Skip to main content
. 2016 Aug;5(4):358–371. doi: 10.21037/hbsn.2016.03.09

Table 4. Prevalence and comparison of malnutrition by different assessment tools according to the indications of liver transplant and degree of ascites.

Number Paremeters SGA (N=54) [n (%)]
Normal Moderate Severe
1 Indication of LT
HCV related CLD 1 (16.7) 14 (31.1) 0 (0.0)
HBV related CLD 0 (0.0) 10 (22.2) 0 (0.0)
HBV with HCC 1 (16.7) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
Ethanol + HCV CLD 0 (0.0) 4 (8.9) 0 (0.0)
Ethanol related CLD 0 (0.0) 9 (20.0) 3 (100.0)
HCC 2 (33.3) 1 (2.2) 0 (0.0)
Cryptogenic CLD 1 (16.7) 5 (11.1) 0 (0.0)
Auto-immuno CLD 1 (16.7) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
Obstructive jaundice 0 (0.0) 1 (2.2) 0 (0.0)
HBV + HCV related CLD 0 (0.0) 1 (2.2) 0 (0.0)
P value 0.002*
2 Degree of ascites
No 5 (83.3) 14 (31.1) 0 (0.0)
Mild 1 (16.7) 3 (6.7) 0 (0.0)
Tense 0 (0.0) 28 (62.2) 3 (100)
P value 0.030*

Chi-square test, (n, %), *, P<0.05 (between different groups of indications of LT and between different degree of ascites). SGA, subjective global assessment; LT, liver transplant; CLD, chronic liver disease; HCV, hepatitis c virus; HBV, hepatitis B virus; HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma.