Is an estimated glomerular filtration rate better than creatinine to be incorporated into the end-stage liver disease score?

doi:10.4254/wjh.v4.i11.291

Advanced Search

BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge

Home / Archive / Volume 4, Issue 11

This Article

Citation of this article

Corresponding Author of This Article

Article-Type of This Article

Open-Access Policy of This Article

Times Cited Counts in Google of This Article

Number of Hits and Downloads for This Article

Total Article Views (3906)

All Articles published online

The chart showing PDF series, HTML series, Figures (1-1) series, Tables (1-5) series.

Item

Count

PDF

382

HTML

3087

Figures (1-1)

190

Tables (1-5)

247

Sum=3906

Nov 27, 2012 (publication date) through Nov 26, 2024

Times Cited of This Article

Times Cited (3)

Journal Information of This Article

Publication Name

World Journal of Hepatology

ISSN

1948-5182

Publisher of This Article

Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA

Original Article

World J Hepatol. Nov 27, 2012; 4(11): 291-298
Published online Nov 27, 2012. doi: 10.4254/wjh.v4.i11.291

Table 1 Clinical characteristics, demographic data and laboratory data of 3857 cirrhotic patients

Parameter	All patients (n = 3857)	Survivors (n = 2375)	Non-survivors (n = 1482)	P value
Age, yr	60.73 ± 14.05	59.02 ± 14.02	63.48 ± 13.65	< 0.001
Male, n (%)	2665 (69.1)	1651 (69.52)	1014 (68.42)	NS (0.474)
Hepatoma, n (%)	1385 (35.9)	653 (27.5)	732 (49.4)	< 0.001
Cause of liver cirrhosis, n (%)				< 0.001
Hepatitis C	930 (24.1)	568 (23.9)	362 (24.4)	-
Hepatitis B	1090 (28.3)	631 (26.6)	459 (31)	-
Alcoholic	813 (21.1)	580 (24.4)	233 (15.7)	-
Hepatitis C + hepatitis B	106 (2.7)	70 (2.9)	36 (2.4)	-
Hepatitis C + alcohol	60 (1.6)	39 (1.6)	21 (1.4)	-
Hepatitis B + alcohol	191 (5)	127 (5.3)	64 (4.3)	-
Hepatitis C + hepatitis B + alcohol	33 (0.9)	19 (0.8)	14 (0.9)	-
Not hepatitis C, hepatitis B or alcohol	634 (16.4)	341 (14.4)	293 (19.8)	-
Ascites, n (%)	1861 (48.2)	825 (34.7)	1036 (69.9)	< 0.001
Hepatic encephalopathy, n (%)	1097 (28.4)	434 (18.3)	663 (44.7)	< 0.001
Child–Pugh points	8.36 ± 2.57	7.11 ± 1.97	10.37 ± 2.1	< 0.001
MELD score	18.9 ± 10.26	13.15 ± 5.57	27.98 ± 9.36	< 0.001
Albumin, 3.5-5 g/dL	2.95 ± 0.73	3.24 ± 0.68	2.49 ± 0.55	< 0.001
Total bilirubin, 0.3-1.2 mg/dL	5.18 ± 8.16	2.24 ± 3.57	9.89 ± 10.81	< 0.001
INR	1.89 ± 1.75	1.43 ± 0.43	2.72 ± 2.55	< 0.001
BUN, 8-12 mg/dL	34.47 ± 35.55	17.63 ± 15.52	61.44 ± 41.49	< 0.001
Creatinine, 0.4-1.2 mg/dL	1.94 ± 1.91	1.27 ± 1.35	3.01 ± 2.17	< 0.001
eGFR, mL/(min∙1.73 m^-2) (MDRD-4)	63.17 ± 46.12	79.14 ± 37.4	37.57 ± 47.24	< 0.001
eGFR, mL/(min∙1.73 m^-2) (MDRD-6)	54.87 ± 38.25	70.85 ± 33.29	29.32 ± 31.16	< 0.001
eGFR, mL/(min∙1.73 m^-2) (CKD-EPI)	65.39 ± 37.49	82.11 ± 30.28	38.59 ± 31.99	< 0.001

Values were expressed as mean ± SD unless otherwise defined. Statistical comparison was performed with Student’s t and χ² test. MELD: Model for end-stage liver disease; INR: International normalized ratio; BUN: Blood urea nitrogen; eGFR: Estimated glomerular filtration rate; MDRD: Modification of diet in renal disease; MDRD-4: 4-variable MDRD; MDRD-6: 6-variable MDRD; CKD-EPI: The chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration; NS: Not significant.

