Non-invasive assessment of portal hypertension by multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging of the spleen: A proof of concept study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Non-invasive assessment of portal hypertension is an area of unmet need. This proof of concept study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of a multi-parametric magnetic resonance technique in the assessment of portal hypertension. Comparison to other non-invasive technologies was a secondary aim. METHODS: T1 and T2* maps through the liver and spleen were acquired prior to trans-jugular liver biopsy and hepatic vein pressure gradient (HVPG) measurement. T1 measurements reflect changes in tissue water content, but this relationship is confounded by the presence of iron, which in turn can be quantified accurately from T2* maps. Data were analysed using LiverMultiScan (Perspectum Diagnostics, Oxford, UK) which applies an algorithm to remove the confounding effect of iron, yielding the "iron corrected T1" (cT1). Sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic values and area under the curve were derived for spleen cT1, liver cT1, transient elastography, and serum fibrosis scores. HVPG was the reference standard. RESULTS: Nineteen patients (15 men) with median age 57 years were included. Liver disease aetiologies included non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (n = 9; 47%) and viral hepatitis (n = 4; 21%). There was strong correlation between spleen cT1 and HVPG (r = 0.69; p = 0.001). Other non-invasive biomarkers did not correlate with HVPG. Spleen cT1 had excellent diagnostic accuracy for portal hypertension (HVPG >5 mmHg) and clinically significant portal hypertension (HVPG ≥10 mmHg) with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.92 for both. CONCLUSION: Spleen cT1 is a promising biomarker of portal pressure that outperforms other non-invasive scores and should be explored further.

Invasive and non-invasive assessment of portal hypertension.

Portal hypertension is the central driver of complications in patients with chronic liver diseases and cirrhosis. The diagnosis of portal hypertension has important prognostic and clinical implications. In particular, screening for varices in patients with portal hypertension can effectively reduce the morbidity and mortality of variceal bleeding. In this article, we review the invasive and non-invasive methods to assess portal hypertension. Hepatic venous pressure gradient remains the gold standard to measure portal pressure but is invasive and seldom performed outside expert centers and research settings. In recent years, a number of non-invasive tests of fibrosis have shown good correlation with liver histology. They also show promise in identifying patients with portal hypertension and large varices. As a result, the latest Baveno VI consensus guidelines endorse the use of liver stiffness measurement by transient elastography and platelet count as initial assessment to select patients for varices screening. On the other hand, the performance of non-invasive tests in assessing the response to non-selective beta-blockers or transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunting is either suboptimal or unclear.

Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse (ARFI) Elastography and Serological Markers in Assessment of Liver Fibrosis and Free Portal Pressure in Patients with Hepatitis B.

BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of using acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) elastography, AST-to-platelet ratio index (APRI), and FIB-4 in assessing liver fibrosis and free portal pressure in patients with hepatitis B. MATERIAL AND METHODS We enrolled 126 patients with hepatitis B who underwent liver surgery at the General Surgery Department of the First Affiliated Hospital of Shihezi University Medical School from February 2013 to August 2015. Preoperatively, shear wave velocity (SWV) of the liver was measured with the Siemens S2000 ultrasound system to reflect liver stiffness. Serological markers were collected and fibrosis indices APRI and FIB-4 were calculated. Intraoperatively, liver tissues were harvested and free portal pressure (FPP) was measured. Postoperatively, fibrosis of liver tissues was pathologically staged. RESULTS The results of SWV, APRI, FIB-4, and FPP were all correlated with the degree of liver fibrosis (Spearman correlation coefficients: r=0.777, P<0.001; r=0.526, P<0.001; r=0.471, P<0.001; p<0.000; r=0.675, p<0.000). Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis showed that the areas under the curve (AUC) of ARFI, APRI, and FIB-4 in diagnosing liver fibrosis were 0.830, 0.768, and 0.717, respectively, for stage F≥1; 0.861, 0.773, and 0.754, respectively, for stage F≥2; 0.941, 0.793, and 0.779, respectively, for stage F≥3; and 0.945, 0.783, and 0.754, respectively, for stage F=4. SWV, APRI, and FIB-4 were all correlated with FPP (Pearson correlation coefficients: 0.387, P<0.001; 0.446, P<0.001; 0.419, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS ARFI, APRI, and FIB-4 can assess liver fibrosis in patients with hepatitis B when assessing the portal venous pressure. The difference in diagnostic efficacy between the 3 was not significant.

