Large oesophageal varice screening by a sequential algorithm using a cirrhosis blood test and optionally capsule endoscopy

Methods for assessing portal hypertension

Many researchers and clinicians have taken the value of hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) as an essential prognostic factor in subjects with chronic liver diseases. HVPG ≥ 10 mmHg indicates the presence of clinically significant portal hypertension, the main predictor of the risk of variceal bleeding, hepatic decompensation, and mortality. However, HVPG measurement is invasive and requires high expertise, so its routine use outside tertiary care centers or clinical trials is limited. Clinically significant portal hypertension also might be detected using non-invasive options such as ultrasonography, elastography, magnetic resonance imaging, and indices derived from laboratory parameters. Our review aims to present the feasibility and applicability of HVPG in modern clinical practice in patients with liver cirrhosis, including invasive and non-invasive methods, based on literary sources from the MEDLINE database.

Liver and spleen stiffness for the diagnosis of oesophageal varices in adults with chronic liver disease

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (diagnostic). The objectives are as follows:

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of liver stiffness and spleen stiffness, separately or in combination, as measured by vibration‐controlled transient elastography (VCTE) in detection of any oesophageal varices in adults with chronic liver disease. We will regard a combination of tests as positive when at least one is positive.

To compare the diagnostic accuracy of individual tests (liver stiffness and spleen stiffness measured by VCTE) directly and versus the combination of both tests (considering positive when at least one is positive) in detecting any oesophageal varices.

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of liver stiffness and spleen stiffness, separately or in combination, as measured by other elastography techniques (2D‐shear wave elastography (2D‐SWE), point shear wave elastography (pSWE), magnetic resonance elastography (MRE)) in detection of any oesophageal varices in adults with chronic liver disease. We will regard a combination of tests as positive when at least one is positive.

To compare the diagnostic accuracy of liver stiffness and spleen stiffness measured by VCTE with other techniques (pSWE, 2D‐SWE, MRE) in detection of any oesophageal varices in adults with chronic liver disease.

Non-invasive diagnosis and follow-up of portal hypertension

Compensated advanced chronic liver disease (cACLD) describes the spectrum of advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis in asymptomatic patients at risk of developing clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH, defined by a hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) ≥10 mmHg). Patients with cACLD are at high risk of liver-related morbidity and mortality. In patients at risk of chronic liver disease, cACLD is strongly suggested by a liver stiffness (LSM) value >15 kPa or clinical/biological/radiological signs of portal hypertension, and ruled out by LSM <10 kPa, or Fibrotest® ≤0.58, or Fibrometer® ≤0.786. Patients with chronic liver disease (excluding vascular diseases) with a LSM <10 kPa are at low risk of developing portal hypertension complications. The presence of CSPH can be strongly suspected when LSM is ≥20 kPa. In a patient without clinical, endoscopic or radiological features of portal hypertension, measurement of the HVPG is recommended before major liver or intra-abdominal surgery, before extra-hepatic transplantation and in patients with unexplained ascites. Endoscopic screening for oesophageal varices can be avoided in patients with LSM <20 kPa and a platelet count >150 G/L (favourable Baveno VI criteria) at the time of diagnosis. There is no non-invasive method alternative for oeso-gastroduodenal endoscopy in patients with unfavourable Baveno criteria (liver stiffness ≥20 kPa or platelet count ≤50 G/l). Platelet count and liver stiffness measurements must be performed once a year in patients with cACLD with favourable Baveno VI criteria at the time of diagnosis. A screening oeso-gastroduodenal endoscopy is recommended if Baveno VI criteria become unfavourable.

Development and validation of a nomogram for esophagogastric variceal bleeding in liver cirrhosis: A cohort study in 1099 cases

OBJECTIVES

Esophagogastric variceal bleeding (EVB) is a catastrophic complication of decompensated liver cirrhosis. We aimed to establish a nomogram based on noninvasive clinical and imaging variables to predict the risk of EVB.

