4.3 Article

Non-invasive evaluation of hepatic manifestation in Wilson disease with transient elastography, ARFI, and different fibrosis scores

期刊

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 47, 期 11, 页码 1353-1361

出版社

INFORMA HEALTHCARE
DOI: 10.3109/00365521.2012.719924

关键词

APRI; ARFI; FIB-4; Forns score; liver fibrosis; transient elastography; Wilson's disease

资金

  1. patient advocacy group Morbus Wilson e.V.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. Noninvasive investigation of liver fibrosis with ultrasound-based elastography and laboratory-based fibrosis indices have been established in various chronic liver diseases within the last years. We aimed to evaluate feasibility and diagnostic value of transient elastography (TE), acoustic radiation force impulse imaging (ARFI), and different serologic fibrosis indices in Wilson's disease (WD). Materials and methods. TE and ARFI were performed in 50 Wilson patients. In addition, AST/Platelet Ratio Index (APRI), FIB-4, and Forns score were calculated. Hepatic fibrosis was classified by a clinical score. Results. Of the 50 Wilson patients 41 had hepatic manifestation of WD. TE results were significantly increased in advanced hepatic fibrosis (7.0 +/- 2.2 kPa; p < 0.05) and cirrhosis (10.1 +/- 6.73 kPa; p < 0.05) compared to individuals without hepatic manifestation (5.0 +/- 1.4 kPa). Right liver lobe ARFI (R-ARFI) values were only increased in cirrhotic patients (1.43 +/- 0.28 vs. 1.19 +/- 0.14 m/s; p < 0.05). The cutoff values to best discriminate cirrhosis were 6.1 kPa for TE and 1.29 m/s for R-ARFI. Left lobe ARFI failed to provide additional diagnostic benefit. Elastography methods displayed a significant correlation with APRI, FIB-4, and Forns indices (Pearson's rho > 0.33; p < 0.03). Conclusions. TE displayed a gradual increase between different stages of hepatic manifestation in WD and could significantly discriminate cirrhosis. The TE cutoff for cirrhosis may be clinically more relevant than the R-ARFI value.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据