Giovanni Marasco1, Elton Dajti2, Federico Ravaioli2, Luigina Vanessa Alemanni2, Fabiana Capuano3, Kamela Gjini3, Luigi Colecchia2, Giovanni Puppini4, Caterina Cusumano3, Matteo Renzulli5, Rita Golfieri5, Davide Festi2, Antonio Colecchia3. 1. Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences (DIMEC), University of Bologna, Via Massarenti 9, 40138, Bologna, Italy. giovannimarasco89@gmail.com. 2. Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences (DIMEC), University of Bologna, Via Massarenti 9, 40138, Bologna, Italy. 3. Unit of Gastroenterology, Borgo Trento University Hospital of Verona, P.le Aristide Stefani 1, 37126, Verona, Italy. 4. Radiology Unit, Borgo Trento University Hospital, P.le Aristide Stefani 1, 37126, Verona, Italy. 5. Radiology Unit, Sant'Orsola Malpighi Hospital, Via Albertoni 4, 40126, Bologna, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Non-selective β-blocker (NSBB) therapy is the treatment of choice for primary prophylaxis of cirrhotic patients with high-bleeding risk esophageal varices (HRV). The hemodynamic response to NSBB is assessed by the measurement of the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG). Recently, liver and spleen stiffness measurements (LSM and SSM) were proposed as non-invasive surrogates of HVPG. We aimed to evaluate LSM and SSM changes for assessing hemodynamic response in these patients. METHODS: Cirrhotic patients with HRV were prospectively enrolled and evaluated at our Department before starting NSBB and after 3 months. Correlation between changes (delta) of HVPG after NSBB treatment and those of LSM or SSM by transient elastography was performed. RESULTS: From the initial 59 patients considered for the study, 20 were finally included in the analysis. Fifteen (15) patients reached hemodynamic response to NSBB according to HVPG. Changes in LSM did not correlate with changes in HVPG (r = 0.107, p value = 0.655), unlike changes in SSM (r = 0.784, p value < 0.0001). Delta SSM presented excellent accuracy in identifying HVPG responders (AUROC 0.973; 95% CI 0.912-1). The best cut-off for delta SSM to identify responders was -10% (sensitivity 100%, specificity 60%, NPV 100% and PPV 90%). CONCLUSIONS: SSM could be a reliable non-invasive test for the assessment of hemodynamic response to NSBB therapy as primary prophylaxis for HRV. Similar to HVPG, SSM reduction ≥ 10% is able to assess hemodynamic response.
BACKGROUND: Non-selective β-blocker (NSBB) therapy is the treatment of choice for primary prophylaxis of cirrhotic patients with high-bleeding risk esophageal varices (HRV). The hemodynamic response to NSBB is assessed by the measurement of the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG). Recently, liver and spleen stiffness measurements (LSM and SSM) were proposed as non-invasive surrogates of HVPG. We aimed to evaluate LSM and SSM changes for assessing hemodynamic response in these patients. METHODS: Cirrhotic patients with HRV were prospectively enrolled and evaluated at our Department before starting NSBB and after 3 months. Correlation between changes (delta) of HVPG after NSBB treatment and those of LSM or SSM by transient elastography was performed. RESULTS: From the initial 59 patients considered for the study, 20 were finally included in the analysis. Fifteen (15) patients reached hemodynamic response to NSBB according to HVPG. Changes in LSM did not correlate with changes in HVPG (r = 0.107, p value = 0.655), unlike changes in SSM (r = 0.784, p value < 0.0001). Delta SSM presented excellent accuracy in identifying HVPG responders (AUROC 0.973; 95% CI 0.912-1). The best cut-off for delta SSM to identify responders was -10% (sensitivity 100%, specificity 60%, NPV 100% and PPV 90%). CONCLUSIONS: SSM could be a reliable non-invasive test for the assessment of hemodynamic response to NSBB therapy as primary prophylaxis for HRV. Similar to HVPG, SSM reduction ≥ 10% is able to assess hemodynamic response.
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
Authors: Matteo Renzulli; Nicolò Brandi; Anna Pecorelli; Luigi Vincenzo Pastore; Alessandro Granito; Giuseppe Martinese; Francesco Tovoli; Mario Simonetti; Elton Dajti; Antonio Colecchia; Rita Golfieri Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-03-29
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: Elton Dajti; Giovanni Marasco; Federico Ravaioli; Luigi Colecchia; Alberto Ferrarese; Davide Festi; Antonio Colecchia Journal: JHEP Rep Date: 2021-04-14