AIM: To investigate the relationship between osteopontin plasma concentrations and the severity of portal hypertension and to assess osteopontin prognostic value. METHODS: A cohort of 154 patients with confirmed liver cirrhosis (112 ethylic, 108 men, age 34-72 years) were enrolled in the study. Hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) measurement and laboratory and ultrasound examinations were carried out for all patients. HVPG was measured using a standard catheterization method with the balloon wedge technique. Osteopontin was measured using the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) method in plasma. Patients were followed up with a specific focus on mortality. The control group consisted of 137 healthy age- and sex- matched individuals. RESULTS: The mean value of HVPG was 16.18 ± 5.6 mmHg. Compared to controls, the plasma levels of osteopontin in cirrhotic patients were significantly higher (P < 0.001). The plasma levels of osteopontin were positively related to HVPG (P = 0.0022, r = 0.25) and differed among the individual Child-Pugh groups of patients. The cut-off value of 80 ng/mL osteopontin distinguished patients with significant portal hypertension (HVPG above 10 mmHg) at 75% sensitivity and 63% specificity. The mean follow-up of patients was 3.7 ± 2.6 years. The probability of cumulative survival was 39% for patients with HVPG > 10 mmHg and 65% for those with HVPG ≤ 10 mmHg (P = 0.0086, odds ratio (OR), 2.92, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.09-7.76). Osteopontin showed a similar prognostic value to HVPG. Patients with osteopontin values above 80 ng/mL had significantly lower cumulative survival compared to those with osteopontin ≤ 80 ng/mL (37% vs 56%, P = 0.00035; OR = 2.23, 95%CI: 1.06-4.68). CONCLUSION: Osteopontin is a non-invasive parameter of portal hypertension that distinguishes patients with clinically significant portal hypertension. It is a strong prognostic factor for survival.
AIM: To investigate the relationship between osteopontin plasma concentrations and the severity of portal hypertension and to assess osteopontin prognostic value. METHODS: A cohort of 154 patients with confirmed liver cirrhosis (112 ethylic, 108 men, age 34-72 years) were enrolled in the study. Hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) measurement and laboratory and ultrasound examinations were carried out for all patients. HVPG was measured using a standard catheterization method with the balloon wedge technique. Osteopontin was measured using the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) method in plasma. Patients were followed up with a specific focus on mortality. The control group consisted of 137 healthy age- and sex- matched individuals. RESULTS: The mean value of HVPG was 16.18 ± 5.6 mmHg. Compared to controls, the plasma levels of osteopontin in cirrhotic patients were significantly higher (P < 0.001). The plasma levels of osteopontin were positively related to HVPG (P = 0.0022, r = 0.25) and differed among the individual Child-Pugh groups of patients. The cut-off value of 80 ng/mL osteopontin distinguished patients with significant portal hypertension (HVPG above 10 mmHg) at 75% sensitivity and 63% specificity. The mean follow-up of patients was 3.7 ± 2.6 years. The probability of cumulative survival was 39% for patients with HVPG > 10 mmHg and 65% for those with HVPG ≤ 10 mmHg (P = 0.0086, odds ratio (OR), 2.92, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.09-7.76). Osteopontin showed a similar prognostic value to HVPG. Patients with osteopontin values above 80 ng/mL had significantly lower cumulative survival compared to those with osteopontin ≤ 80 ng/mL (37% vs 56%, P = 0.00035; OR = 2.23, 95%CI: 1.06-4.68). CONCLUSION:Osteopontin is a non-invasive parameter of portal hypertension that distinguishes patients with clinically significant portal hypertension. It is a strong prognostic factor for survival.
Authors: R Kawashima; S Mochida; A Matsui; Y YouLuTuZ; K Ishikawa; K Toshima; F Yamanobe; M Inao; H Ikeda; A Ohno; S Nagoshi; T Uede; K Fujiwara Journal: Biochem Biophys Res Commun Date: 1999-03-24 Impact factor: 3.575
Authors: E Giannini; F Botta; P Borro; D Risso; P Romagnoli; A Fasoli; M R Mele; E Testa; C Mansi; V Savarino; R Testa Journal: Gut Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: L Zhao; T Li; Y Wang; Y Pan; H Ning; X Hui; H Xie; J Wang; Y Han; Z Liu; D Fan Journal: Int J Clin Pract Date: 2007-05-30 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Cristina Ripoll; Roberto Groszmann; Guadalupe Garcia-Tsao; Norman Grace; Andrew Burroughs; Ramon Planas; Angels Escorsell; Juan Carlos Garcia-Pagan; Robert Makuch; David Patch; Daniel S Matloff; Jaime Bosch Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2007-05-21 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Eun Ju Cho; Moon Young Kim; Jeong-Hoon Lee; Il Young Lee; Yoo Li Lim; Dae Hee Choi; Yoon Jun Kim; Jung-Hwan Yoon; Soon Koo Baik Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-07-21 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jonathan Chung-Fai Leung; Thomson Chi-Wang Loong; James Pang; Jeremy Lok Wei; Vincent Wai-Sun Wong Journal: Hepatol Int Date: 2017-03-30 Impact factor: 6.047
Authors: Fabian Benz; Andreas Bogen; Michael Praktiknjo; Christian Jansen; Carsten Meyer; Alexander Wree; Muenevver Demir; Sven Loosen; Mihael Vucur; Robert Schierwagen; Frank Tacke; Jonel Trebicka; Christoph Roderburg Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-04-17 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Sona Frankova; Mariia Lunova; Halima Gottfriedova; Renata Senkerikova; Magdalena Neroldova; Jozef Kovac; Eva Kieslichova; Vera Lanska; Petr Urbanek; Julius Spicak; Milan Jirsa; Jan Sperl Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-01-07 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Susanne E Mortazavi; Allan Lugaajju; Mark Kaddumukasa; Muyideen Kolapo Tijani; Fred Kironde; Kristina E M Persson Journal: BMC Microbiol Date: 2021-11-06 Impact factor: 3.605
Authors: M Lunova; S Frankova; H Gottfriedova; R Senkerikova; M Neroldova; J Kovac; E Kieslichova; V Lanska; E Sticova; J Spicak; M Jirsa; J Sperl Journal: Physiol Res Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 1.881