| Literature DB >> 24459641 |
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.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
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.
Figure 1Analysis 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).
Figure 2Receiver 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.