Quantitative Assessment of the Portal Pressure for the Liver Surgery Using Serological Tests.

OBJECTIVE: To establish a reliable equation to predict hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) using serological tests for surgical patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). BACKGROUND: Accurate assessment of portal pressure for surgical patients with HCC is important for safe hepatic resection (HR). The HVPG is regarded as the most reliable method to detect portal hypertension. However, HVPG is not utilized in many medical centers due to invasiveness of procedure. METHODS: Between 2006 and 2008, 171 patients (Correlation cohort), who underwent liver surgery in a tertiary hospital, were enrolled. Preoperative measurements of the HVPG and serological tests were performed simultaneously. Correlation between the HVPG and serological tests were analyzed to establish an equation for calculated HVPG (cHVPG). Between 2008 and 2013, 510 surgical patients (Application cohort) were evaluated, and HR recommended when cHVPG < 10 mm Hg. The outcomes of HR were analyzed to evaluate reliability of the cHVPG for HR. RESULTS: In the correlation cohort, the equation for cHVPG was established using multivariate linear regression analysis; cHVPG (mm Hg) = 0.209 × [ICG-R15 (%)] - 1.646 × [albumin (g/dL)] - 0.01×[platelet count (10)] + 1.669 × [PT-INR] + 8.911. In the application cohort, 425 patients with cHVPG < 10 mm Hg underwent HR. Among them, 357 had favorable value of ICG-R15 < 20% (group A), and 68 had unfavorable value of ICG-R15 ≥ 20% (group B). There was no significant difference in patient demographics, tumor characteristics, operative outcome, and survival rates between group A and B. CONCLUSIONS: The equation for cHVPG of this study was established on statistical reliability. The cHVPG could be useful to predict portal pressure quantitatively for surgical patients with HCC using serological tests.

Portal hypertension in patients with cirrhosis: indirect assessment of hepatic venous pressure gradient by measuring azygos flow with 2D-cine phase-contrast magnetic resonance imaging.

OBJECTIVES: To measure azygos, portal and aortic flow by two-dimensional cine phase-contrast magnetic resonance imaging (2D-cine PC MRI), and to compare the MRI values to hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) measurements, in patients with cirrhosis. METHODS: Sixty-nine patients with cirrhosis were prospectively included. All patients underwent HVPG measurements, upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and 2D-cine PC MRI measurements of azygos, portal and aortic blood flow. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were used to evaluate the correlation between the blood flow and HVPG. The performance of 2D-cine PC MRI to diagnose severe portal hypertension (HVPG ≥ 16 mmHg) was determined by receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis, and area under the curves (AUC) were compared. RESULTS: Azygos and aortic flow values were associated with HVPG in univariate linear regression model. Azygos flow (p < 10(-3)), aortic flow (p = 0.001), age (p = 0.001) and presence of varices (p < 10(-3)) were independently associated with HVPG. Azygos flow (AUC = 0.96 (95 % CI [0.91-1.00]) had significantly higher AUC than aortic (AUC = 0.64 (95 % CI [0.51-0.77]) or portal blood flow (AUC = 0.40 (95 % CI [0.25-0.54]). CONCLUSIONS: 2D-cine PC MRI is a promising technique to evaluate significant portal hypertension in patients with cirrhosis. KEY POINTS: • Noninvasive HVPG assessment can be performed with MRI azygos flow. • Azygos MRI flow is an easy-to-measure marker to detect significant portal hypertension. • MRI flow is more specific that varice grade to detect portal hypertension.

Are there any alternative methods to hepatic venous pressure gradient in portal hypertension assessment?

