Introduction
Chronic liver disease causes structural and functional changes in the liver and spleen,
with subsequent development of portal hypertension. Liver biopsy is the gold standard
for evaluation, grading, and monitoring of fibrosis, but the cost and risk of complications
limit its applicability in clinical practice [1]. A high hepatic venous pressure gradient indicates portal hypertension and predicts
clinical decompensation in patients with cirrhosis of the liver, but the invasiveness
of the test limits its applicability in clinical practice [2].
The diagnostic workup for liver cirrhosis and portal hypertension includes abdominal
ultrasonography, esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), and abdominal transient elastography,
yet all of these approaches have roles and limitations. For example, transient elastography
has limited applicability in patients with obesity or ascites [3]
[4]
[5]
[6]. In addition, although EGD is the current gold standard for evaluation of esophageal
and gastric varices, as a surrogate finding of portal hypertension, nearly 14 % of
patients without esophageal varices by EGD have either gastric varices or gastric
parietal abnormalities based on endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) [7].
EUS, a minimally invasive imaging technique, offers endosonographic and elastographic
evaluation of the liver and spleen, especially in patients with obesity, in a single
diagnostic test. EUS is also able to detect paraesophageal and gastric varices, even
if EGD indicates a negative result. In addition, EUS may allow detection of structural
and functional changes in the splenic vasculature that are associated with portal
hypertension in patients with cirrhosis, mainly with regard to azygos vein flow, which
is directly associated with the hepatic venous pressure gradient [8]. Finally, EUS evaluation may allow for carrying out EUS-guided liver biopsy if needed,
with comparable results to transjugular approaches [9].
Recently, spleen stiffness measurement has shown a significantly superior diagnostic
odds ratio compared with liver stiffness measurement in prediction of esophageal varices
in patients with chronic liver disease, with a significantly higher pooled sensitivity
and area under the curve [4]. In addition, spleen stiffness exhibits high sensitivity for predicting esophageal
varies in cirrhosis of different etiologies [10].
Nonetheless, EUS-elastography of the liver and spleen has not previously been evaluated
for assessment of portal hypertension in patients with chronic liver disease. The
aim of the present study was to evaluate use of EUS-elastography of the liver and
spleen in diagnosis of portal hypertension secondary to liver cirrhosis.
Patients and methods
Study design
This was a prospective cohort study performed in a single tertiary academic center
in Ecuador. The study protocol was approved by the local Institutional Review Board
and registered at clinicaltrials.gov under the identifier NCT03155282. The study was
conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki, and all
participants signed a consent form before enrollment. All researchers had access to
the study database and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Study population
Patients were recruited from the Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Division of the Ecuadorian
Institute of Digestive Diseases from March 2017 to October 2017. The study population
included a control group of patients who did not have a history of disease of the
liver, biliary tract, or spleen. Controls were selected from patients undergoing EUS
evaluation for the diagnostic workup of subepithelial lesions. These patients received
transient elastography, and if the results were within normal parameters, they underwent
EUS for liver and spleen elastography measurement as well as the evaluation of subepithelial
lesions. Control patients were excluded if they had a history of hematological or
coagulopathic disorders, hereditary spherocytosis, hemochromatosis, hepatolenticular
degeneration, alcoholic liver disease, primary or secondary liver malignancy, acute
or chronic infection with hepatotropic viruses, a history of liver disease secondary
to nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, or a history of drug-induced hepatotoxicity.
The case group comprised patients with a known history of chronic liver disease, as
based on clinical, laboratory, and transient elastography findings of liver cirrhosis,
as well as confirmed portal hypertension with the presence of large esophageal varices
detected by previous esophagogastroduodenoscopy (≤ 4 weeks before enrollment). All
patients with liver cirrhosis were treatment-naïve at the time of EUS-elastography
evaluation.
Study outcomes
The primary outcome of the study was diagnostic yield of liver and spleen stiffness
measurement via EUS-elastography in prediction of portal hypertension secondary to
liver cirrhosis. The secondary outcome of the study was evaluation of azygos-vein
diameter, mean velocity, and blood-flow volume index (BFVI) as markers of portal hypertension
secondary to liver cirrhosis. We also performed subgroup analysis according to the
etiology of chronic liver disease.
