Validation of color Doppler ultrasound and computed tomography in the radiologic assessment of non-malignant acute splanchnic vein thrombosis.

INTRODUCTION: International guidelines propose color Doppler ultrasound (CDUS) and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) as primary imaging techniques in the diagnosis of acute splanchnic vein thrombosis. However, their reliability in this context is poorly investigated. Therefore, the aim of our study was to validate CDUS and CT in the radiologic assessment of acute splanchnic vein thrombosis, using direct transjugular spleno-portography as gold standard.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: 49 patients with non-malignant acute splanchnic vein thrombosis were included in a retrospective, multicenter analysis. The thrombosis' extent in five regions of the splanchnic venous system (right and left intrahepatic portal vein, main trunk of the portal vein, splenic vein, superior mesenteric vein) and the degree of thrombosis (patent, partial thrombosis, complete thrombosis) were assessed by portography, CDUS and CT in a blinded manner. Reliability of CDUS and CT with regard to portography as gold standard was analyzed by calculating Cohen's kappa.
RESULTS: Results of CDUS and CT were consistent with portography in 76.6% and 78.4% of examinations, respectively. Cohen's kappa demonstrated that CDUS and CT delivered almost equally reliable results with regard to the portographic gold standard (k = 0.634 [p < 0.001] vs. k = 0.644 [p < 0.001]). In case of findings non-consistent with portography there was no clear trend to over- or underestimation of the degree of thrombosis in both CDUS (60.0% vs. 40.0%) and CT (59.5% vs. 40.5%).
CONCLUSIONS: CDUS and CT are equally reliable tools in the radiologic assessment of non-malignant acute splanchnic vein thrombosis.

Introduction

The clinical management of acute splanchnic vein thrombosis can be challenging as affected patients are at risk of developing severe complications such as mesenteric ischemia [1]. Therapeutic options include conservative treatment by anticoagulation or interventional treatment by transjugular lysis or implantation of a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS). While interventional treatments offer a better chance of resolving the thrombus, they are associated with significantly higher rates of bleeding complications [2-4]. Besides the patient’s clinical presentation, the grade of thrombosis and its extent in the splanchnic venous system are the most important factors for making the decision between conservative and interventional treatment, as these parameters are decisive prognostic factors [5, 6]. Hence, accurate radiologic assessment of the thrombosis is of major importance. International guidelines propose color Doppler sonography (CDUS) and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) as primary imaging techniques for diagnosing acute splanchnic vein thrombosis [7, 8]. Importantly, these recommendations are based on a surprisingly small number of studies that have investigated CDUS and CT in this context, as summarized in . Against this background, the aim of our study was to validate CDUS and CT in the radiologic assessment of non-malignant acute splanchnic vein thrombosis, using direct transjugular spleno-portography as gold standard.

Materials and methods

Patient selection and assessment of thrombosis

63 patients who received interventional treatment of acute splanchnic vein thrombosis at the University Medical Center Freiburg or the RKH Hospital Ludwigsburg, Germany, between January 2010 and December 2018 were screened. Inclusion criteria were initial diagnosis of a cirrhotic or non-cirrhotic thrombosis of the splanchnic venous system confirmed by direct transjugular spleno-portography and the presence of an additional CDUS and/or contrast-enhanced CT including a portal venous phase in the course of diagnostic work-up prior to portography. Exclusion criteria were cavernous transformation of the thrombosis, malignant thrombosis and lacking imaging documentation of the radiological examinations. After application of these exclusion criteria, 49 patients were enrolled in the study. 26 patients (53.1%) received portography, CDUS and CT, while 8 patients (16.3%) received portography and CDUS and 15 patients (30.6%) received portography and CT.

