Mengmeng Zhang1, Xiaoxia Niu2, Di Zhao2, Ruping Qi1, Xuexin Qi1, Jinghui Dong1, Yuan Liu1, Xu Bai1, Qiang Yu3, Changchun Liu4, Jianming Cai5. 1. Department of Radiology, The Fifth Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, 100039, China. 2. Senior Department of Hepatology, The Fifth Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, 100039, China. 3. Department of Interventional Radiology, The Fifth Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, 100039, China. 4. Department of Radiology, The Fifth Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, 100039, China. lcc1984@163.com. 5. Department of Radiology, The Fifth Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, 100039, China. beili12345@sina.cn.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) is the gold standard for portal pressure in cirrhosis, but most previous studies focused on the diagnostic value of clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH) based on the correlation between liver stiffness (LS) and HVPG in hepatitis C virus (HCV) patients and alcoholic liver. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify the diagnostic value of LS for CSPH and the correlation with HVPG in hepatitis B virus (HBV) patients. METHODS: A total of 137 patients from the Fifth Medical Center of PLA General Hospital were divided into HBV group and non-HBV group according to etiology. Correlation analysis and ROC were used to analyze the correlation between LS and HVPG and the diagnostic value of CSPH. RESULTS: There was a good correlation between LS and HVPG in the total cohort and non-HBV cohort (r = 0.398, P < 0.001; r = 0.575, P < 0.001, respectively). However, the correlation between LS and HVPG was acceptable in the HBV cohort (r = 0.316, P = 0.002). When adjustment for age, MELD score, and INR, the result was still the same. Similar results were observed in the prediction for CSPH. LS showed good diagnostic value for CSPH in the total cohort and non-HBV cohort (AUC = 0.732, AUC = 0.829, respectively). However, it performed poorly in the HBV cohort (AUC = 0.689). CONCLUSION: The etiology of HBV might affect the diagnostic performance of LS for predicting CSPH.
PURPOSE: Hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) is the gold standard for portal pressure in cirrhosis, but most previous studies focused on the diagnostic value of clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH) based on the correlation between liver stiffness (LS) and HVPG in hepatitis C virus (HCV) patients and alcoholic liver. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify the diagnostic value of LS for CSPH and the correlation with HVPG in hepatitis B virus (HBV) patients. METHODS: A total of 137 patients from the Fifth Medical Center of PLA General Hospital were divided into HBV group and non-HBV group according to etiology. Correlation analysis and ROC were used to analyze the correlation between LS and HVPG and the diagnostic value of CSPH. RESULTS: There was a good correlation between LS and HVPG in the total cohort and non-HBV cohort (r = 0.398, P < 0.001; r = 0.575, P < 0.001, respectively). However, the correlation between LS and HVPG was acceptable in the HBV cohort (r = 0.316, P = 0.002). When adjustment for age, MELD score, and INR, the result was still the same. Similar results were observed in the prediction for CSPH. LS showed good diagnostic value for CSPH in the total cohort and non-HBV cohort (AUC = 0.732, AUC = 0.829, respectively). However, it performed poorly in the HBV cohort (AUC = 0.689). CONCLUSION: The etiology of HBV might affect the diagnostic performance of LS for predicting CSPH.
Authors: Philipp Schwabl; Simona Bota; Petra Salzl; Mattias Mandorfer; Berit A Payer; Arnulf Ferlitsch; Judith Stift; Friedrich Wrba; Michael Trauner; Markus Peck-Radosavljevic; Thomas Reiberger Journal: Liver Int Date: 2014-07-09 Impact factor: 5.828
Authors: Matthew T Kitson; Stuart K Roberts; John C Colman; Eldho Paul; Peter Button; William Kemp Journal: Scand J Gastroenterol Date: 2015-01-26 Impact factor: 2.423
Authors: E Giannini; F Botta; P Borro; D Risso; P Romagnoli; A Fasoli; M R Mele; E Testa; C Mansi; V Savarino; R Testa Journal: Gut Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 23.059