Endoscopic technique
Three endoscopists (C.R-M., M.V., and R.D.) performed the EUS evaluations, and all
were experienced in EUS and EUS-elastography (> 300 EUS procedures/year). The operators
were blinded to patient medical histories and results of transient elastography. The
procedures were performed under general anesthesia with the patients in the supine
position. EUS evaluation was performed using a linear-array echoendoscope (EG-3870
UTK, Pentax Medical, Montvale, New Jersey, United States) attached to an ultrasonographic
console (HI VISION Avius, Hitachi Medical Systems, Steinhaus, Switzerland).
Liver and spleen stiffness measurements by EUS-elastography were derived from the
strain ratio (SR) and strain histogram (SH) of the elastography evaluations. The liver
SR and SH were measured on the left hepatic lobe using the transgastric approach comparing
the hepatic elastography against that of the normal gastric mucosal layer. For SR
calculation, the region of interest included hepatic tissue (Area A) and tissue from
the gastric mucosa (Area B). For the SH, the selected region of interest had a surface
area of 60 mm2. Spleen SR and SH measurements were performed using the same protocol and transgastric
approach. To avoid variability, the SR and SH were measured 10 times in the liver
and 10 times in the spleen for each participant, and the respective median values
were calculated, as performed for transient abdominal elastography. An example of
spleen stiffness measurement evaluated by EUS-elastography is illustrated in [Fig. 1].
Fig. 1 Endoscopic ultrasonographic elastography of the spleen. Measurement of spleen stiffness
via a strain histogram.
For azygos vein hemodynamic features, vein diameter, mean velocity, and BFVI were
measured once for each participant. The azygos vein diameter was originally measured
in millimeters (mm) from the mediastinal stage. The mean velocity (Vmean [centimeters per second]) was calculated using EUS-Doppler. The BFVI (cubic centimeters
per second) was calculated as follows:
An example of azygos vein diameter measurement and Doppler evaluation of the azygos
vein under EUS is shown in [Fig. 2].
Fig. 2 Measurement of the azygos vein diameter (left panel) under endoscopic ultrasonography
(EUS) evaluation and EUS-Doppler flowmetry of the azygos vein for blood flow volume
index evaluation (right panel).
Transient elastography
Transient elastography was performed with the FibroScan system (Echosens, Paris, France)
using the M probe after overnight fasting. Measurements were performed by a gastroenterologist
(H.P-L.) with experience in transient elastography. The stiffness of the tissue was
measured in kilopascals (kPa), with a minimum of 10 valid readings per patient; a ≥ 60 %
success rate and an interquartile range ≤ 30 % were considered to indicate adequate
quality of the assessment [11].
Statistical analysis
All statistical analyses were performed by the institutional statistician (M.P-T.),
using R v3.6.3 (R foundation, Vienna, Austria). P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The sample size was calculated using
the power.diagnostic.test function from the MKmisc package. The sample size was estimated
considering a 100 % specificity of transient elastography spleen stiffness for predicting
severe (> 12 mm Hg) portal hypertension [5], with corresponding 13.1 % disease prevalence, a δ = 10 %, and α and β-errors of
5 % and 20 % respectively. Through previously described parameters, a sample size
of four cases and 25 controls was estimated, with 80 % statistical power. To respect
the central limit theorem (30 observations are necessary to reach a Gaussian distribution),
we approximated a 30-participant sample size for each study group.
Quantitative variables are described as the mean (standard deviation) or median (minimum-maximum
range) according to their statistical distribution (Kolmogórov-Smirnov test). Qualitative
variables are described as the frequency (%). Quantitative and qualitative variable
comparisons among the study groups were performed with respective statistical hypothesis
testing and illustrated with a boxplot when necessary. The association between liver
stiffness measurements and transient elastography was verified by Spearman’s rank
correlation coefficient (ρ) and the results were illustrated in scatter plots. The
liver stiffness measurement, spleen stiffness measurement, and azygos vein diameter
(mm), mean velocity (cm/s), and BFVI (cm3/s) cutoff values to optimally diagnose liver cirrhosis and portal hypertension were
defined through Youden’s index. The overall accuracy of those parameters was calculated
only when they reached an area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC)
curve ≥ 80 %, individually as well as in the context of a pooled analysis. Subgroup
analysis including only alcohol-related liver cirrhosis was developed when the sample
size allowed it, keeping a 1:4 control vs. case relationship.
