目的探讨慢性乙型肝炎肝硬化患者aMAP评分与高危食管静脉曲张(HEV)发生风险之间的关联性。方法选取2017年1月1日至2023年1月1日于安徽医科大学第一附属医院确诊为慢性乙型肝炎肝硬化的患者为研究对象。收集所有研究对象的一般资料,同时...目的探讨慢性乙型肝炎肝硬化患者aMAP评分与高危食管静脉曲张(HEV)发生风险之间的关联性。方法选取2017年1月1日至2023年1月1日于安徽医科大学第一附属医院确诊为慢性乙型肝炎肝硬化的患者为研究对象。收集所有研究对象的一般资料,同时收集入院24小时内的实验室检查指标并计算aMAP评分。所有研究对象均完成胃镜检查以评估食管静脉曲张(EV)程度。采用多元Logistic回归评估aMAP评分与HEV风险之间的相关性,采用趋势性检验(P for trend)评估两者之间的相关性是否存在剂量反应关系,最后采用平滑曲线拟合和阈值效应分析明确两者之间是否存在非线性关系。结果最终共纳入患者207例,其中HEV患者104例。与非HEV患者相比,HEV患者aMAP评分更高(P=0.002)。在多个模型中,aMAP评分与HEV之间存在明显的正向相关关系,全调整模型的结果为(OR=1.16,95%CI∶1.03-1.30)。随着aMAP评分的增加,HEV的发生风险也随之增加,趋势性检验具有显著的统计学差异(P for trend<0.01),平滑曲线拟合分析和阈值效应分析提示两者之间为直线效应关系。受试者工作特征曲线(ROC)下面积(AUC)为0.73(0.64-0.78),aMAP评分对HEV诊断的最佳截断值为63.57。结论在慢性乙型肝炎肝硬化患者中,aMAP评分与HEV发病风险之间存在直线性的正性相关关系,并且随着aMAP评分的升高这种正性相关关系更加明显。aMAP评分对HEV具有较好的诊断价值,最佳截断值为63.57。展开更多
BACKGROUND Esophageal stricture is one of the complications after esophageal varices sclero-therapy injection(ESI),and the incidence rate is between 2%-10%.AIM To explore the efficacy of self-expanding metal stent(SEM...BACKGROUND Esophageal stricture is one of the complications after esophageal varices sclero-therapy injection(ESI),and the incidence rate is between 2%-10%.AIM To explore the efficacy of self-expanding metal stent(SEMS)for the stricture after endoscopic injection with cyanoacrylate(CYA)and sclerotherapy for esophageal varices.METHODS We retrospectively analyzed the efficacy of SEMS to improve the stricture after endoscopic injection with CYA and sclerotherapy for esophageal varices in 4 patients from February 2023 to June 2023.RESULTS The strictures were improved in four patients after stenting.The stent was removed after two weeks because of chest pain with embedding into esophageal mucosa in one patient.The stent was removed after one month,however,the stent was reinserted because of the strictures happening again in two patients.The stent was removed after three months,however,the stent was reinserted because of the strictures happening again in one patient.The stent embedded into esophageal mucosa in three patients.There were 3 patients suffered reflux esophagitis,and the acid reflux was relieved by taking hydrotalcite.There was no other complication of esophageal perforation,bleeding from varices or infection.CONCLUSION SEMS may relieve the stricture which happened after endoscopic injection with CYA and sclerotherapy for esophageal varices.However,when we should remove the stent still needs to be explored.展开更多
This editorial describes the contemporary concepts of prevention and management of gastroesophageal variceal bleeding in liver cirrhosis(LC)patients according to the current guidelines.Gastroesophageal variceal bleedi...This editorial describes the contemporary concepts of prevention and management of gastroesophageal variceal bleeding in liver cirrhosis(LC)patients according to the current guidelines.Gastroesophageal variceal bleeding is the most dangerous complication of portal hypertension in LC patients.Risk stratification and determination of an individual approach to the choice of therapeutic measures aimed at their prevention and management has emerged as one of the top concerns in modern hepatology.According to the current guidelines,in the absence of clinically significant portal hypertension,etiological and nonetiological therapies of LC is advisable for the primary preventing gastroesophageal variceal bleeding,whereas its presence serves as an indication for the administration of non-selectiveβ-blockers,among which carvedilol is the drug of choice.Non-selectiveβ-blockers,as well as endoscopic variceal ligation and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt can be used to prevent recurrence of gastroesophageal variceal bleeding.Pharmacotherapy with vasoactive drugs(terlipressin,somatostatin,octreotide),endoscopic variceal ligation,endovascular techniques and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt are recommended for the treatment of acute gastroesophageal variceal bleeding.Objective and accurate risk stratification of gastroesophageal variceal bleeding will allow developing individual strategies for their prevention and management,avoiding the first and further decompensation in LC,which will improve the prognosis and survival of patients suffering from it.展开更多
