Copyright
©The Author(s) 2019.
World J Clin Cases. Nov 26, 2019; 7(22): 3734-3741
Published online Nov 26, 2019. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v7.i22.3734
Published online Nov 26, 2019. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v7.i22.3734
Table 1 Patient characteristics in the two groups
Variable | PHLF (+) (n = 20) | PHLF (-) (n = 218) | P value |
Age, years | 57 (26-66) | 51 (18-74) | 0.077 |
Gender ratio, M/F | 16/4 | 189/29 | 0.407 |
Platelet count, ×109/L | 123 (28-240) | 158 (30-535) | 0.016 |
Prothrombin time, s | 13.9 (10.8-16.4) | 13.1 (9.9-17.1) | 0.289 |
International normalized ratio | 1.06 (1.00-1.26) | 1.06 (0.88-1.44) | 0.971 |
Total bilirubin, μmol/L | 20.1 (6.2-43.1) | 12.9 (3.9-37.1) | 0.001 |
Albumin, g/L | 37.3 (26.1-43.3) | 38.8 (25.6-48.9) | 0.029 |
Alanine aminotransferase, U/L | 46.2 (16.9-94.7) | 34.1 (8.5-302.6) | 0.127 |
HBsAg positivity | 90.0% | 92.7% | 0.667 |
Maximum tumor size, cm | 6.5 (2.5-13.3) | 5.5 (1.5-18.0) | 0.270 |
sFLR | 0.503 (0.378-0.780) | 0.666 (0.361-0.995) | < 0.001 |
Major hepatectomy | 40.0% | 25.2% | 0.152 |
MELD score | 9 (6-12) | 7 (6-12) | 0.001 |
Table 2 Univariable and multivariable analyses to identify predictors of post-hepatectomy liver failure
Variable | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||
Odds ratio | P value | Odds ratio | P value | |
Age, years | 1.60 (0.58-4.40) | 0.360 | 3.02 (0.77-11.78) | 0.112 |
Male sex | 0.61 (0.19-1.96) | 0.411 | 0.68 (0.15-3.07) | 0.616 |
Platelet count, ×109/L | 2.97 (1.14-7.73) | 0.026 | 5.17 (1.31-20.35) | 0.019 |
Blood loss, mL | 2.27 (0.87-5.92) | 0.092 | 1.14 (0.33-3.91) | 0.839 |
Tumor number (≥ 3) | 0.58 (0.13-2.62) | 0.479 | 0.31 (0.05-2.14) | 0.235 |
Albumin, g/L | 3.67 (1.29-10.46) | 0.015 | 3.90 (1.14-13.35) | 0.030 |
Prothrombin time, s | 1.45 (0.57-3.68) | 0.439 | 1.39 (0.40-4.82) | 0.605 |
sFLR | 10.08 (3.49-29.10) | < 0.001 | 29.92 (6.51-137.46) | < 0.001 |
MELD | 5.98 (2.31-15.45) | < 0.001 | 7.89 (2.23-28.01) | 0.001 |
Table 3 Prognostic value of various indexes to predict post-hepatectomy liver failure
Index | AUC | 95%CI | Cut-off value | P value | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) |
MELD | 0.715 | 0.581-0.849 | 8.5 | 0.001 | 55.0 | 83.0 |
sFLR | 0.782 | 0.687-0.877 | 0.544 | < 0.001 | 77.1 | 75.0 |
sFLR/MELD | 0.845 | 0.778-0.912 | 0.078 | < 0.001 | 66.5 | 95.0 |
Table 4 Comparison of post-hepatectomy liver failure based on the cut-off value of standardized future liver remnant /model for end-stage liver disease
Group | n | PHLF (+) | PHLF (-) |
sFLR/MELD ≥ 0.078 | 146 | 19 | 127 |
sFLR/MELD < 0.078 | 92 | 1 | 91 |
- Citation: Kong FH, Miao XY, Zou H, Xiong L, Wen Y, Chen B, Liu X, Zhou JJ. End-stage liver disease score and future liver remnant volume predict post-hepatectomy liver failure in hepatocellular carcinoma. World J Clin Cases 2019; 7(22): 3734-3741
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2307-8960/full/v7/i22/3734.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v7.i22.3734