Results
A total of 61 patients were included in the study, with 32 in the case group and 29
in the control group. The median age was 60 years (range 18–82 years), and 36 patients
(59 %) were female. All patients underwent transient elastography prior to EUS evaluation
and EUS evaluation was completed without any adverse events being reported.
In the case group of 32 patients, the etiology of cirrhosis was nonalcoholic steatohepatitis
in 20, alcoholic liver disease in 10, and hepatitis C virus infection in two. According
to transient elastography, the median stiffness in this group was 21.30 kPa (range
9.00–75.00 kPa), with 75 % of patients having a value > 14 kPa (liver cirrhosis).
In the control group, the median stiffness was 4.48 kPa (range 1.90–7.50 kPa), and
the values of all patients were within the normal limits (< 7.6 kPa). The transient
elastography findings in both groups are shown in [Table 1].
Table 1
Transabdominal transient elastography results in the case and control groups.
|
Cirrhosis
(n = 32)
|
Controls
(n = 29)
|
P value
|
|
Fibrosis (kPa), median (range)
|
21.30 (9.00–75.00)
|
4.48 (1.90–7.50)
|
< 0.001[1]
|
|
Normal (< 7.6 kPa), n (%)
|
0
|
29 (100.0)
|
< 0.001[2]
|
|
Moderate (7.7–9.4 kPa), n (%)
|
3[3] (9.4)
|
0
|
|
Advanced (9.5–14.0 kPa), n (%)
|
5[3] (15.6)
|
0
|
|
Liver cirrhosis (> 14.0 kPa), n (%)
|
24 (75.0)
|
0
|
|
Interquartile range (kPa), median (range)
|
2.9 (0.0–11.5)
|
0.5 (0.2–2.4)
|
< 0.001[1]
|
|
Variability ([interquartile range]/[fibrosis]), median (range)
|
0.14 (0.00–0.32)
|
0.12 (0.04–0.32)
|
0.528[1]
|
1 Results of Mann-Whitney U test.
2 Results of Pearson’s chi-squared test.
3 Patients with large esophageal varices on previous esophagogastroduodenoscopy.
EUS-elastography of the liver
Liver stiffness measurements of SR determined by EUS-elastography correlated significantly
and positively with the results of liver transient elastography (ρ = 0.53, P < 0.01). In contrast, liver stiffness measurements of SH on EUS-elastography had
a significant negative correlation with transient elastography (ρ = −0.47, P < 0.01) ([Fig. 3]).
Fig. 3 Scatter plots illustrating a significant directly and inversely proportional relationship
between liver fibrosis vs. the liver stiffness measurement (LSM) strain ratio and
histogram, respectively.
In patients with portal hypertension secondary to liver cirrhosis, the liver median
SR was significantly higher (7.53 versus 3.97, P < 0.001) and the median SH significantly lower (67.38 versus 101.70, P < 0.001) relative to control patients ([Table 2]). Compared with liver stiffness measurements of SR, we found a significant difference
in comparison to controls in subanalysis of patients with portal hypertension secondary
to alcohol-related cirrhosis ([Table 3]).
Table 2
Endoscopic ultrasonographic elastography results in patients with cirrhosis and controls.
|
Cirrhosis
(n = 32)
|
Controls
(n = 29)
|
P value
|
|
Liver stiffness measurement
|
|
|
7.53 (3.10–16.20)
|
3.97 (2.01–8.85)
|
< 0.001[1]
|
|
|
67.38 (30.30–121.10)
|
101.70 (53.75–156.10)
|
< 0.001[1]
|
|
Spleen stiffness measurement
|
|
|
12.10 (4.92–50.64)
|
6.50 (2.34–18.40)
|
< 0.001[1]
|
|
|
39.63 (14.40–91.50)
|
65.45 (28.45–111.60)
|
< 0.001[1]
|
|
Azygos-vein measurements
|
|
|
8.30 (2.62–20.70)
|
5.10 (3.10–9.80)
|
0.002[1]
|
|
|
6.55 (1.50–18.20)
|
4.60 (0.20–17.70)
|
0.049[1]
|
|
|
2.94 (0.08–23.3)
|
0.94 (0.02–5.47)
|
0.002[1]
|
1 Results of Mann-Whitney U test.
Table 3
Endoscopic ultrasonographic elastography results in patients with alcohol-related
cirrhosis and controls.
