Background/aims: Esophageal varices (EV) are common complications in patients with advanced chronic liver disease (ACLD). Non-invasive parameters to exclude EV in patients with ACLD would be desirable. The aim of this study was the evaluation of liver stiffness measurement (LSM) using 2D-shear wave elastography (GE Logiq E9) and other non-invasive parameters as predictors for EV. Methods: Hundred patients with ACLD were enrolled. Abdominal sonography, including measurement of gall bladder wall thickness (GBWT), spleen diameter and LSM, gastroscopy and blood test results were evaluated. Statistical analyses were performed for the association between EV and non-invasive parameters. Results: Fifty-one per cent of the patients had EV. The mean LSM (14.6 kPa) and GBWT (3.88 mm) in the group with EV were significantly higher than in the group without EV (10.6 kPa; 2.94 mm; p < .01). Performing area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, LSM has a better diagnostic performance (0.781) than GBWT (0.707), spleen diameter (0.672) and platelet count (0.635). Combining LSM (cut-off 13.58 kPa) and GBWT (cut-off 3.07 mm) resulted in a sensitivity of 86.3% and a specificity of 71.4% for the presence of EV. A sensitivity of 100% (negative predictive value 1.0) was achieved at LSM >9 kPa or GBWT >4 mm. Following these criteria in our current study population, 18% of the gastroscopies could have been avoided. Conclusions: Combining LSM with non-invasive parameters, especially GBWT, improves the diagnostic accuracy for predicting EV. We suggest reconsidering screening gastroscopy in patients with ACLD who show LSM <9 kPa and GBWT <4 mm due to the very low risk of having varices.
Background/aims: Esophageal varices (EV) are common complications in patients with advanced chronic liver disease (ACLD). Non-invasive parameters to exclude EV in patients with ACLD would be desirable. The aim of this study was the evaluation of liver stiffness measurement (LSM) using 2D-shear wave elastography (GE Logiq E9) and other non-invasive parameters as predictors for EV. Methods: Hundred patients with ACLD were enrolled. Abdominal sonography, including measurement of gall bladder wall thickness (GBWT), spleen diameter and LSM, gastroscopy and blood test results were evaluated. Statistical analyses were performed for the association between EV and non-invasive parameters. Results: Fifty-one per cent of the patients had EV. The mean LSM (14.6 kPa) and GBWT (3.88 mm) in the group with EV were significantly higher than in the group without EV (10.6 kPa; 2.94 mm; p < .01). Performing area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, LSM has a better diagnostic performance (0.781) than GBWT (0.707), spleen diameter (0.672) and platelet count (0.635). Combining LSM (cut-off 13.58 kPa) and GBWT (cut-off 3.07 mm) resulted in a sensitivity of 86.3% and a specificity of 71.4% for the presence of EV. A sensitivity of 100% (negative predictive value 1.0) was achieved at LSM >9 kPa or GBWT >4 mm. Following these criteria in our current study population, 18% of the gastroscopies could have been avoided. Conclusions: Combining LSM with non-invasive parameters, especially GBWT, improves the diagnostic accuracy for predicting EV. We suggest reconsidering screening gastroscopy in patients with ACLD who show LSM <9 kPa and GBWT <4 mm due to the very low risk of having varices.