4.8 Article

Histological-hemodynamic correlation in cirrhosis - a histological classification of the severity of cirrhosis

Journal

JOURNAL OF HEPATOLOGY
Volume 44, Issue 1, Pages 111-117

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2005.07.036

Keywords

hepatic venous pressure gradient; cirrhosis; liver biopsy; portal hypertension

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background/Aims: While the definitive diagnosis of cirrhosis is histological, it is the degree of portal hypertension, as determined by the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG), that is an important determinant of the severity of cirrhosis. An HVPG >= 10 mmHg (termed clinically significant portal hypertension or CSPH) is predictive of the development of complications of cirrhosis, including death. This study aimed to determine the relationship between specific histological parameters and HVPG in cirrhosis. Methods: Forty-three patients with biopsy-proven cirrhosis and HVPG measurements within 6 months of the biopsy were included in the study. The following parameters were scored semiquantitatively and without knowledge of HVPG results: sinusoidal fibrosis, septal thickness, loss of portal tracts and central veins, nodule size, inflammation, steatosis, and iron. Results: Septal thickness (p=0.03), small nodularity (p=0.003), loss of portal tracts (p=0.01), inflammation (p = 0.04) and alcoholic etiology (p = 0.01) correlated with the presence of CSPH. However, small nodularity and septal thickness were the only parameters independently predictive of CSPH (r = 0.658, p < 0.05). Conclusions: We describe a subclassification of histological cirrhosis based on the severity of portal hypertension that consists of a combination of nodule size and septal thickness, with small nodularity and thick septa being independent predictors of the presence of CSPH. (c) 2005 European Association for the Study of the Liver. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available