The study was a non-interventional, retrospective analysis. Imaging documentation of portography and CDUS was reviewed by two experienced interventional hepatologists (LS, MS), CT was reviewed by two experienced radiologists (TK, HE). Imaging documentation was reviewed in a blinded manner, id est investigators were not aware of the corresponding results of the other imaging techniques. Five regions of the splanchnic venous system were assessed separately: Left and right main branch of the intrahepatic portal vein, main trunk of the portal vein, splenic vein and superior mesenteric vein (SMV). As CDUS examination of the SMV had not been performed routinely, the SMV could be assessed by CDUS in only 9 patients (18.4%). A classification into three degrees of thrombosis was made for each vessel: No thrombosis, partial thrombosis and complete thrombosis of the lumen; . Thrombosis was defined as presence of thrombotic material in the vessel lumen with preserved (partial thrombosis) or absence (complete thrombosis) of blood flow correlate. Grading of thrombosis was conducted on a consensus basis. Since all imaging examinations were performed during clinical routine technical specificities like model of CDUS/CT and device settings were not incorporated in the analysis. The findings of direct transjugular spleno-portography were defined as gold standard, as this procedure allows direct catheter-guided application of contrast agent and visualization of the respective vessels of the splanchnic venous system. The presence of liver cirrhosis was assessed as recorded in the patients’ medical files. The study was performed according to the STROBE-guidelines [9].

Assessment of thrombosis in the splanchnic venous system.

Five regions of the splanchnic venous system were assessed: The right (1) and left (2) intrahepatic portal vein, the main trunk of the portal vein (3), the splenic vein (4) and the superior mesenteric vein (5). For each of the vessels a classification into three grades of thrombosis was made: no thrombosis (a), partial thrombosis (b) or complete thrombosis (c).

Direct spleno-portography

The transjugular, transhepatic technique which has been described previously was used for direct spleno-portography in all patients [10]. In summary, an approach via the internal jugular vein was established and hepatic vein catheterization was performed using a curved cannula together with a corresponding 5 F catheter and a guidewire. Transhepatic puncture of a right portal vein branch was performed under ultrasound guidance. After successful puncture, a 5 F pigtail catheter was advanced into the splenic vein and placed close to the splenic hilum for direct portography. Routinely, 20 ml of contrast agent were injected in two seconds (10 ml/s). In case of larger collaterals leading to diversion of contrast agent before entering the portal vein, portography war repeated in a position closer to the portal confluence. Subsequently, the catheter was repositioned for assessment of the SMV. Portography was performed in the course of interventional treatment of acute splanchnic-vein thrombosis, but prior to any interventional therapeutic measures.

Ethics statement

The multicenter study was approved by the ethics committee of the University of Freiburg, Germany, (no. EK 85/19) and is in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Due to the retrospective design of the study the requirement for informed patient consent was waived. Patient records were accessed between 1st January and 31st January 2020 to obtain the study data. All patient data were pseudonymized. The study was registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS 00019008).

Statistical analyses

Continuous variables are expressed as mean with standard deviation, categorial variables as frequencies and percentages. Differences between patient groups were assessed by non-parametric tests such as the Chi square test, as there was no Gaussian distribution of the data. A p-value < 0.050 was considered statistically significant. We analyzed if the findings of CDUS and CT were consistent with portography for each of the five regions of the splanchnic venous system. Consistency was defined as identical degree of thrombosis in CDUS/CT and portography and is reported as frequency of consistent findings. If the grading of CDUS/CT was not consistent with portography, we analyzed if CDUS/CT showed a higher or a lower degree of thrombosis than portography. To evaluate the reliability of CDUS and CT with respect to the portographic gold standard, Cohen’s kappa was calculated as a measure of inter-rater reliability. Cohen’s kappa was classified according to Landis & Koch [11]; . Analyses were performed with SPSS (version 24.0, IBM, NY, USA) and GraphPad Prism (version 8, GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA).

Results

Patient characteristics

summarizes patient characteristics. A majority of 35 of the 49 patients included (71.4%) had non-cirrhotic acute splanchnic vein thrombosis, while splanchnic vein thrombosis was associated with liver cirrhosis in 14 patients (28.6%). All patients received therapeutic anticoagulation as soon as diagnosis of splanchnic thrombosis was established by CDUS/CT. The time span between CDUS/CT and portography was 1.95 ±2.38 days.