With increasing burden of compensated cirrhosis,we desperately need noninvasive methods for assessment of clinically significant portal hypertension.The use of liver and spleen stiffness measurement helps in deferring...With increasing burden of compensated cirrhosis,we desperately need noninvasive methods for assessment of clinically significant portal hypertension.The use of liver and spleen stiffness measurement helps in deferring unnecessary endoscopies for low risk esophageal varices.This would reduce cost and patient discomfort.However,these special techniques may not be feasible at remote areas where still we need only biochemical parameters.More prospective studies validating the non-invasive risk prediction models are definitely needed.展开更多
目的:探讨aMAP(age-male-ALBI-platelet,aMAP)、天门冬氨酸氨基转移酶/血小板比率指数(aspartate aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index,APRI)、基于4因子的肝纤维化指数(fibrosis index based on the 4 factors,FIB-4)及肝硬度值(...目的:探讨aMAP(age-male-ALBI-platelet,aMAP)、天门冬氨酸氨基转移酶/血小板比率指数(aspartate aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index,APRI)、基于4因子的肝纤维化指数(fibrosis index based on the 4 factors,FIB-4)及肝硬度值(liver stiffness measurement,LSM)评估乙型肝炎(乙肝)肝硬化患者食管胃静脉曲张(esophageal gastric varices,EGV)程度的价值。方法:选取2018年4月到2022年5月期间在上海交通大学医学院附属瑞金医院确诊并接受治疗的乙肝肝硬化患者114例,对其进行肝功能、血常规、LSM、胃镜等检查,根据计算公式计算aMAP、APRI、FIB-4。根据胃镜结果将患者分为无EGV组(39例)、轻度EGV组(30例)、中度EGV组(23例)及重度EGV组(22例),比较4组间的aMAP、APRI、FIB-4。采用受试者操作特征曲线(receiver operator characteristic curve,ROC曲线)分析aMAP、APRI、FIB-4及LSM评估乙肝肝硬化患者EGV程度的价值。结果:EGV患者(包括轻度、中度及重度EGV组)的aMAP、APRI、FIB-4、LSM均显著高于无EGV的患者,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。轻度、中度及重度EGV组间的aMAP、APRI、FIB-4差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05);轻度EGV组与中度、重度EGV组间LSM差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。aMAP评估EGV程度的ROC曲线下面积(the area under ROC curve,AUROC)为0.76,灵敏度为85.9%,特异度为65.7%;APRI、FIB-4和LSM评估EGV程度的AUROC分别为0.86、0.85、0.79,灵敏度分别为81.30%、82.80%、88.40%,特异度分别为82.90%、77.10%、66.80%。aMAP、APRI、FIB-4和LSM对肝硬化患者是否合并EGV有较好诊断价值(P<0.05)。aMAP、APRI、FIB-4对乙肝肝硬化患者的EGV程度有一定诊断价值(P<0.05),但特异度较低。结论:aMAP、APRI、FIB-4及LSM诊断乙肝肝硬化患者伴EGV的价值较高,而aMAP、APRI及FIB-4对其EGV程度有一定评估价值,可作为不适合做胃镜患者评估EGV的补充参考,为EGV的预防及治疗提供依据。展开更多
文摘目的探讨慢性乙型肝炎肝硬化患者aMAP评分与高危食管静脉曲张(HEV)发生风险之间的关联性。方法选取2017年1月1日至2023年1月1日于安徽医科大学第一附属医院确诊为慢性乙型肝炎肝硬化的患者为研究对象。收集所有研究对象的一般资料,同时收集入院24小时内的实验室检查指标并计算aMAP评分。所有研究对象均完成胃镜检查以评估食管静脉曲张(EV)程度。采用多元Logistic回归评估aMAP评分与HEV风险之间的相关性,采用趋势性检验(P for trend)评估两者之间的相关性是否存在剂量反应关系,最后采用平滑曲线拟合和阈值效应分析明确两者之间是否存在非线性关系。结果最终共纳入患者207例,其中HEV患者104例。与非HEV患者相比,HEV患者aMAP评分更高(P=0.002)。在多个模型中,aMAP评分与HEV之间存在明显的正向相关关系,全调整模型的结果为(OR=1.16,95%CI∶1.03-1.30)。随着aMAP评分的增加,HEV的发生风险也随之增加,趋势性检验具有显著的统计学差异(P for trend<0.01),平滑曲线拟合分析和阈值效应分析提示两者之间为直线效应关系。受试者工作特征曲线(ROC)下面积(AUC)为0.73(0.64-0.78),aMAP评分对HEV诊断的最佳截断值为63.57。结论在慢性乙型肝炎肝硬化患者中,aMAP评分与HEV发病风险之间存在直线性的正性相关关系,并且随着aMAP评分的升高这种正性相关关系更加明显。aMAP评分对HEV具有较好的诊断价值,最佳截断值为63.57。
文摘BACKGROUND Esophageal stricture is one of the complications after esophageal varices sclero-therapy injection(ESI),and the incidence rate is between 2%-10%.AIM To explore the efficacy of self-expanding metal stent(SEMS)for the stricture after endoscopic injection with cyanoacrylate(CYA)and sclerotherapy for esophageal varices.METHODS We retrospectively analyzed the efficacy of SEMS to improve the stricture after endoscopic injection with CYA and sclerotherapy for esophageal varices in 4 patients from February 2023 to June 2023.RESULTS The strictures were improved in four patients after stenting.The stent was removed after two weeks because of chest pain with embedding into esophageal mucosa in one patient.The stent was removed after one month,however,the stent was reinserted because of the strictures happening again in two patients.The stent was removed after three months,however,the stent was reinserted because of the strictures happening again in one patient.The stent embedded into esophageal mucosa in three patients.There were 3 patients suffered reflux esophagitis,and the acid reflux was relieved by taking hydrotalcite.There was no other complication of esophageal perforation,bleeding from varices or infection.CONCLUSION SEMS may relieve the stricture which happened after endoscopic injection with CYA and sclerotherapy for esophageal varices.However,when we should remove the stent still needs to be explored.
