| Literature DB >> 34075015 |
Hai-Liang Yuan1, Min Wang2, Wei-Wei Chu1, Fang-Xian Li1, Jing-Jing Lu1, Yan Li1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to establish and validate an easy-to-use nomogram to predict portal vein thrombosis (PVT) in patients with cirrhosis after splenectomy and to test its predictive ability. MATERIAL AND METHODS This retrospective study included 315 patients with cirrhosis who underwent splenectomy at 2 high-volume medical centers. The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression method was used to select the predictors in the training cohort, and multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to establish the predictive nomogram model. We determined the prediction value of the nomogram by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), the calibration curve, and decision curve analysis. Finally, the applicability of the nomogram was internally and independently validated. RESULTS The predictors of PVT included portal vein diameter, splenic vein diameter, body mass index, and platelet count. Based on the clinical and radiomic models, the nomogram had good predictive efficiency for predicting PVT in patients with cirrhosis after splenectomy, with an AUROC of 0.887 (0.856 in internal validation and 0.796 in independent validation). The decision curve analysis revealed that the nomogram had good clinical application value. CONCLUSIONS We successfully developed an easy-to-use nomogram to predict the probability of PVT in patients with cirrhosis after splenectomy. The nomogram can help clinicians make timely, individualized clinical decisions for PVT in patients with cirrhosis after splenectomy.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34075015 PMCID: PMC8183155 DOI: 10.12659/MSM.929844
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Med Sci Monit ISSN: 1234-1010
Figure 1Flow chart of our study. NU – Nanchang University; ZU – Zhejiang University.
Characteristics of patients in the primary and validation cohorts.
| Primary set (n=219) | Independent validation set (n=96) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PVT (+) | PVT (−) | PVT (+) | PVT (−) | |||
| Age (mean±SD, years) | 47.10±9.79 | 46.94±9.89 | 0.476 | 43.10±10.09 | 44.84±9.87 | 0.570 |
| Sex (n [%]) | ||||||
| Male | 48 (67.6) | 89 (60.1) | 0.210 | 12 (75.0) | 49 (61.3) | 0.189 |
| Female | 23 (32.4) | 59 (39.9) | 4 (25.0) | 31 (38.7) | ||
| Etiology (n [%]) | 0.082 | 0.067 | ||||
| HBV | 42 (59.2) | 79 (53.4) | 9 (56.3) | 41 (51.3) | ||
| HCV | 8 (11.3) | 13 (8.8) | 0 (0) | 3 (3.7) | ||
| Alcohol | 13 (18.3) | 39 (26.4) | 4 (25.0) | 19 (23.8) | ||
| Mixed | 8 (11.2) | 17 (11.4) | 3 (18.7) | 17 (21.2) | ||
| DPV (mm) | 15.32±2.41 | 12.36±2.30 | <0.001 | 15.40±2.53 | 11.36±2.82 | <0.001 |
| DSV (mm) | 13.93±2.68 | 9.42±2.86 | <0.001 | 13.13±2.08 | 9.72±2.59 | <0.001 |
| Child-Pugh class (n [%]) | 0.236 | 0.329 | ||||
| A | 56 (78.9) | 89 (60.1) | 9 (56.2) | 41 (51.3) | ||
| B | 15 (21.1) | 59 (39.9) | 7 (43.8) | 39 (48.7) | ||
| C | – | – | – | – | ||
| BMI (%) (n [%]) | 0.018 | 0.021 | ||||
| <18.5 | 17 (23.9) | 57 (38.5) | 5 (31.3) | 24 (30.0) | ||
