Posted anonymously by the admin
So, more about this. This is high on my mind currently. I was diagnosed cirrhosis, at 35, no cause found, happened really fast. I was decompensated, extremely malnourished and skinny and haggard, lots of ascites and HE, portal hypertension, varices were found that were small, but no bleeding. I was diagnosed via a biopsy by a hepatologist at a liver transplant center. I was told that the biopsy 100% confirms cirrhosis, and that once you've had things like repeated ascites, your liver is damaged enough to never fully heal. So what you do then is try to live healthy and keep your own liver holding on as long as possible, get a transplant if it can't hold on. That was a year and a half ago. Now, my last appointment yesterday - the GI that I see in town says my platelet levels are great, that shouldn't happen if I have cirrhosis. That all my labs are good. That he would never believe I had cirrhosis, considers that a thing of the past, and encouraged me not to worry about it anymore. He wants to stop my lactulose and diuretics, and sodium restrictions. He said I must have just had an acute inflammation, that's resolved now. Googling it is no help. I see the hepatologist who diagnosed me soon, to see what he thinks, since it's been a year since the last visit. So, like the original question asked - where do they draw the line? Even with a biopsy, they're only taking small bits to examine? How do you know if you could totally recover, or not? Because I thought I was starting to understand liver stuff, but I'm lost right now.