|
Alcohol-related cirrhosis
(n = 10)
|
Controls
(n = 29)
|
P value
|
|
Liver stiffness measurement
|
|
|
7.07 (3.55–11.10)
|
3.97 (2.01–8.85)
|
0.003[1]
|
|
|
67.90 (46.60–109.00)
|
101.70 (53.75–156.10)
|
0.011[1]
|
|
Spleen stiffness measurement
|
|
|
12.10 (4.92–39.00)
|
6.50 (2.34–18.40)
|
0.001[1]
|
|
|
39.20 (21.50–87.10)
|
65.45 (28.45–111.60)
|
0.012[1]
|
|
Azygos-vein measurements
|
|
|
9.20 (5.60–13.80)
|
5.10 (3.10–9.80)
|
< 0.001[1]
|
|
|
10.70 (3.00–18.20)
|
4.6 (0.2–17.7)
|
0.008[1]
|
|
|
6.96 (2.76–14.00)
|
0.94 (0.02–5.47)
|
< 0.001[1]
|
1 Results of Mann-Whitney U test.
The SR and SH determined by EUS-elastography of the liver had AUROC values of 84.8 %
and 81.1 % ([Fig. 4]), respectively, when using a cutoff value of 5.35 for the former and 87.4 for the
latter ([Table 4]). With these cutoff values, the SR had a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive
value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of 84.3 %, 82.8 %, 84.4 %, and 82.8 %,
respectively, for diagnosis of portal hypertension secondary to cirrhosis in the study
population ([Table 5]).
Fig. 4 Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves for the a liver stiffness measurement strain ratio, b histogram, c spleen stiffness measurement strain ratio, and and d histogram.
Table 4
EUS-elastography cut-off parameters for the diagnosis of liver cirrhosis and alcohol-related
cirrhosis, with respective area under the receiver operating characteristics (AUROC)
curve.
|
Cirrhosis
(n = 32)
|
Alcohol-related cirrhosis
(n = 10)
|
|
Cut-off
|
AUROC (95 % CI)
|
Cut-off
|
AUROC (95 % CI)
|
|
Liver stiffness measurement
|
|
|
5.35
|
84.8 (74.8–94.7)
|
5.35
|
82.2 (66.2–98.3)
|
|
|
87.40
|
81.1 (70.2–92.0)
|
86.65
|
77.6 (61.0–94.2)
|
|
Spleen stiffness measurement
|
|
|
7.49
|
81.5 (70.7–92.2)
|
8.05
|
77.9 (60.8–95.1)
|
|
|
39.85
|
80.0 (67.8–90.1)
|
39.70
|
77.2 (59.8–94.7)
|
|
Azygos-vein measurements
|
|
|
6.60
|
74.4 (61.4–87.4)
|
7.60
|
91.5 (82.0–100.0)
|
|
|
4.90
|
65.7 (50.9–80.4)
|
5.80
|
80.1 (63.8–96.4)
|
|
|
1.68
|
74.3 (61.0–87.6)
|
2.75
|
94.9 (88.2–100.0)
|
AUROC, area under the receiver operating characteristic; BFVI, blood-flow volume index
Table 5
Overall diagnostic accuracy of EUS elastography for the diagnosis of liver cirrhosis
and portal hypertension [n/T; % (95 % CI)].
