Role of portal haemodynamic parameters in prediction of oesophageal varices in cirrhotic patients

Diagnostic Accuracy of Portal Vein Flow Velocity for Esophageal Varices in Cirrhotic Patients

Background Variceal bleeding is a life-threatening complication of cirrhosis. Traditionally, endoscopy has been utilized as a preferred modality for the detection and grading of esophageal varices. However, endoscopy is an invasive procedure and may not be readily available in resource-limited settings. To overcome this limitation, various non-invasive tests, including Doppler ultrasonography (DUS) with portal vein (PV) velocity measurement, have been investigated to predict the presence of esophageal varices (EV). This study aimed to evaluate the potential utility of portal vein flow velocity (PVFV) as a non-invasive alternative to endoscopic screening for predicting the presence of esophageal varices among cirrhotic patients. Methodology This validation cross-sectional study was carried out at the Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Pakistan Kidney and Liver Institute & Research Centre (PKLI&RC), Lahore, Pakistan from June 8, 2022, to March 8, 2023. Cirrhotic patients were enrolled based on clinical, laboratory, and radiological assessments. Doppler ultrasonography was performed to measure portal vein flow velocity along other relevant indices. Subsequently, all patients underwent endoscopic evaluation to screen and grade the esophageal varices. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify significant clinical predictors of EV based on the results of the independent sample t-tests or Mann-Whitney U tests. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were employed to determine the optimal cut-off value for portal vein flow velocity (PVFV). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and diagnostic accuracy were calculated based on the identified cut-off value. A p-value ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results A cohort of 137 cirrhotic patients was enrolled. The study population consisted of 92 males (67.2%) and 45 females (32.8%). Endoscopic screening confirmed the presence of esophageal varices in 81 patients (59.91%). A multivariate analysis revealed that aspartate aminotransferase to platelet ratio index (APRI) (p=0.008) and portal vein flow velocity (p=0.001) were significant factors associated with esophageal varices and were used for receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. The area under the curve (AUC) for PVFV was 0.981, and for APRI, it was 0.711. At a cut-off value of 18 cm/sec for PVFV, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and diagnostic accuracy for esophageal varices were found to be 93.83%, 92.86%, 95%, 91.23%, and 93.43%, respectively. Conclusion Measurement of portal vein flow velocity using Doppler ultrasonography (DUS) is a reliable screening method for predicting the presence of esophageal varices (EV) in patients with liver cirrhosis. DUS offers several advantages, including its non-invasive nature, cost-effectiveness, and widespread availability, making it a recommended approach due to its high diagnostic accuracy.

Assessment of variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients: accuracy of multi-detector computed tomography

Background

Esophageal variceal hemorrhage (EVH) has been shown to be a leading cause of mortality in patients with portal hypertension. Our purpose was to assess the utility of multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) features in the assessment of esophageal varices (EVs) and esophageal variceal hemorrhage (EVH). This prospective study included 85 cirrhotic patients who underwent MDCT and Upper Gastrointestinal Tract (UGIT) endoscopy within 2 weeks. Four radiologists evaluated the presence of EVs and the presence and size of different collaterals. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was calculated to investigate the significant predictors influencing EV and EVH.

Results

Findings of EV with MDCT were the best predictor of EV or EVH. The presence (and/or size) of following collaterals had significant association with both EV and EVH: paraesophageal (p < 0.001, < 0.001), short gastric (p = 0.024, 0.010), gastric varicosities (p < 0.001, < 0.001), coronary (p < 0.001, < 0.001), and main coronary vein (MCV) (p < 0.001, = 0.011). We proposed an imaging-based model (presence of coronary collaterals, main coronary vein size > 3.5 mm, presence of short gastric collaterals, presence of gastric varicosities, size > 1.5 mm) with 97% sensitivity, 91% specificity, and 94% accuracy to predict EVs. We suggested another model (presence of paraesophageal collaterals, presence of short gastric vein (SGC), SGC size > 2.5 mm, main coronary vein size > 3.5 mm, gastric varicosities size > 1.5 mm, size of EVs > 4 mm, and Child C score) to predict EVH with 98% sensitivity, 81% specificity, and 89.5% accuracy. Inter-observer agreement was high in the detection of EVs (W. Kappa = 0.71–0.88).

Conclusion

MDCT is an effective modality in the diagnosis of EVs. At MDCT, the presence and/or size of various collaterals including para-esophageal, short gastric, coronary collaterals, and gastric varicosities are accurate predictors for either EVs existence or EVH. We suggested two computed tomography imaging-based models with high reproducibility and acceptable accuracy for the prediction of EV and EVH. With cirrhotic patients, we recommend that radiologists report collaterals in their daily practice.

