4.3 Article

Platelet count to spleen diameter ratio for the diagnosis of esophageal varices: Is it feasible?

Journal

Publisher

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2008/287274

Keywords

Endoscopy; Esophageal varices; Liver cirrhosis; Platelet count; Platelet count to spleen diameter ratio; Portal hypertension; Spleen diameter

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AIM: TO Study the value Of platelet count to spleen diameter ratio as noninvasive parameter for diagnosing esophageal varices (EVs) in liver cirrhosis. METHODS: The laboratory and ultransonographic variables were prospectively evaluated in 150 patients with liver cirrhosis. Only stable patients were included in the study. Patients with active gastrointestinal bleeding at the time of admission were excluded. All patients underwent screening upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. RESULTS: The platelet count, spleen diameter and platelet count to spleen diameter ratio in patients with EVs were significantly different front patients without EVs. The platelet count to spleen diameter ratio had the highest accuracy among the three parameters. By applying receiver operating characteristic curves, a Platelet count to spleen diameter ratio cut-off value of 1014 was obtained, which gave positive and negative predictive values of 95.4% and 95.1%, respectively. The accuracy of this cut-off value as evaluated by applying receiver operating characteristic curves was 0.942 (95% Cl 0.890 to 0.995). CONCLUSION: Among the noninvasive parameters studied, platelet count to spleen diameter ratio had the highest accuracy for diagnosing EVs. However, the evidence for the noninvasive diagnosis is not yet sufficient to replace endoscopy as a diagnostic screening tool for EVs it) all cirrhotic patients. The Platelet count to Spleen diameter ratio May be 2 useful tool for diagnosing EVs in liver cirrhosis noninvasively when endoscopy facilities are not available.

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