Literature DB >> 24459641

The usefulness of non-invasive liver stiffness measurements in predicting clinically significant portal hypertension in cirrhotic patients: Korean data.

Won Ki Hong1, Moon Young Kim1, Soon Koo Baik1, Seung Yong Shin1, Jung Min Kim1, Yong Seok Kang1, Yoo Li Lim1, Young Ju Kim2, Youn Zoo Cho1, Hye Won Hwang1, Jin Hyung Lee1, Myeong Hun Chae1, Hyoun A Kim1, Hye Won Kang1, Sang Ok Kwon1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Liver stiffness measurement (LSM) has been proposed as a non-invasive method for estimating the severity of fibrosis and the complications of cirrhosis. Measurement of the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) is the gold standard for assessing the presence of portal hypertension, but its invasiveness limits its clinical application. In this study we evaluated the relationship between LSM and HVPG, and the predictive value of LSM for clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH) and severe portal hypertension in cirrhosis.
METHODS: LSM was performed with transient elastography in 59 consecutive cirrhotic patients who underwent hemodynamic HVPG investigations. CSPH and severe portal hypertension were defined as HVPG ≥10 and ≥12 mmHg, respectively. Linear regression analysis was performed to evaluate the relationship between LSM and HVPG. Diagnostic values were analyzed based on receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.
RESULTS: A strong positive correlation between LSM and HVPG was observed in the overall population (r(2)=0.496, P<0.0001). The area under the ROC curve (AUROC) for the prediction of CSPH (HVPG ≥10 mmHg) was 0.851, and the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for an LSM cutoff value of 21.95 kPa were 82.5%, 73.7%, 86.8%, and 66.7%, respectively. The AUROC at prediction of severe portal hypertension (HVPG ≥12 mmHg) was 0.877, and the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV at LSM cutoff value of 24.25 kPa were 82.9%, 70.8%, 80.6%, and 73.9%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: LSM exhibited a significant correlation with HVPG in patients with cirrhosis. LSM could be a non-invasive method for predicting CSPH and severe portal hypertension in Korean patients with liver cirrhosis.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cirrhosis; Liver stiffness measurement; Portal hypertension

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24459641      PMCID: PMC3894436          DOI: 10.3350/cmh.2013.19.4.370

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Mol Hepatol        ISSN: 2287-2728


INTRODUCTION

The prognosis and management of chronic liver diseases strongly depend on the severity of portal hypertension.1-6 Measurement of the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) is the gold standard for the assessment of the presence of portal hypertension and correlates with the occurrence of its complications in patients with cirrhosis. However, HVPG measurements are invasive, relatively expensive and available only in specialized centers with well-trained operators. Transient elastography (TE, Fibroscan®, Echosens, France) is a method that allows the measurement of liver stiffness. TE can be performed in the outpatient clinic with immediate results and excellent reproducibility. TE has been proposed as a non-invasive method for the prediction of the severity of fibrosis and the complication of cirrhosis.7-10 An liver stiffness measurement (LSM) value above 14.6 kPa diagnosed cirrhosis with 0.79 sensitivity and 0.95 specificity in a large cohort of patients with various causes of chronic liver diseases.11 Several studies have demonstrated that TE may represent a rapid and noninvasive method for predicting the presence of clinically significant (HVPG ≥10 mmHg) or severe (HVPG ≥12 mmHg) portal hypertension.12-15 However, LSM exhibited a relatively weak correlation with HVPG ≥12 mmHg, likely because of the increasing relevance of extrahepatic factors in the progression of portal hypertension such as increases in portal blood flow.13 However, a similar study of Korean data are lacking. In this study, we evaluated the relationship between LSM and HVPG, and the predictive value of LSM for clinical significant portal hypertension and severe portal hypertension in cirrhosis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients

Fifty-nine consecutive patients with cirrhosis (48 men and 11 women, mean age 49.5±8.9; age range 29-69 years) underwent HVPG measurement between February 1, 2009 and February 1, 2010 upon referral to the hemodynamic laboratory of our institution. All patients had previous histopathological confirmation of cirrhosis (METAVIR F4)16 or a diagnosis of cirrhosis suspected on the basis of standard clinical, ultrasonographic, and biochemical parameters. Exclusion criteria were an age younger than 19 or older than 75 years, shock status requiring a vasopressor, active infection (e.g., spontaneous bacterial peritonitis), acute renal failure of any cause, hepatocellular carcinoma or a history of another primary malignancy within 3 years, clinically relevant coronary artery disease (NYHA functional angina classification III/IV), congestive heart failure NYHA III/IV, clinically relevant cardiomyopathy, history of myocardial infarction in the past 1 year, poorly controlled hypertension (blood pressure >150/100) mmHg, transaminases above tenfold the upper limit of normal, ongoing antiviral therapy, the use of vasoactive drugs, including beta-blockers, diuretics, and anti-inflammatory drugs, pregnancy or lactation, involvement in another study within 90 days, and medical or psychological conditions that would not permit the subject to complete the study or sign informed consent. The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board for Human Research at the Yonsei University Wonju Severance Christian Hospital (Wonju, Republic of Korea). The nature of the study was explained to all patients, each of whom provided written informed consent before the beginning of the study, in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (revision of Edinburgh, 2000).

Transient elastography

After an overnight fasting, all patients underwent a complete abdominal ultrasonography examination in the morning. Immediately following the examination, TE was performed by two experienced operators. The Fibroscan device (Fibroscan®, Echosens, France) consists of a 3.5 MHz ultrasound transducer M probe mounted on the axis of a vibrator. Mild amplitude and low-frequency vibrations (50 Hz) are transmitted to the liver tissue, inducing an elastic shear wave that propagates through the underlying liver tissue. TE was performed as previously described on the right lobe of the liver; in the intercostal space with the patient lying in dorsal decubitus with the right arm at maximal abduction.17-18 The operator, assisted by an ultrasonic time-motion image, located a liver portion at least 6 cm thick and free of large vascular structures and the gallbladder. Ten successful measurements were performed on each patient. The success rate was calculated as the ratio of the number of successful measurements over the total number of acquisitions. Only LSM with an interquartile range ≤30% of the median value and a success rate of at least 60% were considered reliable. Results are expressed in kilopascals (kPa) and the median value was used a representative of LSM.

Measurements of HVPG

After an overnight fast, the HVPG was measured. The right hepatic vein was catheterized percutaneously through the femoral vein, and the pressures in both the wedged and the free positions were recorded with a 7-F balloon-tipped catheter (Arrow Deutschland, PostfachErding, Germany). In case that shunt was observed in right hepatic vein, HVPG was measured in middle hepatic vein. All measurements were performed at least in triplicate, and permanent tracings were obtained on a multichannel recorder.19,20 HVPG was determined by subtracting the free hepatic venous pressure from the wedged hepatic venous pressure.3 An examiner (Y.J.K.) with 12 years of experience with HVPG measurement performed all HVPG procedures. Clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH) was defined as an HVPG ≥10 mmHg according a consensus definition.21 Severe portal hypertension was defined as an HVPG ≥12 mmHg.

Laboratory parameters

Laboratory Parameters were obtained in all patients on the day of HVPG measurement and included serum albumin, bilirubin, alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, platelet count, hemoglobin, hematocrit, white blood cell, International Normalized Ratio (INR), blood urea nitrogen, creatinine, electrolyte, and C-reactive protein. The model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) and the Child-Pugh score were calculated.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses performed using SPSS 18.0 for Windows. All results are expressed as mean±standard deviation (SD). Linear regression analyses were calculated according to the least squares methods. P-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. The statistical significance of inter-group differences was evaluated by the means of the spearman rank correlation coefficient. The relationship between sensitivity and specificity of LSM at different cutoff points; as a predictor of patients with HVPG ≥10 mmHg or patients with HVPG ≥12 mmHg was evaluated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Optimal liver stiffness cutoff values were selected on the basis of sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values.

RESULTS

General characteristics of the patients

The characteristics of the patients are summarized in Table 1. The etiology of cirrhosis was classified as alcohol (36, 61.0%), hepatitis B virus (13, 22.0%), alcohol with hepatitis B virus (5, 8.5%), alcohol with hepatitis C virus (2, 3.4%), and cryptogenic cirrhosis (3, 5.1%). The mean Child-Pugh and MELD scores were 6.5±1.8 and 9.6±3.7 (range 6-21), respectively. Mean HVPG and LSM were 13.1±5.2 mmHg (range 5-24) and 36.5±23.6 kPa (range 5.4-75.0), respectively.
Table 1

Main characteristics of the patients

Results are expressed as mean±SD.

HBV, hepatitis B virus; HCV, hepatitis C virus; MELD, model for end-stage liver disease; PT, prothrombin time; INR, international normalized ratio; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; HVPG, hepatic venous pressure gradient; LSM, liver stiffness measurement.

Relationship between HVPG and LSM

Considering the whole patient population, a statistically significant positive correlation between HVPG and LSM was found (Fig. 1). Figure 1A demonstrates significant linear correlation between HVPG and LSM (r2=0.496, P< 0.05). In patients with HVPG ≥10 mmHg or ≥12 mmHg, there was a statistically significant correlation with LSM (r2=0.297, P<0.05 and r2=0.192, P=0.05, respectively) (Fig. 1B and 1C). However, in case of HVPG ≥12 mmHg, the correlation was relatively weak compared with that of the HVPG ≥10 mmHg group.
Figure 1

Analysis of the linear regression between the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) and liver stiffness measurement (LSM). A strong positive correlation between LSM and HVPG was observed in the overall population (r2=0.496, P<0.05) (A) and in the subgroups with HVPG ≥10 mmHg (r2=0.297, P<0.05) (B) and HVPG ≥12 mmHg (r2=0.192, P<0.05) (C).

Diagnostic value of LSM for the non-invasive prediction of clinically significant portal hypertension

Figure 2 presents the ROC curve of LSM for the prediction of CSPH. In case of HVPG ≥10 mmHg, the area under the ROC curves (AUROC) was 0.851 (95% confidence index 0.752-0.949). In cases of HVPG ≥12 mmHg, the AUROC was 0.877 (95% confidence index 0.792-0.962). Based on the ROC curves, different cutoff values for LSM were determined. An LSM ≥21.95 kPa exhibited a positive predictive value (PPV) of 86.8% and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 66.7% with a sensitivity of 82.5% and a specificity 73.7% for the prediction of patients with HVPG ≥10 mmHg. An LSM ≥24.25 kPa exhibited a PPV of 80.6% and an NPV of 73.9% with a sensitivity of 82.9% and a specificity of 70.8% for the prediction of patients with HVPG ≥12 mmHg.
Figure 2

Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves demonstrating the prediction of clinically significant portal hypertension (i.e., HVPG ≥10 mmHg) (A) and severe portal hypertension (i.e., HVPG ≥12 mmHg) (B) with transient elastography in the entire patient population; the corresponding areas under the ROC curves (AUROC) were 0.851 and 0.877, respectively. PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value.

DISCUSSION

The prognosis and management of chronic liver diseases strongly depend on the severity of portal hypertension. Therefore, the assessment of portal hypertension is one of the most important steps in the management of chronic liver disease. The best method to diagnose portal hypertension is the direct measurement of portal pressure. HVPG is currently the gold standard for the diagnosis of intrahepatic portal hypertension. In healthy individuals, HVPG is below 5 mmHg. An HVPG greater than 5 mmHg is suggestive of the presence of portal hypertension, but the complications related to portal hypertension, such as asicites or variceal bleeding, tend to appear if HVPG ≥10 mmHg,22,23 therefore this threshold is known as clinically significant portal hypertension. Although HVPG measurement is a safe procedure, it is considered as a relatively invasive method. Therefore the development of new non-invasive markers of portal hypertension is encouraged.24,25 From the initial report of the new technique to quantify the amount of liver fibrosis by LSM using TE,18 many studies have validated this method in the diagnosis of liver fibrosis and cirrhosis. A few studies demonstrated the good correlation between liver stiffness and HVPG.12-15,26 In these studies, LSM can diagnose clinically significant portal hypertension with an AUROC varying between 0.76 and 0.99. However, the problem is that the cut-off value for clinically significant portal hypertension is variable, between 13.6 kPa and 34.9 kPa. These differences may be due to the heterogeneity of the studied population and different etiologies. Liver stiffness is more elevated in alcoholic liver disease compared to viral liver disease.15 The optimal cut-off values are higher in the alcoholic group than in the hepatitis C virus infected group (34.9 kPa vs. 20.5 kPa).15 It suggests that the LSM values must be closely interpreted according to the cause of the liver disease. Furthermore, liver stiffness is very well correlated with HVPG up to values of 10-12 mmHg, but above these values the correlation is lower, demonstrating that portal hypertension is only partially caused by the amount of fibrosis.27 In our study, the main result is that LSM is strongly correlated with HVPG and accurately predicts the presence of clinically significant portal hypertension in patients with cirrhosis in a Korean population. Interestingly, in patients with HVPG ≥10 mmHg or ≥12 mmHg, there was a statistically significant correlation with LSM (r2=0.297, P<0.0001 and r2=0.192, P=0.009, respectively). With a cutoff of LSM ≥21.95 kPa, the NPV and PPV for the diagnosis of CSPH (HVPG ≥10 mmHg) were 66.7% and 82.5%, respectively. Moreover, the presence of severe portal hypertension (HVPG ≥12 mmHg) could be suspected when a cutoff value ≥24.25 kPa was reached, with an NPV and PPV of 73.9% and 82.9%, respectively. In our study, the cutoff of LSM for the diagnosis of CSPH was different different from previous reports indicating cutoff values of 12.5 kPa, 13.6 kPa, and 14.5 kPa.7,8,12,13 Because most of our study population exhibited alcoholic cirrhosis, the cutoff values may higher than previous reports.7,8,12,13 As mentioned previously, liver stiffness is more elevated in alcoholic liver disease compared with viral liver disease.15 The major limitations of this study are the small sample size and the fact that the cirrhosis has not been confirmed by liver biopsy in all the patients. However, this is the first Korean study of a relationship between LSM and HVPG. Based on this study, further carefully designed studies will be conducted in the future. In summary, LSM exhibited significant correlation with HVPG in patients with cirrhosis. LSM could be a non-invasive method to predict clinically significant and severe portal hypertension in patients with liver cirrhosis in Korea.
  27 in total

