by traditional model (mid-arm circumference, triceps skinfold thickness, serum albumin, creatinine height index, total lymphocyte count), handgrip, and body composition analysis measuring skeletal muscle mass and body fat mass. All patients were followed up for 12 months to assess the outcome. Results247 patients (age 42.1010.14years, 81% male) were included in the study. Etiology of cirrhosis was alcohol in 53% patients. Prevalence of malnutrition was 59.5% according to traditional model, 66.8% by body composition analysis and 71.4% by handgrip. Nutritional status was poor in alcoholic cirrhotics versus nonalcoholics as assessed by triceps skinfold thickness (9.33 +/- 2.9 vs 11.64 +/- 3.5mm; P=0.001), serum albumin (25.1 +/- 4 vs 28.1 +/- 4g/L; P=0.001), and body fat mass (7.6 +/- 3.1 vs 8.7 +/- 3.3kg; P=0.008). Prevalence of malnutrition was 12/27 (44.5%), 96/131 (73.3%) and 84/89 (94.4%) in Child's class A, B, and C respectively. Complications requiring hospitalization (71.3% vs 38.2%; 0.002) and mortality (41.1% vs 18.2%; P=0.001) were more in malnourished patients compared to well nourished. Nutritional assessment parameters significantly correlated with the liver disease severity (P<0.05). ConclusionsPrevalence of malnutrition is high in patients with cirrhosis. It is associated with increased complications and mortality.

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