|
Sensitivity
|
Specificity
|
PPV
|
NPV
|
Accuracy
|
|
Liver cirrhosis + portal hypertension (all etiologies) (n = 32) and controls (n = 29)
|
|
|
84.3
(67.2–94.7)
|
82.8
(64.2–94.2)
|
84.4
(70.6–92.4)
|
82.8
(67.8–91.6)
|
83.6
(71.9–91.8)
|
|
|
87.5
(71.0–96.5)
|
69.0
(49.2–84.7)
|
75.7
(64.0–84.5)
|
83.3
(65.9–92.8)
|
78.7
(66.3–88.1)
|
|
|
87.5
(71.0–96.5)
|
69.0
(49.2–84.7)
|
75.7
(64.0–84.5)
|
83.3
(65.9–92.8)
|
78.7
(66.3–88.1)
|
|
|
56.3
(37.7–73.5)
|
89.7
(72.7–97.8)
|
85.7
(66.3–94.8)
|
65.0
(55.2–73.7)
|
72.1
(59.2–82.9)
|
|
Liver cirrhosis + portal hypertension related to alcohol (n = 10) and controls (n = 29)
|
|
|
90.0
(55.5–99.7)
|
75.9
(56.5–89.7)
|
56.3
(29.9–80.2)
|
95.7
(78.0–99.9)
|
79.4
(63.5–90.7)
|
|
|
90.0
(55.5–99.7)
|
65.5
(45.7–82.1)
|
47.4
(24.4–71.1)
|
95.0
(75.1–99.9)
|
71.8
(55.1–85.0)
|
|
|
100.0
(69.1–100.0)
|
79.3
(60.3–92.0)
|
62.5
(35.4–84.8)
|
100.0
(85.2–100.0)
|
84.6
(69.5–94.1)
|
AzV, azygos vein; BFVI, blood flow volume index; CI, confidence interval; LSM, liver
stiffness measurement; n, number; NPV, negative predictive value; PPV, positive predictive
value; SSM, spleen stiffness measurement; SH, strain histogram; SR, strain ratio;
T, total.
EUS elastography of the spleen
In patients with portal hypertension secondary to liver cirrhosis, spleen median SR
was significantly higher (12.10 versus 6.50, P < 0.001) and median SH significantly lower (39.63 versus 65.45, P < 0.001) relative to control patients ([Table 2]). In subanalysis of patients with portal hypertension secondary to alcohol-related
liver disease, we found a significant difference with respect to controls when comparing
the spleen stiffness measurements of SR ([Table 3]).
The SR and SH determined by EUS-elastography of the spleen had AUROC values of 81.5 %
and 80.0 % respectively ([Fig. 4]), when using a cutoff value of 7.5 for the former and 39.9 for the latter ([Table 4]). Based on these values, the SR had a sensitivity of 87.5 % and an NPV of 83.3 %,
whereas the SH had a specificity of 89.7 % and a PPV of 85.7 % ([Table 5]).
Azygos-vein hemodynamic parameters
Compared with the control group, patients with portal hypertension secondary to liver
cirrhosis had a significantly higher azygos-vein diameter (8.30 mm versus 5.10 mm,
P = 0.002), mean velocity (6.60 cm/s versus 4.60 cm/s, P = 0.049), and BFVI (3.74 cm3/s versus 1.20 cm3/s, P = 0.001) ([Table 2]). These differences were significantly different when comparing control patients
with those patients with portal hypertension secondary to alcohol-related liver cirrhosis
with an azygos-vein diameter of 9.20 mm (P < 0.001), mean velocity of 10.7 cm/s (P = 0.008), and BFVI of 6.96 cm3/s (P < 0.001) ([Table 3] and [Fig. 5]).
Fig. 5 Azygos vein (AZ) diameter (mm), mean velocity (cm/s) and blood flow volume index (BFVI;
cm3/s) among patients with liver cirrhosis (blue; n = 32) patients with alcohol-related
liver cirrhosis (red; n = 10 /32) and controls (green; n = 29).
For diagnosis of patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension related to alcohol
consumption the azygos vein diameter and BFVI had AUROC values of 91.5 % and 94.9 %,
respectively. Azygos vein diameters > 7.6 mm had a sensitivity of 90.0 % and NPV of
95.7 % for the diagnosis of these patients, and BFVI > 2.75 mm3/s had a sensitivity and NPV of 100.0 % ([Table 5]).