1.  Updating consensus in portal hypertension: report of the Baveno III Consensus Workshop on definitions, methodology and therapeutic strategies in portal hypertension.

Authors:  R de Franchis
Journal:  J Hepatol       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 25.083

2.  Shear elasticity probe for soft tissues with 1-D transient elastography.

Authors:  Laurent Sandrin; Mickaël Tanter; Jean-Luc Gennisson; Stefan Catheline; Mathias Fink
Journal:  IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 2.725

3.  Comparison of Doppler ultrasonography and the hepatic venous pressure gradient in assessing portal hypertension in liver cirrhosis.

Authors:  Yeun Jong Choi; Soon Koo Baik; Dong Hoon Park; Moon Young Kim; Hyun Soo Kim; Dong Ki Lee; Sang Ok Kwon; Young Ju Kim; Joong Wha Park
Journal:  J Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 4.029

Review 4.  The hepatic venous pressure gradient: anything worth doing should be done right.

Authors:  Roberto J Groszmann; Suchat Wongcharatrawee
Journal:  Hepatology       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 17.425

Review 5.  Non invasive evaluation of portal hypertension using transient elastography.

Authors:  Laurent Castera; Massimo Pinzani; Jaime Bosch
Journal:  J Hepatol       Date:  2011-07-20       Impact factor: 25.083

Review 6.  Hemodynamic evaluation of the patient with portal hypertension.

Authors:  J Bosch; R Mastai; D Kravetz; M Navasa; J Rodés
Journal:  Semin Liver Dis       Date:  1986-11       Impact factor: 6.115

7.  Transient elastography: a new noninvasive method for assessment of hepatic fibrosis.

Authors:  Laurent Sandrin; Bertrand Fourquet; Jean-Michel Hasquenoph; Sylvain Yon; Céline Fournier; Frédéric Mal; Christos Christidis; Marianne Ziol; Bruno Poulet; Farad Kazemi; Michel Beaugrand; Robert Palau
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 2.998

8.  Revision and update on clinical practice guideline for liver cirrhosis.

Authors:  Ki Tae Suk; Soon Koo Baik; Jung Hwan Yoon; Jae Youn Cheong; Yong Han Paik; Chang Hyeong Lee; Young Seok Kim; Jin Woo Lee; Dong Joon Kim; Sung Won Cho; Seong Gyu Hwang; Joo Hyun Sohn; Moon Young Kim; Young Bae Kim; Jae Geun Kim; Yong Kyun Cho; Moon Seok Choi; Hyung Joon Kim; Hyun Woong Lee; Seung Up Kim; Ja Kyung Kim; Jin Young Choi; Dae Won Jun; Won Young Tak; Byung Seok Lee; Byoung Kuk Jang; Woo Jin Chung; Hong Soo Kim; Jae Young Jang; Soung Won Jeong; Sang Gyune Kim; Oh Sang Kwon; Young Kul Jung; Won Hyeok Choe; June Sung Lee; In Hee Kim; Jae Jun Shim; Gab Jin Cheon; Si Hyun Bae; Yeon Seok Seo; Dae Hee Choi; Se Jin Jang
Journal:  Korean J Hepatol       Date:  2012-03-22

