Literature DB >> 27529140

How many times should we repeat measuring liver stiffness using shear wave elastography?: 5-repetition versus 10-repetition protocols.

Seung Hee Choi1, Woo Kyoung Jeong2, Yongsoo Kim3, Sanghyeok Lim3, Jong Won Kwon1, Tae Yeob Kim4, Min Yeong Kim5, Joo Hyun Sohn4.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether a 5-repetition liver stiffness (LS) measurement as the standard protocol of shear wave elastography (SWE) is comparable to a conventional 10-repetition measurement protocol and to identify factors that influence the reliability of the 5-repetition protocol. A total of 346 patients (mean, 48.0years; range, 15-81years, M:F=192:154) who underwent SWE were enrolled. The median, first quartile, third quartile, and interquartile range divided by the median (IQR/M) of LS measurement were calculated and compared between 5-repetition and 10-repetition protocols. Subgroup analyses were also performed to identify factors associated with measurement reliability. The overall mean LS from the 10-repetition protocol was 7.97kPa, which was not significantly different from the mean LS of the 5-repetition protocol (7.91kPa; p=0.192). However, the third quartile and IQR/M values of the two groups were significantly different from each other (p=0.003 and <0.001). Subgroup analysis revealed that the 5-repetition results were significantly different from the 10-repetition results in the fatty liver and high LS subgroups. Therefore, the 5-repetition SWE measurement protocol can replace the conventional 10-repetition protocol, with the exception of patients with fatty liver disease or an LS value higher than 10kPa.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Diffuse liver disease; Intra-observer variation; Liver stiffness measurement; Shear wave elastography

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27529140     DOI: 10.1016/j.ultras.2016.08.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ultrasonics        ISSN: 0041-624X            Impact factor:   2.890


  5 in total

1.  Optimal Acquisition Number for Hepatic Shear Wave Velocity Measurements in Children.

Authors:  Hyun Joo Shin; Myung-Joon Kim; Ha Yan Kim; Yun Ho Roh; Mi-Jung Lee
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-12-21       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  2-dimensional shear wave elastography: Interobserver agreement and factors related to interobserver discrepancy.

Authors:  Kibo Yoon; Woo Kyoung Jeong; Yongsoo Kim; Min Yeong Kim; Tae Yeob Kim; Joo Hyun Sohn
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-04-17       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Accurate measurements of liver stiffness using shear wave elastography in children and young adults and the role of the stability index.

Authors:  Eun Kyoung Hong; Young Hun Choi; Jung-Eun Cheon; Woo Sun Kim; In-One Kim; Sun Young Kang
Journal:  Ultrasonography       Date:  2017-08-19

4.  Intra- and inter-operator reproducibility of US point shear-wave elastography in various organs: evaluation in phantoms and healthy volunteers.

Authors:  Riwa Kishimoto; Katsuhiko Kikuchi; Atsuhisa Koyama; Jeff Kershaw; Tokuhiko Omatsu; Yasuhiko Tachibana; Mikio Suga; Takayuki Obata
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-05-14       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 5.  Role of two-dimensional shear wave elastography in chronic liver diseases: A narrative review.

Authors:  Jae Yoon Jeong; Young Seo Cho; Joo Hyun Sohn
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2018-09-14       Impact factor: 5.742

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.