4.8 Article

Transient elastography is useful in diagnosing biliary atresia and predicting prognosis after hepatoportoenterostomy

期刊

HEPATOLOGY
卷 68, 期 2, 页码 616-624

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/hep.29856

关键词

-

资金

  1. Paujar Charity Foundation
  2. Taiwan Children Liver Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We investigated the utility of transient elastography (TE) for diagnosing biliary atresia (BA) in cholestatic infants and predicting the outcome of BA. Forty-eight cholestatic infants (9-87 days of age) with direct bilirubin level >1 mg/dL were enrolled. Liver stiffness measurement (LSM) by TE was performed during the cholestasis workup, and 15 subjects were diagnosed as BA. We assessed liver histology using liver biopsies from 36 subjects and graded fibrosis status using the METAVIR score. BA infants had significantly higher LSM values and METAVIR scores than non-BA cholestatic infants. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis showed that an LSM >7.7 kPa was predictive of BA among cholestatic infants (sensitivity = 80%; specificity = 97%; area under the curve [AUC] = 85.3%; P = 0.0001). Cholestatic infants with an LSM >7.7 kPa were more likely to be diagnosed with BA (odds ratio [OR] = 128; P < 0.001). Very early measurement of LSM after hepatoportoenterostomy (HPE) is associated with occurrence of thrombocytopenia, splenomegaly, and esophageal varices 6 months post-HPE. Five of the BA subjects were awaiting or had received liver transplantation (LT), and they had a significantly higher LSM measured 1 week post-HPE than that in the other BA subjects (26.0 vs. 10.8 kPa; P = 0.006). A Cox proportional analysis demonstrated that the need for LT was significantly higher in BA subjects with LSM >16 kPa measured 1 week post-HPE than other BA subjects (hazard ratio [HR] = 10.16; P = 0.04). Conclusion: LSM assessment during the workup of cholestatic infants may facilitate the diagnosis of BA. LSM post-HPE may predict complications and the need for early LT in infants with BA. (Hepatology 2018).

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

4.8
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