Findings of portography

gives an overview of the findings of portography that served as reference for CDUS and CT. Complete thrombosis occurred most frequently in the SMV (56.5% of patients) and the main portal vein (53.1% of patients). Partial thrombosis was present most commonly in the main portal vein as well as the right and left intrahepatic portal vein (38.8%, 35.4% and 28.3% of patients, respectively). No thrombosis was found most often in the splenic vein (52.2% of patients). 74.5% of patients had extensive thrombosis with three or more of the splanchnic venous system’s vessels affected.

Findings of portography.

The bars indicate the proportion of patients in which the five vessels of the splanchnic venous system investigated were graded as patent, partial thrombosis and complete thrombosis by the portographic gold standard that served as reference for CDUS and CT.

Comparison of CDUS and CT against portography

We analyzed if the gradings obtained by CDUS and CT were consistent with portography that served as gold standard. Overall, CDUS and CT showed almost equal consistency with portography, as the portographic results matched with CDUS in 76.6% and with CT in 78.4%; . The gradings of thrombosis obtained by CDUS and CT matched in 74.4% of cases, indicating that despite their similar performance the results of the two imaging techniques were not fully interchangeable.

Consistency of CDUS and CT with portographic findings.

The bars indicate the proportion of examinations in which findings of CDUS and CT were consistent with the portographic gold standard, id est grading of thrombosis (patent vessel, partial thrombosis, complete thrombosis) was identical in CDUS/CT and portography.

Detailed analyses of the regions of the splanchnic venous system revealed very similar rates of consistency with portography in case of the right intrahepatic portal vein (73.1% vs. 72.5%) and the splenic vein (86.7% vs. 86.8%). In the assessment of the main portal vein CDUS displayed slightly lower consistency with portography compared to CT (66.7% vs. 71.1%), while in case of the left intrahepatic portal vein CDUS was even superior to CT (80.0% vs. 71.1%). In case of the SMV consistency of CDUS with portography was 100% compared to 84.2% consistency of CT. However, as mentioned before, the SMV was assessed by CDUS in only nine patients (18.4%).

In a sub-analysis of the 26 patients in which both CDUS and CT were available in addition to portography, CDUS and CT displayed lower consistency with portography. Still, both imaging techniques performed almost equally well (66.9% vs. 68.5% consistency).

Reliability of CDUS and CT with regard to portography

To assess the reliability of results of CDUS and CT with regard to portography as gold standard, Cohen’s kappa was calculated. This analysis revealed that CDUS and CT both showed substantial agreement with portography. Cohen’s kappa was k = 0.634 (p < 0.001) for CDUS and k = 0.644 (p < 0.001) for CT, indicating that the two imaging techniques displayed almost identical reliability. Subanalyses revealed that both CDUS and CT offered significant, at least moderate agreement with portography in all of the five regions of the splachnic venous system investigated, as summarized in .

Non-consistent findings of CDUS/CT and portography

shows an example of divergent grading of thrombosis by CDUS in comparison to CT and portography. Systematic analysis of those cases in which the grading by CDUS/CT was not consistent with portography revealed that there was no clear trend to overestimation (CDUS 60%, CT 59.5% of cases) or underestimation (CDUS 40%, CT 40.5%) of the grade of thrombosis. Importantly, failure to detect thrombosis occurred rarely in both CDUS and CT: Complete or partial thrombosis was erroneously graded as patent in only three cases by CDUS and in five cases by CT. We assessed if the time span between initial detection of splanchnic thrombosis by CDUS/CT and portography influenced the performance of the imaging techniques. However, consistency with portographic findings was not significantly different between patients with a time span of less than 48 hours and patients with 48 hours or more between CDUS/CT and portography (p ≥ 0.296).

Example of divergent findings in CDUS and CT.