Pooled analysis
Pooled analysis was performed to combine the overall accuracy of LSM and SSM-SR, LSM
and SSM-SH; and the azygos vein parameters of diameter, mean velocity and BFVI for
alcohol-related cirrhosis. Using the LSM-SR cutoff value > 5.35 or the SSM-SR cutoff
value > 7.49 we predicted portal hypertension in our patients with 96.9 % sensitivity
and 94.7 % NPV. Additionally, LSM-SH < 7.49 or SSM-SH < 39.85 predicted portal hypertension
with a sensitivity and NPV of 93.8 % and 90.0 %, respectively. For those patients
with alcohol-related cirrhosis, the combination of an azygos vein diameter > 7.6 mm,
mean velocity > 5.8 cm/s or a BFVI > 2.75 mm3/s predicted portal hypertension with a sensitivity and NPV of 100 %. In general,
the combination of EUS-elastography parameters and azygos vein evaluation improved
the sensitivity and NPV for predicting portal hypertension (
[Supplementary Table 1]).
Supplementary Table 1
Pooled analysis of overall diagnostic accuracy of EUS elastography for diagnosis of
liver cirrhosis and portal hypertension [n/T; % (95 % CI)].
|
Sensitivity
|
Specificity
|
PPV
|
NPV
|
Accuracy
|
|
Liver cirrhosis + portal hypertension (all etiologies) (n = 32) and controls (n = 29)
|
|
L/SSM-SR
|
96.9
(83.8–99.9)
|
62.1
(42.3–79.3)
|
73.8
(58.0–86.1)
|
94.7
(74.0–99.9)
|
80.3
(68.2–89.4)
|
|
L/SSM-SH
|
93.8
(79.2–99.2)
|
62.1
(42.3–79.3)
|
73.2
(57.1–85.8)
|
90.0
(68.3–98.8)
|
78.7
(66.3–88.1)
|
|
Liver cirrhosis + portal hypertension related to alcohol (n = 10) and controls (n = 29)
|
|
D + mV + BFVI
|
100.0
(69.2–100.0)
|
55.1
(35.7–73.6)
|
43.5
(23.2–65.5)
|
100.0
(79.4–100.0)
|
66.7
(49.8–80.1)
|
CI, confidence interval; D, azygos vein diameter (mm); mV, mean Velocity (cm/s); BFVI,
blood flow volume Index (cm3 /s); L/SSM-SR, liver and spleen stiffness measurement;
n, number; NPV, negative predictive value; PPV, positive predictive value; SR, strain
ratio; SH, strain histogram; T, total.
In our cohort of patients with cirrhosis, despite the presence of large esophageal
varices detected during esophagogastroduodenoscopy, eight patients showed moderate
and advanced fibrosis by transient elastography evaluation. However, after excluding
these patients, significant difference from the controls were observed for liver and
spleen stiffness measurements, as well as for azygos vein hemodynamic features (
[Supplementary Table 2]).
Supplementary Table 2
Endoscopic ultrasonographic elastography results in cirrhotic (excluding moderate/advanced
fibrosis, n = 8) and control patients.
|
Cirrhosis
(n = 24)
|
Controls
(n = 29)
|
P value
|
|
Liver stiffness measurement
|
|
|
7.48 (3.10–16.2)
|
3.97 (2.01–8.85)
|
< 0.001[1]
|
|
|
67.9 (31.8–121.0)
|
101.70 (53.75–156.10)
|
0.0002[1]
|
|
Spleen stiffness measurement
|
|
|
12.7 (4.92–50.6)
|
6.50 (2.34–18.40)
|
< 0.001[1]
|
|
|
37.0 (14.4–91.5)
|
65.45 (28.45–111.60)
|
< 0.001[1]
|
|
Azygos-vein measurements
|
|
|
7.35 (2.62–20.7)
|
5.10 (3.10–9.80)
|
0.0104[1]
|
|
|
6.80 (1.50–16.3)
|
4.60 (0.20–17.70)
|
0.0437[1]
|
|
|
2.94 (0.08–23.3)
|
0.94 (0.02–5.47)
|
0.0077[1]
|
1 Results of Mann-Whitney U test.
Discussion
In this study, we found that liver and spleen evaluation by EUS-elastography constitutes
a useful diagnostic method for prediction of portal hypertension in patients with
liver cirrhosis. These evaluations might be considered in the future for diagnostic
workup of patients with cirrhosis because accurate differentiation of such patients
with and without portal hypertension via a single diagnostic method may decrease the
number of procedures that are required, and the duration of the diagnostic workup,
considering that patients with chronic liver disease have significantly higher health
care use and expenditure in comparison to patients without chronic liver disease [12].
