Impacts of rifaximin and midodrine on morbidity, mortality, and quality of life in patients with decompensated liver cirrhosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vasodilatation and bacterial dislocation are the main contributors to the catastrophic events in patients with decompensated liver cirrhosis (DLC). AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impacts of adding midodrine and rifaximin on morbidity, mortality, and quality of life in patients with DLC. METHODS: This interventional clinical study included 100 consecutively enrolled DLC patients randomized 1 : 1 into two groups. Group A received oral midodrine (5 mg/8 h) and rifaximin (550 mg/12 h) with standard diuretic therapy, while group B received only standard diuretic therapy. Clinical and laboratory data, including the McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire, were evaluated over a 3-month treatment period. RESULTS: In the study group, there was a significant reduction in Child-Pugh and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores, international normalized ratio, and mean arterial blood pressure at 2, 6, and 12 weeks (P < 0.05). Ascites, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis incidence, hematemesis, paracentesis need, and hepatic encephalopathy showed improvement after 12 weeks compared with the control group. McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire significantly improved after 6 and 12 weeks (P < 0.05). Survival rates demonstrated a noteworthy improvement (P = 0.014), substantiated by evidence in both univariate and multivariate regression analyses. CONCLUSION: Combined midodrine with rifaximin represents an endowment to patients with DLC with spectacular improvements in synthetic liver functions, along with improved quality of life, and survival.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".