Cited by 39Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and PrognosisOrgan Transplantation Techniques and OutcomesEnhanced Recovery After Surgery

Early postoperative arterial lactate concentrations to stratify risk of post-hepatectomy liver failure

Niederwieser, Thomas, Braunwarth, Eva, Dasari, Bobby V M, Pufal, Kamil, Szatmary, Peter, Hackl, Hubert, Haselmann, Clemens, Connolly, Catherine E +6 more·2021·British Journal of Surgery

Abstract

Background Post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) represents the major determinant for death after liver resection. Early recognition is essential. Perioperative lactate dynamics for risk assessment of PHLF and associated morbidity were evaluated. Methods This was a multicentre observational study of patients undergoing hepatectomy with validation in international high-volume units. Receiver operating characteristics analysis and cut-off calculation for the predictive value of lactate for clinically relevant International Study Group of Liver Surgery grade B/C PHLF (clinically relevant PHLF (CR-PHLF)) were performed. Lactate and other perioperative factors were assessed in a multivariable CR-PHLF regression model. Results The exploratory cohort comprised 509 patients. CR-PHLF, death, overall morbidity and severe morbidity occurred in 7.7, 3.3, 40.9 and 29.3 per cent of patients respectively. The areas under the curve (AUCs) regarding CR-PHLF were 0.829 (95 per cent c.i. 0.770 to 0.888) for maximum lactate within 24 h (Lactate_Max) and 0.870 (95 per cent c.i. 0.818 to 0.922) for postoperative day 1 levels (Lactate_POD1). The respective AUCs in the validation cohort (482 patients) were 0.812 and 0.751 and optimal Lactate_Max cut-offs were identical in both cohorts. Exploration cohort patients with Lactate_Max 50 mg/dl or greater more often developed CR-PHLF (50.0 per cent) than those with Lactate_Max between 20 and 49.9 mg/dl (7.4 per cent) or less than 20 mg/dl (0.5 per cent; P…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/bjs/znab338

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Niederwieser, T., Braunwarth, E., Dasari, B. V. M., Pufal, K., Szatmary, P., Hackl, H., Haselmann, C., Connolly, C. E., Cardini, B., Öfner, D., Roberts, K., Malik, H., Stättner, S., & Primavesi, F.
Affiliations
  • Innsbruck Medical University (AT)
  • Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham (GB)
  • Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Primavesi, Florian
Venue
British Journal of Surgery
Published
2021-10-25
Volume
108
Issue
11
Pages
1360-1370
ISSN
  • 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2168
OpenAlex
W3208267048
Cited by
39
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5
FWCI
2.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • British journal of surgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (CL-2018-07-003)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hepatology › Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Organ Transplantation Techniques and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Enhanced Recovery After Surgery
Keywords
post-hepatectomy liver failure, arterial lactate, hepatectomy, risk stratification, early postoperative monitoring, acute kidney injury, postoperative bleeding, liver resection outcomes, mortality prediction, prognostic factors, postoperative morbidity
MeSH terms
Aged, Austria, Female, Hepatectomy, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Postoperative Complications, Prognosis, Retrospective Studies, Risk Factors, Biomarkers, Incidence, Liver Failure, Risk Assessment, Lactic Acid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review