Noninvasive assessment of the risk of esophageal variceal bleeding from noncirrhotic portal hypertension
10.3760/cma.j.cn501113-20210126-00044
- VernacularTitle:非肝硬化性门静脉高压食管静脉曲张出血风险的无创评估
- Author:
Hangfei XU
1
;
Yu WANG
;
Fuliang HE
;
Zhenhua FAN
;
Hui LIU
;
Yongping YANG
;
Jidong JIA
;
Fuquan LIU
;
Huiguo DING
Author Information
1. 首都医科大学附属北京佑安医院肝病消化中心，北京 100069
- Keywords:
Non-cirrhotic portal hypertension;
Esophageal varices;
Bleeding risk;
Non-invasive diagnosis
- From:
Chinese Journal of Hepatology
2022;30(10):1092-1099
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To verify Baveno VI criteria, Expanded-Baveno VI criteria, liver stiffness×spleen diameter-to-platelet ratio risk score (LSPS), and platelet count/spleen diameter ratio (PSR) in evaluating the severity value of esophageal varices (EV) in patients with non-cirrhotic portal hypertension (NCPH).Methods:111 cases of NCPH and 204 cases of hepatitis B cirrhosis who met the diagnostic criteria were included in the study. NCPH included 70 cases of idiopathic non-cirrhotic portal hypertension (INCPH) and 41 cases of nontumoral portal vein thrombosis (PVT). According to the severity of EV on endoscopy, they were divided into the low-bleeding-risk group (no/mild EV) and the high-bleeding-risk group (moderate/severe EV). The diagnostic value of Baveno VI and Expanded-Baveno VI criteria was verified to evaluate the value of LSPS and PSR for EV bleeding risk severity in NCPH patients. The t-test or Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the measurement data between groups. Comparisons between counting data groups were performed using either the χ2 test or the Fisher exact probability method. Results:Considering endoscopy was the gold standard for diagnosis, the missed diagnosis rates of low/high bleeding risk EVs in INCPH/PVT patients with Baveno VI and Expanded-Baveno VI criteria were 50.0%/30.0% and 53.8%/50.0%, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in platelet count (PLT), spleen diameter, liver stiffness (LSM), LSPS, and PSR between low-bleeding-risk and high-bleeding-risk groups in INCPH patients, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of LSPS and PSR was 0.564 and 0.592, respectively ( P=0.372 and 0.202, respectively). There were statistically significant differences in PLT, spleen diameter, LSPS, and PSR between the low and high-bleeding risk groups in PVT patients, and the AUCs of LSPS and PSR were 0.796 and 0.833 ( P=0.003 and 0.001, respectively). In patients with hepatitis B cirrhosis, the Baveno VI and Expanded-Baveno VI criteria were used to verify the low bleeding risk EV, and the missed diagnosis rates were 0 and 5.4%, respectively. There were statistically significant differences in PLT, spleen diameter, LSM, LSPS and PSR between the low-bleeding-risk and high-bleeding-risk groups ( P<0.001). LSPS and PSR AUC were 0.867 and 0.789, respectively ( P<0.05). Conclusion:Baveno VI and Expanded-Baveno VI criteria have a high missed diagnosis rate for EVs with low bleeding risk in patients with INPCH and PVT, while LSPS and PSR have certain value in evaluating EV bleeding risk in PVT patients, which requires further clinical research.