Review 9.  Hemodynamic alterations in cirrhosis and portal hypertension.

Authors:  Moon Young Kim; Soon Koo Baik; Samuel S Lee
Journal:  Korean J Hepatol       Date:  2010-12

10.  Relationship between the hepatic venous pressure gradient and first variceal hemorrhage in patients with cirrhosis: a multicenter retrospective study in Korea.

Authors:  Jin Nyoung Kim; Kyoung Min Sohn; Moon Young Kim; Ki Tae Suk; Soung Won Jeong; Ho Eun Jung; Sae Hwan Lee; Sang Gyune Kim; Jae Young Jang; Young Seok Kim; Soon Koo Baik; Hong Soo Kim; Dong Joon Kim; Boo Sung Kim
Journal:  Clin Mol Hepatol       Date:  2012-12-21
View more
  22 in total

Review 1.  Four-dimensional flow magnetic resonance imaging in cirrhosis.

Authors:  Zoran Stankovic
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-01-07       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 2.  Invasive and non-invasive diagnosis of cirrhosis and portal hypertension.

Authors:  Moon Young Kim; Woo Kyoung Jeong; Soon Koo Baik
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-04-21       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 3.  Staging of liver fibrosis or cirrhosis: The role of hepatic venous pressure gradient measurement.

Authors:  Ki Tae Suk; Dong Joon Kim
Journal:  World J Hepatol       Date:  2015-03-27

4.  Comparison of three cut-offs to diagnose clinically significant portal hypertension by liver stiffness in chronic viral liver diseases: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jinzhen Song; Zida Ma; Jianbo Huang; Shiyu Liu; Yan Luo; Qiang Lu; Philipp Schwabl; Romanas Zykus; Ashish Kumar; Matthew Kitson
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-06-01       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 5.  Noninvasive imaging assessment of portal hypertension.

Authors:  Paul Kennedy; Octavia Bane; Stefanie J Hectors; Aaron Fischman; Thomas Schiano; Sara Lewis; Bachir Taouli
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2020-09-14

Review 6.  Non-invasive diagnosis of alcoholic liver disease.

Authors:  Sebastian Mueller; Helmut Karl Seitz; Vanessa Rausch
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-10-28       Impact factor: 5.742

7.  Effects of candesartan and propranolol combination therapy versus propranolol monotherapy in reducing portal hypertension.

Authors:  Jae Hyun Kim; Jung Min Kim; Youn Zoo Cho; Ji Hoon Na; Hyun Sik Kim; Hyoun A Kim; Hye Won Kang; Soon Koo Baik; Sang Ok Kwon; Seung Hwan Cha; Young Ju Kim; Moon Young Kim
Journal:  Clin Mol Hepatol       Date:  2014-12-24

Review 8.  Diagnostic accuracy of transient elastography in diagnosing clinically significant portal hypertension in patients with chronic liver disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ashish Kumar; Hitoshi Maruyama; Anil Arora; Praveen Sharma; Shrihari Anil Anikhindi; Naresh Bansal; Mandhir Kumar; Piyush Ranjan; Munish Sachdeva; Shivam Khare
Journal:  J Med Ultrason (2001)       Date:  2022-07-25       Impact factor: 1.878

Review 9.  Mesenchymal stem cell therapy for liver fibrosis.

Authors:  Young Woo Eom; Kwang Yong Shim; Soon Koo Baik
Journal:  Korean J Intern Med       Date:  2015-08-27       Impact factor: 2.884

10.  Network Meta-Analysis: Noninvasive Imaging Modalities for Identifying Clinically Significant Portal Hypertension.

Authors:  Yang Hai; Weelic Chong; John R Eisenbrey; Flemming Forsberg
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2021-07-17       Impact factor: 3.487

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.