While the main trunk of the portal vein was graded as ‘partial thrombosis’ by CDUS (A), since thrombotic material could be identified in the vessel lumen but a preserved portal venous flow signal was detectable, it was graded as ‘complete thrombosis’ by CT (B) and portography (C), as both showed thrombotic occlusion of the vessel lumen without contrast agent flow.

Discussion

Patients with acute splanchnic vein thrombosis are at risk of developing life-threatening complications [1]. Hence, adequate treatment of the thrombosis is of great importance. The guidelines of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) and the European Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (EASL) do not give distinct criteria regarding the decision between conservative treatment and interventional treatment, but recommend to make the decision on an individual basis [7, 8]. In this context, the radiologic assessment of the thrombosis’ grade and extent in the splanchnic venous system is essential, as these parameters are decisive prognostic factors and find consideration in specialist recommendations, such as the Baveno consensus report, accordingly [5, 6]. In compliance with international guidelines, CDUS and contrast-enhanced CT are the primary imaging techniques employed in the diagnosis of acute splanchnic vein thrombosis [7, 8]. Surprisingly, CDUS and CT are only very sparsely investigated in this context. As this may complicate judging the reliability of imaging results in clinical practice significantly, we set out to validate CDUS and CT in the radiologic assessment of non-malignant acute splanchnic vein thrombosis, using direct transjugular spleno-portography as gold standard. Our blinded evaluation of the imaging modalities revealed that CDUS and CT both showed comparable consistency with the grading of thrombosis obtained by the portography (76.6% vs. 78.4%). Cohen’s kappa demonstrated that both CDUS and CT delivered reliable results, performing almost equally well (k = 0.634 [p < 0.001] vs. k = 0.644 [p < 0.001]). However, it has to be pointed out that CDUS and CT failed to correctly assess the grade of thrombosis in 23.4% and 21.6% of examinations, respectively, which displays that both imaging techniques involved a significant rate of erroneous gradings. Importantly, these related almost solely to the differentiation between partial and complete thrombosis and not the general presence of thrombosis.

To the best of our knowledge, there are only two other studies that have investigated CDUS and CT in the context of acute splanchnic vein thrombosis head-to-head [12, 13]. Both studies reported comparable results of CDUS and CT, but focused on the mere detection of thrombosis and did not differentiate grade and extent of thrombosis. In addition, they investigated very small patient collectives (five and three patients) and date back to 1985 and 1992. Tessler et al. investigated the main portal vein by CDUS in 75 patients against angiography/surgery as gold standard [14]. Importantly, only nine of these patients had portal vein thrombosis since the study design aimed to determine CDUS’ sensitivity and specificity and did not include a more detailed analysis of the grade and extent of thrombosis. Bach et al. evaluated CDUS and computed tomography with arterial spleno-portography (CTAP) in 41 patients with splanchnic thrombosis [15]. The authors assessed the right and left intrahepatic branches and the main trunk of the portal vein and also graded thrombosis. However, patients in this study had malignant splanchnic thrombosis, thus representing a different entity of thrombosis. In addition, the authors compared CDUS to CTAP which involves contrast agent application via the mesenteric arteries, making its results only limitedly comparable to those of contrast-enhanced CT with application of contrast agent via a peripheral vein [16]. Rossi et al. performed two studies in which they compared contrast-enhanced ultrasound to CDUS in 79 patients and to contrast-enhanced CT in 50 patients with splanchnic vein thrombosis [17, 18]. Again, the included patients had malignant thrombosis and the studies focused on the detection of thrombosis and its characterization as malignant or benign. In summary, the present study is the first to directly compare CDUS and CT in the radiologic assessment of non-malignant acute splanchnic vein thrombosis, demonstrating the equal value of both imaging techniques in this context.

