The influence of muscle performance and fatigue on prognosis in patients with compensated liver disease.
Fatigue
Liver disease
Liver transplantation
Sarcopenia
Journal
BMC gastroenterology
ISSN: 1471-230X
Titre abrégé: BMC Gastroenterol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968547
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 Sep 2023
06 Sep 2023
Historique:
received:
29
12
2022
accepted:
12
07
2023
medline:
8
9
2023
pubmed:
7
9
2023
entrez:
6
9
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Poor muscle function is associated with a negative prognosis in advanced liver disease but the impact in compensated chronic liver disease is unknown. Similar prognostic uncertainty applies to fatigue. We aimed to assess the prognostic value of muscle performance and fatigue in a cohort of patients with compensated chronic liver disease. We followed 241 patients with compensated chronic liver disease included in a study between 2010 and 2014. Subjects were 52 ± 15 years (mean ± SD; 134 females). All subjects performed four muscle function tests: "Timed Up and Go" test, walking speed, handgrip strength, and standing heel-rises. Fatigue was evaluated by fatigue impact scale. Follow up data was acquired through hospital records and registries. During follow up of 6.75 ± 1.4 years, 13 patients died (5.5%) and 11 (4.5%) patients underwent liver transplantation. A timed up and go over 10 s was not significantly associated with a lower survival (Kaplan-Meier, log rank test p = 0.132), or with transplant free survival (p = 0.543), Fig. 3. It was also not specifically associated with liver related causes of death (p = 0.597). The other physical functioning tests and fatigue were not significantly associated with mortality or transplant-free survival (p > 0.05 for all) except for maximal walking speed (2.2 vs. 1.9 m/s, p = 0.007). Our study suggests that muscle function and fatigue are not key prognostic factors in compensated chronic liver disease. However, further confirmation in future studies is needed.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Poor muscle function is associated with a negative prognosis in advanced liver disease but the impact in compensated chronic liver disease is unknown. Similar prognostic uncertainty applies to fatigue. We aimed to assess the prognostic value of muscle performance and fatigue in a cohort of patients with compensated chronic liver disease.
METHODS
METHODS
We followed 241 patients with compensated chronic liver disease included in a study between 2010 and 2014. Subjects were 52 ± 15 years (mean ± SD; 134 females). All subjects performed four muscle function tests: "Timed Up and Go" test, walking speed, handgrip strength, and standing heel-rises. Fatigue was evaluated by fatigue impact scale. Follow up data was acquired through hospital records and registries.
RESULTS
RESULTS
During follow up of 6.75 ± 1.4 years, 13 patients died (5.5%) and 11 (4.5%) patients underwent liver transplantation. A timed up and go over 10 s was not significantly associated with a lower survival (Kaplan-Meier, log rank test p = 0.132), or with transplant free survival (p = 0.543), Fig. 3. It was also not specifically associated with liver related causes of death (p = 0.597). The other physical functioning tests and fatigue were not significantly associated with mortality or transplant-free survival (p > 0.05 for all) except for maximal walking speed (2.2 vs. 1.9 m/s, p = 0.007).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our study suggests that muscle function and fatigue are not key prognostic factors in compensated chronic liver disease. However, further confirmation in future studies is needed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37674115
doi: 10.1186/s12876-023-02885-2
pii: 10.1186/s12876-023-02885-2
pmc: PMC10483859
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
302Informations de copyright
© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.
Références
Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2001 Feb;35(1):71-8
pubmed: 11291692
Age Ageing. 2019 Jan 1;48(1):16-31
pubmed: 30312372
Gut Liver. 2020 Sep 15;14(5):626-635
pubmed: 32135582
Nutrition. 2015 Jan;31(1):193-9
pubmed: 25441595
J Hepatol. 2021 Jul;75 Suppl 1:S147-S162
pubmed: 34039486
Br J Surg. 1973 Aug;60(8):646-9
pubmed: 4541913
Dig Liver Dis. 2022 Mar;54(3):371-377
pubmed: 34233863
J Hepatol. 2022 Apr;76(4):959-974
pubmed: 35120736
Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010 Feb;22(2):221-7
pubmed: 19794311
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012 Feb;10(2):174-81, 181.e1
pubmed: 21839709
J Am Geriatr Soc. 1991 Feb;39(2):142-8
pubmed: 1991946
PLoS One. 2016 Mar 24;11(3):e0151652
pubmed: 27011355
Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2008;42(3):293-300
pubmed: 18432536
Clin Infect Dis. 1994 Jan;18 Suppl 1:S79-83
pubmed: 8148458
JAMA. 2001 May 2;285(17):2196-7
pubmed: 11325320
J Hepatol. 2022 Mar;76(3):588-599
pubmed: 34785325
Scand J Gastroenterol. 2004 Oct;39(10):961-8
pubmed: 15513335
Gut. 2006 Apr;55(4):536-41
pubmed: 16299032
Liver Int. 2019 Jan;39(1):6-19
pubmed: 29935104
J Hepatol. 2000 Mar;32(3):368-73
pubmed: 10735604
Scand J Rehabil Med. 1998 Jun;30(2):67-72
pubmed: 9606767
Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2021 Apr 10;28(2):213–219
pubmed: 33838038
J Hepatol. 2018 Mar;68(3):563-576
pubmed: 29111320
J Nutr Health Aging. 2011 Dec;15(10):933-8
pubmed: 22159785
Gut. 1998 Nov;43(5):705-10
pubmed: 9824355
BMC Geriatr. 2020 Mar 19;20(1):111
pubmed: 32192437
QJM. 2009 Sep;102(9):617-24
pubmed: 19633030
J Hepatol. 2010 Jul;53(1):155-61
pubmed: 20447719
Scand J Gastroenterol. 2019 Jul;54(7):925-933
pubmed: 31287334
Gastroenterology. 2002 May;122(5):1235-41
pubmed: 11984509
Arthritis Care Res. 1990 Sep;3(3):158-62
pubmed: 2285755
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2018 Mar;28(3):819-825
pubmed: 29027263