文摘This editorial describes the contemporary concepts of prevention and management of gastroesophageal variceal bleeding in liver cirrhosis(LC)patients according to the current guidelines.Gastroesophageal variceal bleeding is the most dangerous complication of portal hypertension in LC patients.Risk stratification and determination of an individual approach to the choice of therapeutic measures aimed at their prevention and management has emerged as one of the top concerns in modern hepatology.According to the current guidelines,in the absence of clinically significant portal hypertension,etiological and nonetiological therapies of LC is advisable for the primary preventing gastroesophageal variceal bleeding,whereas its presence serves as an indication for the administration of non-selectiveβ-blockers,among which carvedilol is the drug of choice.Non-selectiveβ-blockers,as well as endoscopic variceal ligation and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt can be used to prevent recurrence of gastroesophageal variceal bleeding.Pharmacotherapy with vasoactive drugs(terlipressin,somatostatin,octreotide),endoscopic variceal ligation,endovascular techniques and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt are recommended for the treatment of acute gastroesophageal variceal bleeding.Objective and accurate risk stratification of gastroesophageal variceal bleeding will allow developing individual strategies for their prevention and management,avoiding the first and further decompensation in LC,which will improve the prognosis and survival of patients suffering from it.
文摘With increasing burden of compensated cirrhosis,we desperately need noninvasive methods for assessment of clinically significant portal hypertension.The use of liver and spleen stiffness measurement helps in deferring unnecessary endoscopies for low risk esophageal varices.This would reduce cost and patient discomfort.However,these special techniques may not be feasible at remote areas where still we need only biochemical parameters.More prospective studies validating the non-invasive risk prediction models are definitely needed.
文摘目的:探讨aMAP(age-male-ALBI-platelet,aMAP)、天门冬氨酸氨基转移酶/血小板比率指数(aspartate aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index,APRI)、基于4因子的肝纤维化指数(fibrosis index based on the 4 factors,FIB-4)及肝硬度值(liver stiffness measurement,LSM)评估乙型肝炎(乙肝)肝硬化患者食管胃静脉曲张(esophageal gastric varices,EGV)程度的价值。方法:选取2018年4月到2022年5月期间在上海交通大学医学院附属瑞金医院确诊并接受治疗的乙肝肝硬化患者114例,对其进行肝功能、血常规、LSM、胃镜等检查,根据计算公式计算aMAP、APRI、FIB-4。根据胃镜结果将患者分为无EGV组(39例)、轻度EGV组(30例)、中度EGV组(23例)及重度EGV组(22例),比较4组间的aMAP、APRI、FIB-4。采用受试者操作特征曲线(receiver operator characteristic curve,ROC曲线)分析aMAP、APRI、FIB-4及LSM评估乙肝肝硬化患者EGV程度的价值。结果:EGV患者(包括轻度、中度及重度EGV组)的aMAP、APRI、FIB-4、LSM均显著高于无EGV的患者,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。轻度、中度及重度EGV组间的aMAP、APRI、FIB-4差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05);轻度EGV组与中度、重度EGV组间LSM差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。aMAP评估EGV程度的ROC曲线下面积(the area under ROC curve,AUROC)为0.76,灵敏度为85.9%,特异度为65.7%;APRI、FIB-4和LSM评估EGV程度的AUROC分别为0.86、0.85、0.79,灵敏度分别为81.30%、82.80%、88.40%,特异度分别为82.90%、77.10%、66.80%。aMAP、APRI、FIB-4和LSM对肝硬化患者是否合并EGV有较好诊断价值(P<0.05)。aMAP、APRI、FIB-4对乙肝肝硬化患者的EGV程度有一定诊断价值(P<0.05),但特异度较低。结论:aMAP、APRI、FIB-4及LSM诊断乙肝肝硬化患者伴EGV的价值较高,而aMAP、APRI及FIB-4对其EGV程度有一定评估价值,可作为不适合做胃镜患者评估EGV的补充参考,为EGV的预防及治疗提供依据。