Our study has several limitations that need to be addressed. As acute splanchnic vein thrombosis is a very rare condition with an incidence of < 1/100.000 per year, we chose a retrospective study design, which allowed us to include 49 patients in our analysis [19]. This patient collective size is comparable with previous imaging studies on splanchnic thrombosis [12-18]. Still, it is important to keep the limited number of patients in mind when interpreting the significance our findings. Since CDUS and portography are dynamical examinations, it has to be mentioned that a post hoc analysis of their findings is inferior to an analysis during the procedure. To minimize bias regarding this aspect, portography, CDUS and CT were evaluated by two experienced investigators on a consensus basis according to set criteria and in a blinded manner. Importantly, our results may not be fully transferable to all clinical settings, as the investigator’s experience may influence imaging results significantly, especially in the case of CDUS. Another limitation of our study design is that imaging examinations were performed during clinical routine over a time period of nine years and did not follow a set study protocol. Firstly, this implies a variability regarding technical aspects like model or device settings, which may impede comparability of findings. However, both participating centers were equipped with modern CDUS and CT devices of a comparable technical standard, as listed in . Secondly, the SMV was examined by CDUS in clinical routine in only nine patients. As CDUS showed perfect consistency with portographic findings in evaluation of the SMV, this may be considered a source of bias. However, even when excluding the SMV from the analyses CDUS and CT still displayed comparable reliability with respect to portographic findings (CDUS k = 0.608 [p < 0.001] vs. CT k = 0.632 [p < 0.001]). Another issue that has to be discussed is effects of therapeutic anticoagulation. As all patients received anticoagulation as soon as the diagnosis of acute splanchnic vein thrombosis was established, one could assume bias through therapeutic effects of anticoagulation in imaging examinations performed henceforth. Importantly, the time span between CDUS/CT and angiography was only 1.95 ±2.38 days in our patient cohort. In addition, all patients received CDUS and/or CT prior to portography. In case of significant bias through therapeutic effects of anticoagulation one would expect an unequivocal trend to overestimation of the grade of thrombosis in CDUS and CT, which was not true, though.

Conclusions

Keeping its limitations in mind the results of our study demonstrate that CDUS and CT are both equally reliable in assessing the grade and extent of acute splanchnic vein thrombosis. The non-inferiority of CDUS promotes its use as an easily available, radiation-free and economical tool in this setting. Naturally, our results require validation in further studies of larger patient collectives.

Overview of studies investigating imaging techniques in the diagnosis of acute splanchnic vein thrombosis.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Classification of Cohen’s kappa.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Ultrasound and CT devices utilized at the study centers.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Underlying data set.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

31 May 2021

PONE-D-20-25875

Validation of color Doppler ultrasound and computed tomography in the radiologic assessment of non-malignant acute splanchnic vein thrombosis

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Sturm,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by the 13/7. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Roza Chaireti

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your ethics statement in the Methods section and in the online submission form, please provide additional information about the data used in your retrospective study. Specifically, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

3. Please include the date(s) on which you accessed the databases or records to obtain the data used in your study.

4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where ALL the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

5. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

[LS andDB aresupported by the Berta-Ottenstein-Programme, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg.]

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

[The authors received no specific funding for this work.]

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I apologize for the delay in advising you on the progress on the paper that you submitted to the PLOS ONE.

This is well written and illustrated paper. I suggest you make minor revision.

1.Is CT more reliable than CDUS if the evaluator is not an experienced interventional hepatologists/radiologists?

2.Were the CT and CDUS purchased at about the same time and with the same high performance?　 Is the CT the old one and the US the newest one?

Reviewer #2: The authors compared CDUS or CT to direct transjugular spleno-portography about detectable ability for acute splanchnic vein thrombosis. Their results is that CDUS and CT were consistent with portography in 76.6% and 78.4% compared to direct transjugular spleno-portography. They claimed that CDUS and CT are equally reliable tools in the radiologic assessment of non-malignant acute splanchnic vein thrombosis.

I think the work is well written.

However, I think the authors should consider several problems.

Major

#1. The number of enrollment was only 49 patients. I think this is too small.

#2. In clinical, CDUS and enhanced-CT are useful and often performed for diagnosis of portal or splanchnic vein thrombosis. We often perform direct transjugular spleno-portography after being diagnosed in order to intervention therapy.

So, this conclusion seems to be low impact.