Liver biopsy remains the gold standard for evaluation of fibrosis, but it has limited
applicability in clinical practice because of its invasiveness and potential for procedure-related
adverse events, thereby restricting its use for repetitive assessment in disease progression
monitoring. In addition, the accuracy of liver biopsy may be affected by sampling
errors, specimen size, and subjective histological interpretation, which may result
in inconsistent identification of liver cirrhosis [13]
[14].
Measurement of the hepatic venous pressure gradient via catheterization under radiological
guidance is the gold standard for defining portal hypertension, but this procedure
is invasive, and has limited applicability in clinical practice. Therefore, indirect
parameters such as presence of esophageal varices are preferred as surrogate measures
of portal hypertension.
Transient elastography of the liver has been shown to be a reliable method for the
assessment of liver fibrosis and can accurately rule out diagnoses of fibrosis and
cirrhosis [15]. However, it is not accurate enough to differentiate between the various stages
of fibrosis, and it correlates poorly with fibrosis severity in patients with higher
hepatic venous-pressure-gradient values [16]. In addition, transient elastography measures shear-wave speed through the liver,
which corresponds to liver stiffness and not to the actual amount of fibrosis in the
liver. Conditions in which stiffness increases independently of fibrosis may therefore
lead to false-positive results, such as in acute hepatitis, hepatic congestion, and
cholestasis [6].
Transient elastography of the spleen, as evaluated via abdominal ultrasonography,
has also been used for diagnosis of portal hypertension in patients with cirrhosis
and is superior to liver elastography for the identification of patients with esophageal
varices [5]. In a meta-analysis comparing use of liver and spleen stiffness measured by abdominal
ultrasonography for prediction of esophageal varices in patients with chronic liver
disease, spleen stiffness had a pooled sensitivity of 88 % and a pooled specificity
of 78 %, with a statistically significant superior diagnostic odds ratio compared
with liver stiffness (25.73 versus 9.54, P < 0.05) [4]. Nevertheless, in our study, EUS-elastography reached similar AUROC ranges in comparison
to previous studies of transabdominal elastography [5], though a higher trend was noted for EUS-elastography in terms of AUROC and accuracy
for predicting portal hypertension.
The gold standard for detection and grading of esophageal varices is esophagogastroduodenoscopy.
However, EUS has been shown to be superior to esophagogastroduodenoscopy for detection
of paraesophageal and periesophageal collateral veins, gastric varices, and portal
hypertensive gastropathy [7]. Notably, EUS findings, such as the diameter of paraesophageal varices, can predict
esophageal variceal recurrence after varix eradication with endoscopic band ligation,
demonstrating its diagnostic applicability [17]
[18]
[19]. In addition, our study shows that EUS-elastography is able to predict portal hypertension,
and in the future a single diagnostic method such as EUS might replace several methods
for the evaluation of portal hypertension associated to liver cirrhosis in a single
diagnostic step. Indeed, EUS allows evaluation of liver morphology, elastography evaluation
of liver and spleen, azygous vein flow index evaluation, measurement of portal pressure
gradient, EUS-guided liver biopsy and EUS-guided therapy of gastric varices.
Overall, transabdominal transient elastography has limited applicability in patients
with obesity and thick subcutaneous fat or restricted intercostal space, as well as
in those with ascites; moreover, it is prone to variability related to probe compression
during the evaluation [6]. These limitations can be overcome by the use of EUS-elastography. Despite the invasiveness
of EUS, it can provide valuable information during the diagnostic workup of patients
with cirrhosis, and it has the additional advantage of enabling liver tissue acquisition
using a 19-G needle if needed, which is comparable in terms of total specimen-length
acquisition to transjugular and percutaneous liver biopsies [20]
[21]
By proposing cutoff values for liver and spleen SRs and SHs, we obtained AUC values > 80 %.
The proposed liver SR cutoff value was associated with a sensitivity of 84 % and a
higher specificity of 83 % for the diagnosis of portal hypertension secondary to chronic
liver cirrhosis in comparison to spleen stiffness measurement via transabdominal elastography
[4], and the cutoff for spleen SH showed a specificity of 89.7 % for detecting portal
hypertension.