Portal hypertension is a major consequence of any chronic liver disease and it represents the main mechanism of complication occurrence. Therefore, the assessment of portal hypertension presence is one of the most important steps in the management of any chronic liver diseases. The most accurate tool for portal pressure assessment is hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) measurement, which has diagnostic and prognostic relevance. In this paper we review the methodology of HVPG measuring, together with the clinical relevance of this technique. Portal hypertension is defined as a HVPG higher than 5 mmHg, but clinically significant portal hypertension that predisposes to clinical decompensation is defined as HVPG higher than 10 mmHg. HVPG is useful for portal hypertension treatment monitoring. A decrease in HVPG greater than 20% or under the threshold of 12 mmHg is considered to be protective against portal hypertension-related events. Even if HVPG measurement is a safe procedure, it is still considered an invasive technique and not widely available. Therefore, non-invasive markers of portal hypertension were searched for. Until now only liver stiffness measurement by transient elastography has proved to be sufficiently accurate but there is still heterogeneity among the cut-off values for portal hypertension diagnosis.

Assessment of intrahepatic blood flow by Doppler ultrasonography: relationship between the hepatic vein, portal vein, hepatic artery and portal pressure measured intraoperatively in patients with portal hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Abnormality of hepatic vein (HV) waveforms evaluated by Doppler ultrasonography has been widely studied in patients with chronic liver disease. We investigated the correlation between changes in HV waveforms and portal vein velocity (PVVel), the hepatic artery pulsatility index (HAPI), and also the extent of abnormal Doppler HV waveforms expressed as damping index (DI), severity of portal hypertension expressed as Child-Pugh scores and portal pressure (PP) measured directly from patients with portal hypertension (PHT) to evaluate the indicative value of abnormal HV waveforms and discuss the cause of abnormal HV waveform. METHODS: Sixty patients who had been diagnosed with PHT and accepted surgical therapy of portosystemic shunts were investigated. PP was measured intraoperatively. Thirty healthy volunteers with no history of chronic liver disease were enrolled as the control group. HV waveforms were categorized as triphasic, biphasic or monophasic. DI was compared as the quantitative indicator of abnormal HV waveforms. Another two Doppler parameters, PVVel and HAPI were also measured. These Doppler features were compared with PP, Child-Pugh scores and histological changes assessed by liver biopsy. RESULTS: In the patient group, the Doppler flow waveforms in the middle HV were triphasic in 31.6%, biphasic in 46.7%, and monophasic in 21.6% of subjects. These figures were 86.7%, 10.0%, and 3.3%, respectively, in healthy subjects. With the flattening of HV waveforms, the HAPI increased significantly (r = 00.438, p < 0.0001), whereas PVVel decreased significantly (r = -0.44, p <0.0001). Blood flow parameters, HAPI, PVVel and HV-waveform changes showed no significant correlations with Child-Pugh scores. The latter showed a significant correlation with PP (r = 0.589, p = 0.044). Changes of HV waveform and DI significantly correlated with PP (r = 0.579, r = 0.473, p <0.0001), and significant correlation between DI and Child-Pugh scores was observed (r = 0.411, p = 0.001). PP was significantly different with respect to nodule size (p < 0.05), but HV-waveform changes were not significantly correlated with pathological changes. CONCLUSION: In patients with PHT, a monophasic HV waveform indicates higher portal pressure. Furthermore, quantitative indicator DI can reflect both higher portal pressure and more severe liver dysfunction. Flattening of HV waveforms accompanied by an increase in the HAPI and decrease in PVVel support the hypothesis that histological changes reducing HV compliance be the cause of abnormality of Doppler HV waveforms from the hemodynamic angle.

Assessment of the agreement between wedge hepatic vein pressure and portal vein pressure in cirrhotic patients.

