Validation of the psychometric hepatic encephalopathy score (PHES) for identifying patients with minimal hepatic encephalopathy.

BACKGROUND: The psychometric hepatic encephalopathy score (PHES) is a battery of neuropsychological tests used in the diagnosis of minimal hepatic encephalopathy (MHE). AIM: The aim of this study was to construct and validate a dataset of normal values for the PHES. METHODS: Volunteers and patients with cirrhosis with and without low-grade overt hepatic encephalopathy (OHE) were enrolled. All subjects completed the PHES battery, and possible modifying factors were assessed. Formulas to predict expected scores in cirrhotics were constructed, and MHE was diagnosed whenever a deviation of <-4 SDs occurred across the five tests. RESULTS: Among the 743 volunteers, age and years of education influenced the scores of all tests. Eighty-four patients with cirrhosis lacked evidence of OHE, whereas 20 had OHE: median PHES were -1 [0 to -3] and -9 [-6.5 to -11.8] (P < 0.001), respectively. Thirteen of the 84 patients (15%) with cirrhosis but without OHE had MHE. Patients with MHE were older and less educated than those without MHE (61 ± 8 and 52 ± 10 years old, P = 0.003; 7 ± 4 and 12 ± 5 years education, P = 0.002), whereas liver function was not different (MELD, 8 ± 5 and 8 ± 5). A very strong correlation between these norms and those derived from Spain was observed (r = 0.964, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: PHES performance was mostly influenced by age and education, and expected results in cirrhotics need to be adjusted for these factors. Our validation of Mexican norms for PHES (PHES-Mex) establishes a practical method for assessing MHE and contributes to international attempts to standardize diagnostic protocols for MHE.

Experience of surgical morbidity after palliative surgery in patients with gastric carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Indications for palliative surgery in gastric carcinoma (GC) are controversial. Our aim was to describe the results of palliative surgery in GC in terms of operative morbidity and survival. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with GC, who were divided into three groups: resection with microscopic residual disease (R1), palliative resection with macroscopic residual disease (R2), and gastrojejunostomy. Comparisons were tested with analysis of variance (ANOVA) or chi(2) test, and the Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival analysis. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-two patients were included in the study: 21 had R1, 71 had R2, and 40 had gastrojejunostomy. Surgical morbidity was recorded in 4 patients (19%), 23 patients (32.4%), and 1 patient (2.5%) in each of the three groups, respectively (P = 0.001). Operative mortality occurred in 6 patients (8.5%) from the R2 group and in 1 (2.5%) patient from the gastrojejunostomy group (P = 0.406). Median survivals of the R1, R2, and gastrojejunostomy groups were 22.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 16.4-29.3), 12.4 (95% CI, 9.01-15.8) months, and 6.4 months (95% CI, 0-14.6), respectively (P = 0.078) CONCLUSION: R1 resections and gastrojejunostomy were associated with low surgical morbidity and mortality, unlike R2 resection; in this group, surgical morbidity and mortality was high. Therefore, the benefit of palliative resection in the presence of extensive residual disease should be balanced against the risk of surgical morbidity.