| ≥18.5, <24 | 38 (53.5) | 71 (48.0) | 8 (50.0) | 35 (43.8) | ||
| ≥24 | 16 (22.6) | 20 (13.5) | 3 (18.7) | 21 (26.2) | ||
| Surgical method (n [%]) | 0.061 | 0.089 | ||||
| Minimally invasive | 38 (53.5) | 96 (64.9) | 6 (37.5) | 25 (31.3) | ||
| Laparotomy | 33 (46.5) | 52 (35.1) | 10 (62.5) | 55 (68.7) | ||
| ALT (U/L) | 45.9±68.0 | 44.7±56.0 | 0.721 | 43.9±69.2 | 42.7±66.3 | 0.856 |
| AST (U/L) | 53.7±65.0 | 52.8±67.6 | 0.596 | 43.7±61.9 | 42.8±60.2 | 0.467 |
| TBIL (μmol/L) | 21.9±26.2 | 21.7±26.3 | 0.609 | 18.9±28.4 | 19.3±26.8 | 0.789 |
| TP (g/L) | 67.5±7.1 | 65.7±7.6 | 0.073 | 67.5±7.1 | 65.2±7.9 | 0.066 |
| ALB (g/L) | 36.9±6.4 | 39.9±6.5 | 0.017 | 36.3±5.6 | 35.9±7.3 | 0.019 |
| GLB (g/L) | 30.3±6.6 | 26.8±6.4 | 0.013 | 29.2±6.9 | 27.8±5.9 | 0.028 |
| PT (s) | 12.9±2.2 | 12.6±1.9 | 0.890 | 12.3±2.6 | 11.8±2.7 | 0.796 |
| PTA (%) | 83.5±24.8 | 83.7±21.9 | 0.498 | 82.9±23.9 | 83.3±20.6 | 0.317 |
| APTT (s) | 32.3±8.1 | 31.9±7.6 | 0.159 | 31.6±9.1 | 31.9±8.2 | 0.238 |
| INR | 1.2±0.3 | 1.1±0.4 | 0.316 | 1.0±0.6 | 1.1±0.4 | 0.561 |
| D-dimer (μg/L) | 2.5±2.7 | 2.6±1.6 | 0.367 | 2.7±2.8 | 2.6±2.9 | 0.469 |
| PLT (×109/L) | 215.1±161.7 | 160.1±138.2 | <0.001 | 209.1±160.6 | 170.6±142.8 | <0.001 |
P value is derived from the univariate association analyses between the training group and validation group. SD – standard deviation; PVT – portal vein thrombosis; HBV – hepatitis B virus; HCV – hepatitis C virus; DPV – diameter of portal vein; DSV – diameter of splenic vein; BMI – body mass index; ALT – alanine aminotransaminase; AST – aspartate aminotransaminase; TBIL – total serum bilirubin; DBIL – direct serum bilirubin; TP – total serum protein; ALB – serum albumin; PT – prothrombin time; PTA – prothrombin activity; APTT – activated partial thromboplastin time; INR – international normalized ratio; PLT – platelet count.
Figure 2LASSO feature selection model. (A) LASSO coefficients of 20 candidate variables. (B) Identification of the optimal penalization coefficient (λ) in the LASSO model was achieved by 10-fold cross-validation and the minimum criterion.
Multivariable logistic regression analysis of the selected clinical characteristics in the training group.
| Variable | Odds ratio (95% CI) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| DPV (mm) | 0.342 | 1.260 (1.091~1.813) | <0.001 |
| DSV (mm) | 0.386 | 1.417 (1.099~1.996) | <0.001 |
| BMI | |||
| <18.5 | Reference | ||
| ≥18.5, <24 | 0.007 | 1.005 (1.002–1.009) | 0.029 |
| ≥24 | 0.011 | 1.008 (1.008–1.019) | 0.021 |
| PLT | 0.008 | 1.011 (1.005–1.013) | 0.013 |
β – the regression coefficient; CI – confidence interval; DPV – diameter of portal vein; DSV – diameter of splenic vein; BMI – body mass index; PLT – platelet count.
Figure 3The nomogram for prediction of portal vein thrombosis in patients with cirrhosis after splenectomy.
Figure 4The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for (A) training, (B) internal validation, and (C) independent validation set cohorts.
Figure 5Calibration curve plot in each set. (A) the training set; (B) the internal validation set; (C) the independent validation set.
Figure 6Decision curve analysis for the nomogram.