A221 CLINICAL CHARACTERISITICS OF PORTAL VEIN THROMBOSIS AMONG AN INPATIENT COHORT WITH CIRRHOSIS
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) has a reported prevalence ranging from 0.6 to 26% in cirrhotic patients and yet optimal management in these patients remains unclear [1]. PVT can lead to poor outcomes including increased risk of bleeding, intestinal injury, and deterioration in liver function. Conversely, treatment of PVT in cirrhotic patients increases their risk of bleeding complications, particularly in patients with known varices. Aims The aim of this study is to better characterize the prevalence and impact of PVT in cirrhotic inpatients. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study based on data collected on adult patients admitted to the Ottawa Hospital between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2015. We included patients with a diagnosis of cirrhosis either before or during index admission. Patients with a radiology report indicating a PVT were compared to those without PVT. Non-Ontario residents were excluded and where there were multiple admissions per patient one admission was randomly selected to be used. Ethics approval was obtained from the Research Ethics Board at the University of Ottawa. Results This study found 34 patients with cirrhosis diagnosed with PVT during their hospitalization (3.73%). Of the patients with PVT, 23 were acute and 11 were chronic based on radiologic appearance. Mean age was similar between groups (PVT: 61.7, SD=9.8; No PVT: 62.3, SD=12.3). The mean Na-MELD was also similar (PVT: 17.6, no PVT: 17.3, p=0.82). Among patients with PVT, 11 patients presented with ascites, 10 with hepatic encephalopathy (HE), 5 with abdominal pain and 5 with an upper GI bleed. Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) occurred in 11.76% of patients with PVT as compared to 3% of patients without PVT (p value= 0.006). There also seemed to be a trend towards more HE in the cohort with PVT (20.6% vs 10.7%, p value= 0.07). With regards to screening for varices, 2 patients had an EGD in the 6 months prior to admission, 11 had an EGD on admission, 1 after anticoagulation due to bleeding, and 18 had no screening in the 6 months prior to admission. Twelve patients were treated for PVT, 17 were untreated and 5 did not have documentation about treatment. Of the patients that were not treated, 9 were due to palliative goals of care, 1 due to bleeding, 1 due to thrombocytopenia, 2 due to chronicity on imaging and 4 did not have reasons documented. Conclusions PVT is a known complication of cirrhosis, however the clinical significance and optimal management of patients with PVT is poorly understood. Although prevalence of PVT was low in this cohort, our data suggests some possible association between liver related complications and PVT, including SBP and HE. Further research is needed to determine how to best manage patients with PVT. 1. Garcia-Pagan JC, Valla DC. Portal vein thrombosis: a predictable milestone in cirrhosis? Journal of hepatology. 2009 Oct 1;51(4):632–4. Funding Agencies None
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».