BACKGROUND: Measuring wedged hepatic venous pressure and hepatic venous pressure gradient as indices of portal pressure is being increasingly used in assessing the prognosis and response to pharmacological treatment for portal hypertension in cirrhotic patients. AIM: To re-evaluate the agreement and correlation between wedged hepatic pressures and directly measured portal pressures. METHODS: Medline search for studies comparing direct portal with wedged hepatic pressure measurement and assessment of correlation and agreement of the pooled data. RESULTS: Eleven suitable studies included 320 patients. Coefficient of determination (r2) was 0.87 in all patients, 0.87 in 102 patients with alcoholic liver disease, 0.83 in 88 patients with non-alcoholic liver disease and 0.75 in 53 patients with hepatitis C-related liver disease. Coefficient of determination was 0.85 in the 194 patients in whom a wedge catheter and 0.90 in the 113 patients in whom a balloon catheter was used. Agreement according to the method of Bland and Altman was also found to be good, with only 4-8% of the measurements outside 2 standard deviations. CONCLUSIONS: Wedged hepatic pressure measurement correlates well with direct portal pressure measurement and the agreement is sufficiently good to use this as a surrogate measurement.

Hepatic venous pressure gradient measurements to assess response to primary prophylaxis in patients with cirrhosis: a decision analytical study.

BACKGROUND: The measurement of the hepatic venous pressure gradient may identify a suboptimal response to beta-blockers in patients with varices at risk for bleeding. However, the cost-effectiveness of routine hepatic venous pressure gradient measurements to guide primary prophylaxis has not been examined. METHODS: We used decision analysis to evaluate two hepatic venous pressure gradient measurement strategies relative to standard beta-blocker therapy in a hypothetical cohort of patients with high-risk varices: (i) hepatic venous pressure gradient measurement 4 weeks after the initiation of beta-blocker therapy; and (ii) hepatic venous pressure gradient measurement prior to and 4 weeks after the initiation of beta-blocker therapy. The total expected costs, variceal bleeding episodes and deaths were calculated over a 1-year time horizon. RESULTS: Beta-blocker therapy was associated with total costs of $1464, seven variceal bleeding episodes, one variceal bleeding episode-related death and 15 deaths. One hepatic venous pressure gradient measurement was associated with total costs of $5015, four variceal bleeding episodes, one variceal bleeding episode-related death and 15 deaths. Two hepatic venous pressure gradient measurements were associated with total costs of $8657, four episodes of variceal bleeding, one variceal bleeding episode-related death and 15 deaths. Compared with beta-blocker therapy alone, the incremental costs per variceal bleeding episode prevented and death averted were, respectively, $108 185 and $355 100 (one hepatic venous pressure gradient measurement) and $202 796 and $719 300 (two hepatic venous pressure gradient measurements). The results were sensitive to the time horizon of the analysis, the probability of bleeding whilst on beta-blockers and the cost of hepatic venous pressure gradient measurement. CONCLUSION: Hepatic venous pressure gradient measurement to guide primary prophylaxis is an expensive strategy for reducing variceal bleeding or death, especially in patients with limited life expectancy, such as those with advanced, decompensated cirrhosis.

Assessment of portal hemodynamics by ultrasound color Doppler and laser Doppler velocimetry in liver cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND: Color Doppler is a noninvasive method for assessing portal hemodynamics. Laser Doppler velocimetry is useful in assessment of microcirculatory abnormalities in portal hypertensive gastropathy (PHG). AIMS: To study portal hemodynamics by color Doppler and gastric mucosal blood flow (GMBF) by laser Doppler velocimetry in patients with cirrhosis. METHODS: Twenty-eight patients with cirrhosis of liver (24 men) and 10 healthy subjects (7 men) were studied. Portal venous blood flow (PVBF) and portal flow velocity (PFV) were assessed by color Doppler at the level where the hepatic artery crosses the portal vein, and GMBF was measured by laser Doppler velocimetry. RESULTS: PVBF (379.5 [102.9] mL/min), PFV (5.3 [1.1] cm/sec) and GMBF (3.5 [0.8] volts) were significantly lower in patients with cirrhosis than in controls. PVBF and PFV were significantly lower in patients in Child class B and C than those in class A. Patients with ascites had significantly lower PVBF, PFV and GMBF than those without; values were also lower in patients with PHG than in those without. History of bleeding had no relation with PVBF and PFV. GMBF showed good correlation with PVBF (r=0.58, p<0.001) and with PFV (r=0.48, p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In cirrhosis of liver, PVBF, PFV and GMBF are significantly lower, and the changes increase with increasing severity of liver disease.