Do old urinary biomarkers have a place in the new definition of hepatorenal syndrome in the Egyptian cirrhotic patients? A single-center experience

Egyptian Liver Journal

Table 2 Urinary biomarkers levels in the study groups

	Group I (n = 40)	Group II (n = 60)	Group III (n = 60)	P-value
^aNGAL (pg/ml)				< 0.001*
Range	(20–66.8)	(24–125)	(139–1317)	I vs II	I vs III	II vs III
Mean ± SD	40.07 ± 14.61	62.6 ± 29.65	732.9 ± 304.78	1	< 0.001*	< 0.001*
^aIL-18 (pg/ml)				0.011*
Range	(10.2–49)	(12.6–56.4)	(19.2–98)	I vs II	I vs III	II vs III
Mean ± SD	32.87 ± 9.84	30.32 ± 9.52	41.67 ± 20.66	1	0.018*	0.012*
^bKIM-1 (pg/ml)				< 0.001*
Median	1.4	2.35	4.55	I vs II	I vs III	II vs III
IR	(0.3–5.02)	(2.2–4.55)	(3.97–5.72)	1	< 0.001*	0.002*

Bold values indicate significant results
*Significant difference at p-value < 0.05
^aOne way ANOVA test for parametric quantitative data between the three groups followed by post hoc Bonferroni correction between each two group
^bKruskal-Wallis test for nonparametric quantitative data between the three groups followed by Mann-Whitney test between each two groups and Dunn-Bonferroni post hoc in case of significant Kruskal-Wallis