4.8 Article

Infections in Patients With Cirrhosis Increase Mortality Four-Fold and Should Be Used in Determining Prognosis

期刊

GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 139, 期 4, 页码 1246-+

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2010.06.019

关键词

Survival; Chronic Liver Disease; Sepsis; Systematic Review

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND & AIMS: A staged prognostic model of cirrhosis based on varices, ascites, and bleeding has been proposed. We analyzed data on infections in patients with cirrhosis to determine whether it is also a prognostic factor. METHODS: Studies were identified by MEDLINE, EMBASE, COCHRANE, and ISI Web of Science searches (1978-2009); search terms included sepsis, infection, mortality, and cirrhosis. Studies (n = 178) reporting more than 10 patients and mortality data were evaluated (225 cohorts, 11,987 patients). Mortality after 1, 3, and 12 months was compared with severity, site, microbial cause of infection, etiology of cirrhosis, and publication year. Pooled odds ratio of death was compared for infected versus noninfected groups (18 cohorts, 2317 patients). RESULTS: Overall median mortality of infected patients was 38%: 30.3% at 1 month and 63% at 12 months. Pooled odds ratio for death of infected versus noninfected patients was 3.75 (95% confidence interval, 2.12-4.23). In 101 studies that reported spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (7062 patients), the median mortality was 43.7%: 31.5% at 1 month and 66.2% at 12 months. In 30 studies that reported bacteremia (1437 patients), the median mortality rate was 42.2%. Mortality before 2000 was 47.7% and after 2000 was 32.3% (P = .023); mortality was reduced only at 30 days after spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (49% vs 31.5%; P = .005). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with cirrhosis, infections increase mortality 4-fold; 30% of patients die within 1 month after infection and another 30% die by 1 year. Prospective studies with prolonged follow-up evaluation and to evaluate preventative strategies are needed.

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