In addition, azygos vein hemodynamic features accurately predicted liver cirrhosis
and portal hypertension in patients with alcoholic liver disease, with a high specificity
and a high PPV. This may be beneficial considering the increasing disease burden of
excessive alcohol consumption and subsequent chronic liver disease development [22], allowing the earliest detection of portal hypertension in patients with alcohol-related
chronic liver disease.
In subanalysis between patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis and those with nonalcohol-related
causes, we found a significantly superior mean velocity (10.7 vs 4.90 P = 0.03) and blood flow volume index (6.96 vs 1.87, P = 0.007), suggesting a potential role in chronic liver disease etiology and hemodynamic
implications (
[Supplementary Table 3]). For diagnosis of portal hypertension in patients with alcoholic liver disease,
we obtained high sensitivity for azygos vein diameter (90 %) and BFVI (100 %), supporting
the benefit of implementing EUS elastography with evaluation of azygos vein hemodynamics
in patients with chronic liver disease secondary to excessive alcohol consumption.
Supplementary Table 3
Endoscopic ultrasonographic elastography results in alcohol-related cirrhosis vs.
non-alcohol related cirrhosis cases.
|
Alcohol-related cirrhosis
(n = 10)
|
Non-alcohol related cirrhosis
(n = 22)
|
P value
|
|
Liver stiffness measurement
|
|
|
7.07 (3.55–11.1)
|
7.75 (3.10–16.2)
|
0.5419[1]
|
|
|
67.9 (46.6–109)
|
66.4 (30.3–121)
|
0.4832[1]
|
|
Spleen stiffness measurement
|
|
|
12.1 (4.92–39.0)
|
12.1 (5.01–50.6)
|
0.7643[1]
|
|
|
39.2 (21.5–87.1)
|
39.7 (14.4–91.5)
|
0.6455[1]
|
|
Azygos-vein measurements
|
|
|
9.20 (5.60–13.8)
|
6.65 (2.62–20.7)
|
0.0556[1]
|
|
|
10.7 (3.00–18.2)
|
4.90 (1.50–16.3)
|
0.0387[1]
|
|
|
6.96 (2.76–14.0)
|
1.87 (0.08–23.3)
|
0.0073[1]
|
1 Results of Mann-Whitney U test.
Furthermore, in pooled analysis we found that combining EUS elastography parameters
for the liver and spleen predicts liver cirrhosis and portal hypertension, with high
sensitivities and NPVs (> 90 %); similar findings for azygos vein parameters were
obtained for patients with alcohol-related chronic liver disease. These promising
parameters should be considered in the diagnostic work-up evaluation of patients with
chronic liver disease.
A cost-effectiveness analysis evaluating screening methods for alcohol-related liver
fibrosis demonstrated that direct liver stiffness measurement via transient elastography
is a highly cost-effective procedure, with 93 % accuracy and incremental cost-effectiveness
ratios of $ 490 to $ 1,037 per quality-adjusted life-year in high-prevalence populations
[23]. Nonetheless, there is a lack of studies evaluating the cost-effectiveness of EUS
in the diagnostic workup of chronic liver disease, and its implications given the
additional features found during EUS evaluation of patients with cirrhosis. In addition,
a cost-effectiveness evaluation may be worth conducting, considering that EUS may
detect the earliest structural and functional changes in the liver and spleen, and
hemodynamic alterations in the portosystemic circulation.
In addition to being a single-center trial with a small number of operators and sample
size, there are other limitations to our study. For example, liver biopsy was not
used to define liver cirrhosis in our case cohort. Regardless, these data are promising
and open a discussion regarding use of EUS for diagnostic workup of patients with
suspected portal hypertension secondary to chronic liver disease. Prospective randomized
controlled trials comparing esophagogastroduodenoscopy and EUS evaluation for early
detection of portal hypertension may be of interest, particularly with reference to
prediction of hepatic venous pressure gradient. In addition, larger studies comparing
transabdominal versus EUS-elastography of the liver/spleen should be conducted in
the near future to determine the most reliable diagnostic method for predicting portal
hypertension.
Conclusion
In conclusion, implementation of EUS evaluation with elastography of the liver and
spleen has diagnostic value for portal hypertension secondary to chronic liver disease,
providing endoscopic, ultrasonographic, elastography, and Doppler evaluations in a
single diagnostic test.
