BACKGROUND & AIMS: Ultrasound is the imaging modality most widely utilized in the general population for diagnostic purposes. Controlled attenuation parameter is a novel noninvasive method for assessing steatosis. Our aim was to investigate whether the clinical value of controlled attenuation parameter in patients referred for abdominal ultrasound examinations is affected by liver fibrosis. METHODS: Consecutive patients referred for abdominal ultrasound examinations were enrolled. Controlled attenuation parameter and liver stiffness were assessed with the FibroScan (Echosens, France). Liver fibrosis was staged according to published cutoffs of liver stiffness measurements. Pearson's or Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used to test the association between two study variables. Optimal cutoff of controlled attenuation parameter for diagnosing liver steatosis (S≥2) was 256 dB/m. The diagnostic performance and accuracy of dichotomized controlled attenuation parameter, ultrasound and body mass index were analysed using the imperfect gold standard methodology. RESULTS: A total of 726 subjects (464 males and 262 females) were studied. Five hundred and eight-nine (81.1%) patients were affected by chronic viral hepatitis. Correlation of controlled attenuation parameter with ultrasound score was 0.48 and 0.57 in patients with and without chronic viral hepatitis respectively. In patients with chronic viral hepatitis, ultrasound, dichotomized controlled attenuation parameter and body mass index showed performance of 58.2%, 82.3% and 46.7%, respectively, whereas in patients without chronic viral hepatitis, the performance was 86.4%, 68.6% and 48.6% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with chronic viral hepatitis and advanced liver fibrosis, controlled attenuation parameter performs better than ultrasound for assessing liver steatosis, whereas in patients without viral hepatitis and with nonsignificant liver disease ultrasound shows the best performance.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Ultrasound is the imaging modality most widely utilized in the general population for diagnostic purposes. Controlled attenuation parameter is a novel noninvasive method for assessing steatosis. Our aim was to investigate whether the clinical value of controlled attenuation parameter in patients referred for abdominal ultrasound examinations is affected by liver fibrosis. METHODS: Consecutive patients referred for abdominal ultrasound examinations were enrolled. Controlled attenuation parameter and liver stiffness were assessed with the FibroScan (Echosens, France). Liver fibrosis was staged according to published cutoffs of liver stiffness measurements. Pearson's or Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used to test the association between two study variables. Optimal cutoff of controlled attenuation parameter for diagnosing liver steatosis (S≥2) was 256 dB/m. The diagnostic performance and accuracy of dichotomized controlled attenuation parameter, ultrasound and body mass index were analysed using the imperfect gold standard methodology. RESULTS: A total of 726 subjects (464 males and 262 females) were studied. Five hundred and eight-nine (81.1%) patients were affected by chronic viral hepatitis. Correlation of controlled attenuation parameter with ultrasound score was 0.48 and 0.57 in patients with and without chronic viral hepatitis respectively. In patients with chronic viral hepatitis, ultrasound, dichotomized controlled attenuation parameter and body mass index showed performance of 58.2%, 82.3% and 46.7%, respectively, whereas in patients without chronic viral hepatitis, the performance was 86.4%, 68.6% and 48.6% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with chronic viral hepatitis and advanced liver fibrosis, controlled attenuation parameter performs better than ultrasound for assessing liver steatosis, whereas in patients without viral hepatitis and with nonsignificant liver disease ultrasound shows the best performance.
Authors: Jeong-Ju Yoo; Yang Jae Yoo; Woo Ram Moon; Seung Up Kim; Soung Won Jeong; Ha Na Park; Min Gyu Park; Jae Young Jang; Su Yeon Park; Beom Kyung Kim; Jun Yong Park; Do Young Kim; Sang Hoon Ahn; Kwang-Hyub Han; Sang Gyune Kim; Young Seok Kim; Ji Hoon Kim; Jong Eun Yeon; Kwan Soo Byun Journal: Korean J Intern Med Date: 2019-11-08 Impact factor: 2.884