The cutoff of transient elastography for the evaluation of portal hypertension should be different according to the etiology?

Methods for assessing portal hypertension

Many researchers and clinicians have taken the value of hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) as an essential prognostic factor in subjects with chronic liver diseases. HVPG ≥ 10 mmHg indicates the presence of clinically significant portal hypertension, the main predictor of the risk of variceal bleeding, hepatic decompensation, and mortality. However, HVPG measurement is invasive and requires high expertise, so its routine use outside tertiary care centers or clinical trials is limited. Clinically significant portal hypertension also might be detected using non-invasive options such as ultrasonography, elastography, magnetic resonance imaging, and indices derived from laboratory parameters. Our review aims to present the feasibility and applicability of HVPG in modern clinical practice in patients with liver cirrhosis, including invasive and non-invasive methods, based on literary sources from the MEDLINE database.

Validation of non-invasive diagnosis of CSPH in patients with compensated advanced chronic liver disease according to Baveno VII

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Baveno VII consensus introduced the non-invasive criteria of clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH) using liver stiffness measurement (LSM). We evaluated the usefulness of the Baveno VII criteria to predict the risk of decompensation in patients with compensated advanced chronic liver disease (cACLD).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 1966 patients with cACLD. Patients were categorized into four groups (CSPH excluded (n = 619), grey zone (low risk of CSPH (n = 699), high risk of CSPH (n = 207)), and CSPH included (n = 441)) according to Baveno VII consensus. The risk of events was estimated using a Fine and Gray competing risk regression analysis, with liver transplantation and death as competing events. We calculated standardized hazard ratios (sHR) to assess the relative risk of decompensation.

RESULTS

Among 1966 patients, 178 developed decompensations over a median follow-up of 3.06 (IQR: 1.03-6.00) years. Patients with CSPH had the highest decompensation risk, followed by the grey zone high-risk group, grey zone low-risk group, and those without CSPH with 3-year cumulative risks of 22%, 12%, 3.3%, and 1.4% respectively (p < .001). Compared to CSPH excluded group, CSPH included group (sHR: 8.00, 95% CI: 4.00-16.0), grey zone high-risk group (sHR: 6.57, 95% CI: 3.16-13.6), grey zone low-risk group (sHR: 2.15, 95% CI: 1.04-4.41) had significantly higher risk of decompensation (Gray's test p < .01).

CONCLUSION

Non-invasive diagnosis of CSPH according to the Baveno VII criteria can stratify the risk of decompensation.

Limited diagnostic value of liver stiffness for clinically significant portal hypertension in HBV-related cirrhosis

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.