Table 2 Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses of the various parameters in predicting in-hospital mortality

Parameter	Beta coefficient	Standard error	Odds ratios (95% CI)	P value
Univariate logistic regression analysis
Age, yr	0.02	0.00	1.02 (1.02-1.03)	< 0.001
Hepatoma	0.95	0.07	2.57 (2.25-2.95)	< 0.001
Ascites	1.47	0.07	4.36 (3.80-5.02)	< 0.001
Hepatic encephalopathy	1.29	0.07	3.62 (3.13-4.19)	< 0.001
Cause of liver cirrhosis (reference group: NBNCNA)
Hepatitis C	-0.30	0.10	0.74 (0.61-0.91)	0.004
Hepatitis B	-0.17	0.10	0.85 (0.70-1.03)	NS (0.098)
Alcoholic	-0.76	0.11	0.47 (0.38-0.58)	< 0.001
Hepatitis C + hepatitis B	-0.51	0.22	0.60 (0.39-0.92)	0.020
Hepatitis C + alcoholic	-0.53	0.17	0.59 (0.42-0.82)	0.002
Hepatitis B + alcoholic	-0.15	0.36	0.86 (0.42-1.74)	NS (0.670)
Hepatitis C + hepatitis B + alcoholic	-0.47	0.28	0.63 (0.36-1.09)	NS (0.098)
Child–Pugh points	0.67	0.02	1.95 (1.87-2.03)	< 0.001
MELD score	0.22	0.01	1.25 (1.23-1.27)	< 0.001
BUN, mg/dL	0.07	0.00	1.07 (1.06-1.07)	< 0.001
Creatinine, mg/dL	0.72	0.03	2.05 (1.93-2.18)	< 0.001
eGFR, mL/(min∙1.73 m^-2) (MDRD-4)	-0.04	0.00	0.97 (0.96-0.97)	< 0.001
eGFR, mL/(min∙1.73 m^-2) (MDRD-6)	-0.05	0.00	0.95 (0.95-0.96)	< 0.001
eGFR, mL/(min∙1.73 m^-2) (CKD-EPI)	-0.04	0.00	0.97 (0.96-0.96)	< 0.001
Albumin, g/dL	-1.97	0.07	0.14 (0.12-0.16)	< 0.001
Total bilirubin, mg/dL	0.20	0.01	1.22 (1.20-1.25)	< 0.001
INR	1.74	0.08	5.70 (4.87-6.67)	< 0.001
Multivariate logistic regression analysis
Age, yr	0.03	0.01	1.03 (1.01-1.04)	< 0.001
Hepatoma	0.95	0.13	2.60 (2.02-3.34)	< 0.001
Cause of liver cirrhosis (reference group: NBNCNA)
Hepatitis C	-0.19	0.18	0.83 (0.58-1.18)	NS (0.299)
Hepatitis B	-0.28	0.19	0.76 (0.52-1.10)	NS (0.139)
Alcoholic	-0.21	0.22	0.81 (0.52-1.25)	NS (0.342)
Hepatitis C + hepatitis B	-1.03	0.40	0.36 (0.16-0.78)	0.010
Hepatitis C + alcoholic	-0.79	0.35	0.46 (0.23-0.90)	0.023
Hepatitis B + alcoholic	0.32	0.57	1.38 (0.45-4.22)	NS (0.576)
Hepatitis C + hepatitis B + alcoholic	0.54	0.47	1.71 (0.68-4.29)	NS (0.354)
MELD score	0.14	0.03	1.14 (1.09-1.20)	< 0.001
BUN, mg/dL	0.04	0.00	1.05 (1.04-1.05)	< 0.001
eGFR, mL/(min∙1.73 m^-2) (MDRD-4)	0.03	0.01	1.03 (1.02-1.04)	< 0.001
eGFR, mL/(min∙1.73 m^-2) (MDRD-6)	-0.03	0.01	0.97 (0.95-0.99)	< 0.001
Albumin, g/dL	-1.24	0.13	0.29 (0.22-0.38)	< 0.001
INR	0.24	0.10	1.27 (1.04-1.54)	0.019

MELD: Model for end-stage liver disease; BUN: Blood urea nitrogen; eGFR: Estimated glomerular filtration rate; MDRD: Modification of diet in renal disease; MDRD-4: 4-variable MDRD; MDRD-6: 6-variable MDRD; CKD-EPI: The chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration; INR: International normalized ratio; NS: Not significant.

