Literature DB >> 26565516

Evaluation of Liver and Spleen Stiffness with Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse Quantification Elastography for Diagnosing Clinically Significant Portal Hypertension.

D Attia1, B Schoenemeier1, T Rodt2, A A Negm1, H Lenzen1, T O Lankisch1, M Manns1, M Gebel1, A Potthoff1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Hepatic vein pressure gradient (HVPG) is the gold standard for diagnosing clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH). The aim of this study was to investigate-in comparison to HVPG-the ability to diagnose CSPH by liver and spleen stiffness measurements obtained by acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) imaging.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 78 patients (mean age: 53 ± 13 years, 62 % male) with chronic liver disease were enrolled in this study. Each patient received liver (LSM) and spleen (SSM) stiffness measurements by ARFI, an HVPG measurement and a transjugular liver biopsy on the same day. Patients were classified according to their HVPG into three different groups: HVPG < 10 mmHg, HVPG ≥ 10-< 12 mmHg and HVPG ≥ 12 mmHg.
RESULTS: LSM, SSM were significantly higher in patients with HVPG ≥ 10 - < 12 in comparison to HVPG < 10 mmHg (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively), and in patients with HVPG ≥ 12 mmHg in comparison to ≥ 10 - < 12 mmHg (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). LSM and SSM were able to diagnose HVPG ≥ 10 mmHg and HVPG ≥ 12 mmHg with high diagnostic performance (AUC LSM: 0.93 and 0.87, respectively; AUC SSM: 0.97 and 0.95, respectively). The AUC of SSM in predicting esophageal varices (EVs) plus HVPG ≥ 10 mmHg and EVs plus HVPG ≥ 12 mmHg were higher compared to LSM in both groups of patients (SSM: 0.90 and 0.93 vs. LSM: 0.84 and 0.88, respectively). No significant difference between both AUCs was detected in the different HVPG groups. In the multivariate -analysis SSM remained a factor predicting HVPG (HVPG > 10 mmHg p = 0.007; HVPG ≥ 12 mmHg p = 0.003).
CONCLUSION: LSM and SSM by ARFI are noninvasive diagnostic tools that may help in diagnosing CSPH. LSM and SSM could be used as a guiding noninvasive screening tool in patients with esophageal varices requiring endoscopic evaluation. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26565516     DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-107971

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ultraschall Med        ISSN: 0172-4614            Impact factor:   6.548


  21 in total

1.  Clinical role of non-invasive assessment of portal hypertension.

Authors:  Massimo Bolognesi; Marco Di Pascoli; David Sacerdoti
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-01-07       Impact factor: 5.742

2.  Achilles tendon elastic properties remain decreased in long term after rupture.

Authors:  B Frankewycz; A Penz; J Weber; N P da Silva; F Freimoser; R Bell; M Nerlich; E M Jung; D Docheva; C G Pfeifer
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2017-11-16       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 3.  Portal pressure monitoring-state-of-the-art and future perspective.

Authors:  Gang Xu; Fei Li; Yilei Mao
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2019-10

Review 4.  Advances in Magnetic Resonance Elastography of Liver.

Authors:  Jiahui Li; Sudhakar Kundapur Venkatesh; Meng Yin
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am       Date:  2020-06-06       Impact factor: 2.266

5.  Spleen Transient Elastography and Damping Index Identify a Subgroup of Patients Without an Acute or Chronic Response to Beta-Blockers.

Authors:  Elba Llop; Christie Perelló; Teresa Fontanilla; Juan de la Revilla; Marta Hernández Conde; Marta López; Javier Minaya; Carlos Ferre; Javier Abad; Carlos Fernández Carrillo; José Luís Martínez; Natalia Fernández Puga; María Trapero; Ismael El Hajra; Elena Santos; José Luis Calleja
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-06-22

6.  Spleen Stiffness Is Superior to Liver Stiffness for Predicting Esophageal Varices in Chronic Liver Disease: A Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Xiaowen Ma; Le Wang; Hao Wu; Yuemin Feng; Xibiao Han; Haoran Bu; Qiang Zhu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-11-09       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Correlation of transient elastography with hepatic venous pressure gradient in patients with cirrhotic portal hypertension: A study of 326 patients from India.

Authors:  Ashish Kumar; Noor Muhammad Khan; Shrihari Anil Anikhindi; Praveen Sharma; Naresh Bansal; Vikas Singla; Anil Arora
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-01-28       Impact factor: 5.742

8.  Clinical value of liver and spleen shear wave velocity in predicting the prognosis of patients with portal hypertension.

Authors:  Yan Zhang; Da-Feng Mao; Mei-Wu Zhang; Xiao-Xiang Fan
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-12-07       Impact factor: 5.742

9.  Usefulness of virtual touch tissue quantification for predicting the presence of esophageal varices in patients with liver cirrhosis.

Authors:  Teppei Matsui; Hidenari Nagai; Gou Watanabe; Naoyuki Yoshimine; Makoto Amanuma; Kojiro Kobayashi; Yuu Ogino; Takanori Mukozu; Yasushi Matsukiyo; Yasuko Daido; Noritaka Wakui; Shigeru Nakano; Mie Shinohara; Koichi Momiyama; Takehide Kudo; Kenichi Maruyama; Yoshinori Igarashi
Journal:  JGH Open       Date:  2021-05-13

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.