IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0171211.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The PHES battery does not detect all cirrhotic patients with early neurological deficits, which are different in different patients

Author

Listed:
  • Carla Giménez-Garzó
  • Juan José Garcés
  • Amparo Urios
  • Alba Mangas-Losada
  • Raquel García-García
  • Olga González-López
  • Remedios Giner-Durán
  • Desamparados Escudero-García
  • Miguel Angel Serra
  • Emilio Soria
  • Vicente Felipo
  • Carmina Montoliu

Abstract

Background and aims: The psychometric hepatic encephalopathy score (PHES) is the “gold standard” for minimal hepatic encephalopathy (MHE) diagnosis. Some reports suggest that some cirrhotic patients “without” MHE according to PHES show neurological deficits and other reports that neurological alterations are not homogeneous in all cirrhotic patients. This work aimed to assess whether: 1) a relevant proportion of cirrhotic patients show neurological deficits not detected by PHES; 2) cirrhotic patients with mild neurological deficits are a homogeneous population or may be classified in sub-groups according to specific deficits. Methods: Cirrhotic patients “without” (n = 56) or “with” MHE (n = 41) according to PHES and controls (n = 52) performed psychometric tests assessing attention, concentration, mental processing speed, working memory and bimanual and visuomotor coordination. Heterogeneity of neurological alterations was analysed using Hierarchical Clustering Analysis. Results: PHES classified as “with” MHE 42% of patients. Around 40% of patients “without” MHE according to PHES fail two psychometric tests. Oral SDMT, d2, bimanual and visuo-motor coordination tests are failed by 54, 51, 51 and 43% of patients, respectively. The earliest neurological alterations are different for different patients. Hierarchical clustering analysis shows that patients “without” MHE according to PHES may be classified in clusters according to the tests failed. In some patients coordination impairment appear before cognitive impairment while in others concentration and attention deficits appear before. Conclusions: PHES is not sensitive enough to detect early neurological alterations in a relevant proportion of cirrhotic patients. Oral SDMT, d2 and bimanual and visuo-motor coordination tests are more sensitive. The earliest neurological alterations are different in different cirrhotic patients. These data also have relevant clinical implications. Patients classified as “without MHE” by PHES belonging to clusters 3 and 4 in our study have a high risk of suffering clinical complications, including overt HE and must be diagnosed and clinically followed.

Suggested Citation

  • Carla Giménez-Garzó & Juan José Garcés & Amparo Urios & Alba Mangas-Losada & Raquel García-García & Olga González-López & Remedios Giner-Durán & Desamparados Escudero-García & Miguel Angel Serra & Emi, 2017. "The PHES battery does not detect all cirrhotic patients with early neurological deficits, which are different in different patients," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-18, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0171211
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0171211
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0171211
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0171211&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0171211?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0171211. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.