Abstract
Background/Aim: Minimal hepatic encephalopathy (MHE) impairs health-related quality of life and driving ability of the patient. Objective: We assessed the utility of the inhibitory control test (ICT), critical flicker frequency (CFF), and psychometry in the diagnosis of MHE. Patients and Methods: Consecutive patients with cirrhosis underwent number connection tests A and B (NCT-A, B), digit symbol test (DST), line tracing test (LTT), serial dot test (SDT), CFF, and ICT at baseline and after four hours. Fifty healthy subjects served as controls for the ICT test. Results: Fifty patients with cirrhosis (43.4 +- 10.2 yrs, M: F 42:8) underwent psychometric tests [NCT-A (48.3 +- 17.7 vs. 42.6 +- 17.3 sec, P = 0.001), NCT-B (85.7 +- 40.1 vs. 90.2 +- 37.0 sec, P = 0.18), DST (23.5 +- 9.3 vs. 23.0 +- 8.7, P = 0.45), LTT (96.6 +- 48.2 vs. 96.8 +- 46.8 sec, P = 0.92), SDT (88.0 +- 39.5 vs. 83.4 +- 37.2 sec, P = 0.02)] at baseline and after four hours. Target accuracy of ICT was lower in patients with cirrhosis compared with controls (88.4 +- 5.6 vs. 95.6 +- 2.1, P = 0.01), whereas ICT lures were higher (18.3 +- 4.2 vs 10.2 +- 2.8, P = 0.01). Patients with cirrhosis showed a reduction in lures in the second evaluation compared with the first (18.3 +- 4.2 vs. 17.1 +- 4.3, P = 0.003) but no change in target accuracy (88.4 +- 5.6 vs. 88.4 +- 5.3, P = 0.97). Control subjects did not show any change either in lures (10.2 +- 2.8 vs. 10.3 +- 2.1, P = 0.65) or target accuracy (95.6 +- 2.1 vs. 95.5 +- 2.2, P = 0.82). The sensitivity and specificity of ICT test for the diagnosis of MHE at lure rate >16.5 was 88.5 and 56%, respectively. CFF in patients with MHE (38.4 +- 1.8 vs. 38.6 +- 1.5, P = 0.3) and non MHE (40.6 +- 2.2 vs. 40.8 +- 2.2, P = 0.6) did not show any difference after four hours as in controls (41.9 +- 2.4 vs. 42.1 +- 2.0, P = 0.3). Thirty one (31%) patients preferred psychometric tests, 57 (57%) preferred CFF and only 12 (12%) preferred ICT ( P = 0.001). Conclusions: ICT, CFF, and psychometric tests are useful tools to assess MHE, and CFF was preferred by this study cohort.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer





