4.3 Article

Clinical usefulness of controlled attenuation parameter to screen hepatic steatosis for potential donor of living donor liver transplant

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MEG.0000000000000876

关键词

controlled attenuation parameter; hepatic steatosis; liver transplantation; living donor; transient elastography

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective Hepatic steatosis is associated with an increased risk of graft loss. Although the controlled attenuation parameter (CAP), a process based on transient elastography, has been suggested as a noninvasive method of assessing hepatic steatosis, to date, there is no study on the usefulness of CAP as a single screening tool for detecting hepatic steatosis in potential living donor liver. We evaluated the accuracy of CAP for detecting hepatic steatosis in potential liver donors. Patients and methods All potential donors of living-donor liver transplantation who underwent a CAP assessment and ultrasonography-guided liver biopsy were enrolled. The steatosis grades were as follows: S0 less than 5%; S1, 5-33%; S2, 34-66%; and S3, more than 66%. Results According to the liver biopsies, 19 (34.5%) patients had S0, 30 (54.5%) patients had S1, and 6 (11.0%) patients had S2. The CAP value was correlated positively with BMI (r= 0.242, P = 0.01), waist circumference (r= 0.268, P= 0.006), hip circumference (r= 0.334, P = 0.001), Magnetic resonance fat signal fraction (r= 0.465, P = 0.001), and histologic steatosis grade (r= 0.542, P= 0.001). The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve for the diagnosis of steatosis (= S2) by CAP was 0.88 (sensitivity 83.3% and specificity 81.6% at a cutoff value of 276 dB/m, P<0.0001). Conclusion This study suggests that CAP, as a simple and noninvasive preoperative assessment for hepatic steatosis, may be sufficient for identifying and thus excluding significant hepatic steatosis (>33%) in potential liver donors. Copyright (C) 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

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