Role of portal color Doppler ultrasonography as noninvasive predictive tool for esophageal varices in cirrhotic patients

Background

Esophageal varices (EV) is the most common apprehensive complication of portal hypertension in patients with cirrhotic liver. Guidelines recommend Upper gastro-intestinal endoscopic screening for EV in patients with newly diagnosed chronic cirrhosis (Imperiale et al. in Hepatology 45(4):870–878, 2007). Yet, it is invasive, time consuming and costly. To avoid unnecessary endoscopy, some studies have suggested Doppler ultrasound examination as simple, and noninvasive tool in prediction and assessment of severity of EV (Agha et al. in Dig Dis Sci 54(3):654–660, 2009). Our study was to assess the role of different Doppler indices of portal vein, hepatic and splenic arteries as a noninvasive tool for prediction of esophageal varices in cirrhotic patients.

Results

This prospective case control study was conducted on 100 cirrhotic liver patients and 100 of healthy volunteers as control group. Patients were subjected to clinical examination, upper gastrointestinal tract endoscopy, abdominal ultrasonography with duplex Doppler evaluation of different portal Doppler hemodynamic indices were done for each patient. The results revealed that portal vein diameter, hepatic artery pulsatility index, portal hypertensive index, portal vein flow velocity, portal congestion index have high sensitivity for prediction of EV. However, Splenic artery resistance index, hepatic artery resistance index HARI, liver vascular index and platelet count/spleen diameter have less sensitivity for prediction of EV.

Conclusion

Measuring the portal hemodynamic indices can help physicians as noninvasive predictors of EV in cirrhotic patients to restrict the need for unnecessary endoscopic screening especially when endoscopic facilities are limited.

Role of plasma von Willebrand factor antigen in prediction of esophageal varices in pediatric and adolescent patients with portal hypertension

Background

Ruptured esophageal varices (EVs) are a leading cause of death in Portal hypertension (PHT), it has been a big concern of research to screen EVs through non-invasive approaches. This study aimed to evaluate the role of plasma von Willebrand factor antigen (VWF-Ag) assay for early detection of EVs in patients with portal hypertension. This was a cross-sectional study, done on 47 portal hypertensive children and adolescents who were collected from the Pediatrics Hepatology Clinic, Children Hospital, Ain Shams University. All patients were subjected to comprehensive history taking, thorough clinical examination, routine investigations, abdominal ultrasound, upper GI endoscopy, and measurement of plasma VWF-Ag level. The patients were divided based on their endoscopic findings into two groups; a varices group which included 37 patients, and a non-varices group which included 10 patients.

Results

VWF-Ag rise significantly in patients with EVs, revealing a direct positive association with the degree of EVs.

Conclusion

The plasma VWF-Ag can be applied as a non-invasive evidence of the presence and grading of EVs.

Esophageal variceal hemorrhage: the role of MDCT characteristics in predicting the presence of varices and bleeding risk

PURPOSE

To investigate the associated Multi-Detector Computed Tomography (MDCT) features for esophageal varices (EVs) and esophageal variceal hemorrhage (EVH), with particular emphasis on different collateral veins.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All cirrhotic patients who had undergone both Upper Gastrointestinal Tract (UGIT) endoscopy and contrast-enhanced MDCT within 6 months from 2013 to 2019 were included in the study. MDCT of 124 patients, 76 males and 48 females, aged between 21 and 73 years old were evaluated for presence of EV and presence and size of different collaterals. The presence and size of collaterals in patients with high-risk EVs or EVH were compared with others.

RESULTS

Findings of EV in MDCT analysis were the best predictor of EV or EVH, and presence (and/or size) of following collaterals showed a significant relationship with both EV and EVH: coronary (p = 0.006, 0.002), short gastric (SGC) (p = 0.02, < 0.001), and paraesophageal (p = 0.04, 0.01). Those presenting each aforementioned collaterals or with higher collateral size were more likely to develop the EV or EVH. Yet, other collaterals indicated no similar association: para-umbilical, omental, perisplenic, and splenorenal. Main coronary vein (p = 0.02, 0.03) and fundus (p = 0.006, 0.001) varices' sizes were also significantly higher in patients with EV or EVH. Finally, we suggested an imaging-based model (presence of SGC, SGC size > 2.5 mm, presence of EV, and coronary vein size > 3.5 mm) with 75.86% sensitivity, 76.92% specificity, and 76.36% accuracy to predict the presence of EVs according to UGIT endoscopy. Furthermore, we presented another model (presence of SGC, SGC size > 2.5 mm, presence of EV, and MELD score > 11.5 mm) to predict the occurrence of EVH with 75.86% sensitivity, 76.92% specificity, and 76.36% accuracy.

CONCLUSION

We suggested imaging characteristics for predicting EV and EVH with especial emphasis on the presence and size of various collaterals; then, we recommended reliable imaging criteria with high specificity and accuracy for predicting the EV and EVH.

