4.3 Review

Hepatic venous pressure gradient correlates with advanced hepatic fibrosis: a retrospective review

Journal

ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY
Volume 42, Issue 11, Pages 2609-2614

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00261-017-1171-y

Keywords

Biopsy; Transjugular; Liver; Wedge; Pressure; Fibrosis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To determine if hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) correlates with advanced hepatic fibrosis, as a complement to transjugular (transvenous) core needle liver biopsy. Material and methods: After institutional review board approval, a retrospective review was conducted on 340 patients who underwent transjugular (transvenous) core needle liver biopsy with concurrent pressure measurements between 6/1/2007 and 6/1/2013. Spearman correlation and linear regression were performed. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was created and sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios were calculated. Results: Indications included hepatitis C, abnormal liver function tests, non-alcoholic steatohepatitis, autoimmune hepatitis, and cirrhosis, among others. Biopsies showed stage 1 or 2 fibrosis in 15.6% each, stage 3 fibrosis in 21.6%, stage 4 fibrosis in 40.7%, and no fibrosis in 6.5%. Mean HVPG was 6.5 mm Hg (SD 5.0) with a range of 0-26 mm Hg. Spearman correlation coefficient for association between HVPG and fibrosis stage was 0.561 (p < 0.001). R2 on linear regression was 0.247 (p < 0.001). ROC curve for the prediction of stage 4 fibrosis had an area under the curve of 0.79 (95% CI 0.73-0.85). HVPG of >6 mm Hg had a sensitivity of 71.3%, specificity of 79.6%, positive predictive value of 70.5%, negative predictive value of 80.2%, positive likelihood ratio of 3.49 (95% CI 2.45-4.97) and negative likelihood ratio of 0.36 (95% CI 0.26-0.50) for diagnosis of stage 4 fibrosis. Conclusions: HVPG correlates with stage 4 (advanced) hepatic fibrosis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available