#3. Concerns to patient characters, 35 patients have non-cirrhotic thrombosis. What were their detail cause ? What number was due to surgery?

Minor

#1. Images of CDUS and CT as figures should be added.

Reviewer #3: The authors present a retrospective cohort study comparing portography versus CT or CDUS for the diagnosis of splanchnic vein thromboses. Overall, the study adds new data in an area with very little information. In general, the study is well done but it could use some improvement.

Please consider a subanalysis comparing the 26 patients who had all 3 imaging modalities. Compare CT and US versus portography and also US vs CT. This also may be of value as CT and US are used interchangeably when they may be not.

It is possible that among those patients in whom there was a discrepancy between portography and the other imaging modalities the time lapse between imaging modalities might have been longer (i.e. the CDUS or CT were done first – failing to detect a thrombus, that subsequently developed and was later found by portography). Please clarify this.

Please make sure that the study adheres to STROBE guidelines.

Figure 2 could use a single panel with 5 100%-stacked columns, one per vessel. Would make it much clearer.

The manuscript needs a thorough revision of the English language. A few examples are shown below but there are many more.

Page 4. Should read “mesenteric”

Page 6. Should read “confluence”

Page 9: please rephrase the following: “In the evaluation of CDUS results complete and partial thrombosis was erroneously graded as patent in only one and two cases of the entirety of splanchnic venous regions assessed, respectively. In the evaluation of CT misjudgment of complete and partial thrombosis as patent occurred in only two and three cases, respectively”. It is not clear in its current form

Page 13. The use of the word “subsuming” is not correct

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

16 Jul 2021

A point-by-point reply to the reviewers comments is included in the Cover Letter of the revision ('Rebutal Letter')

Submitted filename: RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS.docx

Click here for additional data file.

6 Dec 2021

Validation of color Doppler ultrasound and computed tomography in the radiologic assessment of non-malignant acute splanchnic vein thrombosis

PONE-D-20-25875R1

Dear Dr. Sturm,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Roza Chaireti

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

10 Dec 2021

PONE-D-20-25875R1

Validation of color Doppler ultrasound and computed tomography in the radiologic assessment of non-malignant acute splanchnic vein thrombosis

Dear Dr. Sturm:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Roza Chaireti

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Table 1

Patient characteristics.

Characteristics	Number
Patients total	49
Age [years]	56 ±13.5
Gender
male	29 (59.2%)
female	20 (40.8%)
Etiology
cirrhotic thrombosis	14 (28.6%)
non-cirrhotic thrombosis	35 (71.4%)
myeloproliferative disease	8 (16.3%)
thrombophilia	6 (12.2%)
infective/inflammatory disease	6 (12.2%)
post abdominal surgery	2 (4.1%)
idiopathic	13 (26.5%)
Portography + CDUS + CT	26 (53.1%)
Portography + CDUS	8 (16.3%)
Portography + CT	15 (30.6%)
Time CDUS/CT to portography* [days]	1.95 ±2.38

* The time span to spleno-portography was calculated from the date of CDUS or CT depending on which imaging procedure was performed first

Abbreviations: CDUS = color Doppler ultrasound, CT = contrast-enhanced computed tomography

Table 2

Cohen’s kappa of CDUS and CT with regard to portography as gold standard.

	Cohen’s kappa	Cohen’s kappa
	CDUS	CT
Overall	0.634 [p < 0.001]	0.644 [p < 0.001]
Main PV	0.408 [p = 0.005]	0.593 [p < 0.001]
Right intrahepatic PV	0.542 [p < 0.001]	0.538 [p < 0.001]
Left intrahepatic PV	0.688 [p < 0.001]	0.545 [p < 0.001]
Splenic Vein	0.681 [p = 0.001]	0.769 [p < 0.001]
SMV	0.999 [p < 0.001]*	0.681 [p < 0.001]

* The SMV was examined by CDUS in only nine patients

Abbreviations: CDUS = color Doppler ultrasound, CT = contrast-enhanced computed tomography, PV = portal vein, SMV = superior mesenteric vein