Νon-invasive screening for esophageal varices in patients with liver cirrhosis

Esophageal varices are one of the main complications of liver cirrhosis. Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is the gold standard for the detection of esophageal varices. Many less invasive methods for screening of varices have been investigated and the most recent Baveno VI guidelines suggest that endoscopy is not necessary in patients with liver stiffness <20 kPa and platelets >150,000/μL. A critical review of the literature was performed concerning non-invasive or minimally invasive methods of screening for esophageal varices. Liver and spleen elastography, imaging methods including computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound, laboratory tests and capsule endoscopy are discussed. The accuracy of each method, and its advantages and limitations compared to endoscopy are analyzed. There are data to support the Baveno VI guidelines, but there is still a lack of large prospective studies and low specificity has been reported for the liver stiffness and platelet count combination. Spleen elastography has shown promising results, as there are data to support its superiority to liver elastography, but it needs further assessment. Computed tomography has shown high diagnostic accuracy and can be part of the diagnostic work up of cirrhotic patients in the future, including screening for varices.

Platelet Count to Spleen Diameter Ratio for the Diagnosis of Gastroesophageal Varices in Liver Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Platelet count to spleen diameter ratio (PSR) was studied extensively as a noninvasive method of diagnosis for varices. The present study aimed to systematically assess the performance of PSR in the diagnosis of varices. PubMed, EMBASE, and article references were searched. The summary receiver operating characteristic curves (AUSROCs), sensitivities, specificities, positive and negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio were calculated. The heterogeneity, quality, and publication bias of studies were evaluated. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed. A total of 49 papers were included. The AUSROCs of PSR for any varices and high-risk varices were 0.8719 and 0.8132, respectively. The summary sensitivities of PSR for any varices and high-risk varices were 0.84 and 0.78, respectively. The summary specificities of PSR for any varices and high-risk varices were 0.78 and 0.67, respectively. The AUSROC of PSR for any varices at the threshold of 909 was 0.8867. The AUSROC of PSR for any varices in viral liver cirrhosis was 0.8675. The overall quality of studies was moderate. Significant heterogeneity and publication bias existed in the study. In conclusion, PSR can be used to identify varices in liver cirrhosis. PSR had a high sensitivity in viral liver cirrhosis.

Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced computed tomography for esophageal varices in liver cirrhosis: a retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Esophageal variceal bleeding is a life-threatening complication of liver cirrhosis. Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy was the gold standard for the diagnosis of esophageal varices (EVs). The study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) in the diagnosis of EVs and moderate-severe EVs in patients with liver cirrhosis.

METHODS

Medical records in cirrhotic patients who were admitted to our hospital between June 2012 and June 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. Two observers reviewed the contrast-enhanced CT scans to evaluate the presence and diameter of EVs. Area under curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 52 cirrhotic patients were included in our study. According to the endoscopic results, 13.5% of these patients did not have any EVs, 11.5% had mild EVs, and 75% had moderate-severe EVs. The AUC of contrast-enhanced CT scans for the diagnosis of EVs was 0.835. The sensitivity and specificity were 95.56% and 71.43%, respectively. The AUC of contrast-enhanced T scans for the diagnosis of moderate-severe EVs was 0.821. When the cut-off value for the diameter of EVs on contrast-enhanced CT scans was 3.9 mm, the sensitivity and specificity were 89.74% and 69.23%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Contrast-enhanced CT scans had a moderate diagnostic accuracy for EVs in liver cirrhosis. It might be useful to decrease the use of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in clinical practice.

Serum Liver Fibrosis Markers for Predicting the Presence of Gastroesophageal Varices in Liver Cirrhosis: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study

Background and Aims. A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted to evaluate the role of hyaluronic acid (HA), laminin (LN), amino-terminal propeptide of type III procollagen (PIIINP), and collagen IV (CIV) in predicting the presence of gastroesophageal varices (GEVs) in patients with liver cirrhosis. Methods. We enrolled 118 patients with liver cirrhosis who underwent the tests for the four serum liver fibrosis markers and upper gastrointestinal endoscopy at the same admissions. The predictive values of the four serum liver fibrosis markers were evaluated by the areas under the receiving operator characteristics curves (AUROCs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results. The prevalence of GEVs was 88% (104/118). The AUROCs for HA, LN, PIIINP, and CIV levels in predicting the presence of GEVs were 0.553 (95% CI: 0.458 to 0.644, P = 0.5668), 0.490 (95% CI: 0.397 to 0.584, P = 0.9065), 0.622 (95% CI: 0.528 to 0.710, P = 0.1099), and 0.560 (95% CI: 0.466 to 0.652, P = 0.4909). The PIIINP level at a cut-off value of 31.25 had a sensitivity of 73.1% and a specificity of 57.1%. Conclusions. The present study did not recommend HA, LN, PIIINP, and CIV levels to evaluate the presence of GEVs in liver cirrhosis.