Table 3 Relationship between estimated glomerular filtration rate, total bilirubin, international normalized ratio and model for end-stage liver disease score as a predictor of in-hospital mortality

Model	Variable	Odds ratio (95% CI)	P value	χ²	-2 Log Likelihood
Model 1	MELD	1.25 (1.23-1.27)	< 0.001	2198.32	2773.90
Model 2	Total bilirubin¹	2.25 (2.05-2.48)	< 0.001	2161.45	2810.77
	INR¹	6.14 (4.56-8.27)	< 0.001
	eGFR (MDRD-4)¹	0.22 (0.20-0.25)	< 0.001
Model 3	Total bilirubin¹	2.17 (1.97-2.40)	< 0.001	2293.82	2664.79
	INR¹	5.95 (4.39- 8.06)	< 0.001
	eGFR (MDRD-6)¹	0.19 (0.17-0.22)	< 0.001
Model 4	Total bilirubin¹	2.26 (2.05-2.48)	< 0.001	2199.16	2773.07
	INR¹	6.28 (4.65-8.49)	< 0.001
	eGFR (CKD-EPI)¹	0.20 (0.18-0.23)	< 0.001

¹Loge value. Statistical comparison was performed with logistic regression analysis. MELD: Model for end-stage liver disease; INR: International normalized ratio; eGFR: Estimated glomerular filtration rate; MDRD: Modification of diet in renal disease; MDRD-4; 4-variable MDRD; MDRD-6: 6-variable MDRD; CKD-EPI: The chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration.

Table 4 Comparison of different models for end-stage liver disease equations for the prediction of in-hospital mortality

Equations	Odds ratio (95% CI)	P value	χ²	-2 Log Likelihood
MELD	1.25 (1.23-1.27)	< 0.001	2198.32	2773.90
MELD-MDRD-4	1.27 (1.26-1.29)	< 0.001	2147.93	2824.30
MELD-MDRD-6	1.29 (1.27-1.31)	< 0.001	2254.88	2703.72
MELD-CKD-EPI	1.28 (1.26-1.30)	< 0.001	2185.01	2787.21

Statistical comparison was performed with logistic regression analysis. MELD: Model for end-stage liver disease; MDRD: Modification of diet in renal disease; MDRD-4: 4-variable MDRD; MDRD-6: 6-variable MDRD; CKD-EPI: The chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration.

Table 5 The difference between the model for end-stage liver disease and model for end-stage liver disease-modification of diet in renal disease-6 scores of differentially obtained estimated glomerular filtration rate for the prediction of in-hospital mortality

eGFR	Equations	Odds ratio (95% CI)	P value	χ²	-2 Log Likelihood
≥ 90	MELD	1.17 (1.13-1.21)	< 0.001	99.45	609.51
	MELD-MDRD-6	1.20 (1.16-1.24)	< 0.001	114.55	588.67
60-89	MELD	1.22 (1.18-1.26)	< 0.001	185.77	636.17
	MELD-MDRD-6	1.27 (1.22 -1.32)	< 0.001	214.60	606.45
30-59	MELD	1.21 (1.17-1.24)	< 0.001	283.21	755.92
	MELD-MDRD-6	1.26 (1.22-1.30)	< 0.001	312.75	725.22
15-29	MELD	1.25 (1.19-1.30)	< 0.001	163.72	369.37
	MELD-MDRD-6	1.31 (1.24-1.39)	< 0.001	182.49	350.59
< 15	MELD	1.36 (1.27-1.45)	< 0.001	190.62	311.89
	MELD-MDRD-6	1.30 (1.23-1.39)	< 0.001	164.66	337.42

Statistical comparison was performed with logistic regression analysis. MELD: Model for end-stage liver disease; eGFR: Estimated glomerular filtration rate; MDRD: Modification of diet in renal disease; MDRD-4: 4-variable MDRD; MDRD-6: 6-variable MDRD.

Citation: Chen YW, Chang CW, Chang CW, Wang TE, Wu CJ, Chen HH. Is an estimated glomerular filtration rate better than creatinine to be incorporated into the end-stage liver disease score? World J Hepatol 2012; 4(11): 291-298
URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-5182/full/v4/i11/291.htm
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4254/wjh.v4.i11.291