METHODS

The cut-off value of each variable was determined through univariate regression analysis. The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to determine the risk factors and establish predictive models. The nomogram was established and validated using the calibration discrimination across different groups.

RESULTS

Six indicators, including platelet count, hemoglobin, albumin to globulin ratio, fasting blood glucose, serum chloride, and computed tomography portal vein diameter (CTPD), were found to be related to the risk of EVB. Two models, with or without CTPD, were established and compared. Model 1 with CTPD had better discrimination than model 2 with C-index of 0.893 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.872-0.915) and 0.862 (95% CI 0.837-0.887) in the primary cohort, respectively (Z = 2.027, P = 0.043). While the C-index of the two models in the validation cohort was 0.878 (95% CI 0.838-0.919) and 0.810 (95% CI 0.757-0.863). Moreover, the clinical decision analysis curve and clinical impact curve showed that these models might confer a significant net benefit on patients and provide a reference threshold for clinicians.

CONCLUSION

A nomogram using routine clinical indicators was established to predict the risk of EVB in patients with liver cirrhosis, which was verified in an independent cohort and demonstrated a great consistency.

Management of Portal Hypertension

Portal hypertension is the cause of the clinical complications associated with cirrhosis. The primary complications of portal hypertension are ascites, acute variceal bleed, and hepatic encephalopathy. Hepatic venous pressure gradient measurement remains the gold standard test for diagnosing cirrhosis-related portal hypertension. Hepatic venous pressure gradient more than 10 mmHg is associated with an increased risk of complications and is termed clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH). Clinical, laboratory, and imaging methods can also aid in diagnosing CSPH non-invasively. Recently, deep learning methods have been demonstrated to diagnose CSPH effectively. The management of portal hypertension is always individualized and is dependent on the etiology, the availability of therapies, and the degree of portal hypertension complications. In this review, we discuss the diagnosis and management of cirrhosis-related portal hypertension in detail. Also, we highlight the history of portal hypertension and future research areas in portal hypertension.

Noninvasive assessment oesophageal varices: impact of the Baveno VI criteria

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In 2015, as a consequence of the high development in noninvasive tests, Baveno VI consensus recommended for the first time the use of a prediction rule (liver stiffness <20kPa and platelet count > 150000) to identify patients at low risk of having varices and that could circumvent endoscopy. These became known as the Baveno VI criteria. We review here the data validating Baveno VI criteria and we discuss the attempts of expanding these criteria.

RECENT FINDINGS

We report 28 studies assessing the performance of Baveno VI criteria showing a pooled 99% negative predictive value for ruling out high-risk varices. Performance is not affected by the cause of cirrhosis. Different attempts at expanding these criteria show suboptimal performance. Nonelastography-based criteria require further validation.

SUMMARY

Baveno VI criteria can be safely used to avoid endoscopy in a substantial proportion of patients with compensated cirrhosis. The progressive change in approach to the management of compensated cirrhosis, progressively focusing on treating portal hypertension with beta-blockers independently of the presence of varices, might render these criteria less relevant.

Quantification of liver extracellular volume using dual-energy CT for ruling out high-risk varices in cirrhosis

PURPOSE

To determine the performance of quantification of liver extracellular volume fraction (fECV) using dual-energy CT (DECT) compared with CT imaging for ruling out high-riskesophageal varices(HRV) in cirrhotic patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 229 cirrhotic patients (training [n = 159] and internal validation cohorts [n = 70]) who underwent dual-source DECT, serum marker assessment, and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) from 2017 to 2020. The fECV score was measured using iodine maps from 3-minute delayed, equilibrium-phase images at 100/140 Sn kVp. The association of CT parameters and serum markers with HRV was investigated. Criteria combining the fECV score (≤ 25.1%) or CT imaging with platelet count (> 150,000/mm³) were created and compared to rule out HRV.

RESULTS

In the training cohort, the fECV score (odds ratio (OR), 1.20; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.09, 1.32) and CT imaging (OR, 28.21; 95% CI, 9.31, 85.93) were independent predictors of HRV, along with platelet count (OR, 0.85 and 0.78). Criteria combining the fECV score with platelet count showed significantly better performance than those combining CT imaging with platelet count in ruling out HRV (p < 0.001). Applying the criteria could have safely avoided an additional 10.7% and 8.6% of EGDs in the training and validation cohorts, respectively, achieving a final value of 36.5% and 35.7% spared EGDs (0 HRV missed) compared to CT imaging with platelet count.

CONCLUSIONS

The combined DECT-based fECV score with platelet count is useful for ruling out HRV and can safely avoid more EGDs than CT imaging with platelet count.

Baveno criteria perform better than expanded Baveno and Rete Sicilia Selezione Terapia-Hepatitis C virus criteria for predicting varices needing treatment

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopy is the gold standard for the detection and staging of varices. Baveno, expanded Baveno, and Rete Sicilia Selezione Terapia-hepatitis C virus (RESIST-HCV) criteria predict varices non-invasively in patients with cirrhosis. We assessed the performance of these criteria for predicting varices needing treatment (VNT).

METHODS

Consecutive patients with compensated cirrhosis due to viral etiologies evaluated between January 2014 and May 2017 were included in this retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database. VNTs were defined as either large varies or small varices with red color signs on endoscopy. Performance characteristics to predict VNTs were estimated for the three criteria and spared endoscopy rate (SER) and missed VNT rates were determined.

RESULTS

Two hundred and ninety-five treatment-naïve cirrhosis patients, etiology hepatitis B (n = 154) or hepatitis C (n = 141), mean age 43.1 ± 13.2 years, 127 (43.1%) males were included. The median liver stiffness measurement (LSM) and platelet counts were 19.7 (interquartile range [IQR]: 14.8-28.8) kPa and 119 (IQR: 80-160) × 103/mm3, respectively. The SER and missed VNT rates were as follows-for Baveno criteria: 18.3% and 6.2%; expanded Baveno: 35.3% and 29.2%; and for RESIST-HCV criteria: 37.3% and 22.9%. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 93.7%, 21.9%, 18.9%, and 94.7% for Baveno criteria; 70.8%, 42.3%, 19.3%, and 88.1% for expanded Baveno; and 77.1%, 44.5%, 21.3%, and 90.9% for RESIST-HCV criteria, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Baveno criteria are useful to avoid screening endoscopies in patients with cirrhosis of viral etiologies. In contrast, although expanded Baveno criteria and RESIST-HCV criteria spare more endoscopies, a high missed VNT rate limits their applicability.

New model predicting gastroesophageal varices and variceal hemorrhage in patients with chronic liver disease

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

The predictors for gastroesophageal varices (GOV) and hemorrhage development have not been well studied in different liver diseases or different population. This study aimed to evaluate whether a new algorithm focusing on chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients is also applicable to other chronic liver diseases (CLDs) in Chinese population.

PATIENTS OR MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 659 CHB patients and 386 patients with other CLDs. A total of 439 CHB patients were included in training set, the other 220 CHB patients and other patients with CLDs were included in validation set. A new algorithm for diagnosing GOV was established and its sensitivity and specificity for predicting the varices was verified.

RESULTS

Multivariable logistic regression revealed that the rough surface of the liver (p<0.001), splenic thickness (p<0.001), and liver stiffness (p=0.006) were independent predictors of GOV. The new algorithm was considered to be a reliable diagnostic model to evaluate the presence of varices. The AUROC was 0.94 (p<0.001) in CHB validation set and 0.90 (<0.001) in non-CHB validation set. When the cut-off value was chosen as -1.048, the sensitivity and specificity in diagnosing GOV in CHB population were 89.1% and 82.5%, respectively. Importantly, the new algorithm accurately predicted the variceal hemorrhage not only in CHB patients, but also in patients with other CLDs.

CONCLUSION

The new algorithm is regarded as a reliable model to prognosticate varices and variceal hemorrhage, and stratified not only the high-risk CHB patients, but also in patients with other CLDs for developing GOV and variceal bleeding.

Including Ratio of Platelets to Liver Stiffness Improves Accuracy of Screening for Esophageal Varices That Require Treatment

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Based on platelets and liver stiffness measurements, the Baveno VI criteria (B6C), the expanded B6C (EB6C), and the ANTICIPATE score can be used to rule out varices needing treatment (VNT) in patients with compensated chronic liver disease. We aimed to improve these tests by including data on the ratio of platelets to liver stiffness.

METHODS

In a retrospective analysis of data from 10 study populations, collected from 2004 through 2018, we randomly assigned data from 2368 patients with chronic liver disease of different etiologies to a derivation population (n = 1579; 15.1% with VNT, 50.2% with viral hepatitis, 28.9% with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, 20.8% with alcohol-associated liver disease, with model for end-stage liver disease scores of 9.5 ± 3.0, and 93.0% with liver stiffness measurements ≥10 kPa) or a validation population (n = 789). Test results were compared with results from a sequential algorithm (VariScreen). VariScreen incorporated data on platelets or liver stiffness measurements and then the ratio of platelets to liver stiffness measurement, adjusted for etiology, patient sex, and international normalized ratio.

RESULTS

In the derivation population, endoscopies were spared for 23.9% of patients using the B6C (VNT missed in 2.9%), 24.3% of patients using the ANTICIPATE score (VNT missed in 4.6%), 34.5% of patients using VariScreen (VNT missed in 2.9%), and 41.9% of patients using the EB6C (VNT missed in 10.9%). Differences in spared endoscopy rates were significant (P ≤ .001), except for B6C vs ANTICIPATE and in missed VNT only for EB6C vs the others (P ≤ .009). VariScreen was the only safe test regardless of sex or etiology (missed VNT ≤5%). Moreover, VariScreen secured screening without missed VNT in patients with model for end-stage liver disease scores higher than 10. This overall strategy performed better than a selective strategy restricted to patients with compensated liver disease. Test performance and safety did not differ significantly among populations.

CONCLUSIONS

In a retrospective study of data from 2368 patients with chronic liver disease, we found that the B6C are safe whereas the EB6C are unsafe, based on missed VNT. The VariScreen algorithm performed well in patients with chronic liver disease of any etiology or severity. It is the only test that safely rules out VNT and can be used in clinical practice.

Validation and Refinement of the Baveno VI Criteria for Ruling Out High-Risk Varices

In the past decade, numerous studies have evaluated the roles of noninvasive methods for diagnosing or excluding varices and high-risk varices in patients with liver cirrhosis. The Baveno VI criteria recommend the use of a simple algorithm based on a liver stiffness measurement < 20 kPa through transient elastography and a platelet count > 150 × 10⁹/L for ruling out high-risk varices in patients with compensated advanced chronic liver disease. A large number of studies have validated the clinical usefulness of Baveno VI criteria for excluding high-risk varices. Several strategies have been proposed to refine the Baveno VI criteria; however, currently there is no review to summarize the diagnostic accuracy and limitations of the Baveno VI criteria after extensive validation. In this review, we summarize the diagnostic accuracy and limitations of the Baveno VI criteria after extensive validation. We also discuss methods to refine these criteria.

Remaining challenges for the noninvasive diagnosis of esophageal varices in liver cirrhosis

Although endoscopy is the recommended method for detecting esophageal varices, noninvasive methods for diagnosing esophageal varices are needed to avoid unnecessary invasive endoscopic examinations. In recent years, many studies have been performed to predict the presence of high-risk varices in noninvasive ways. The most widely used tools for noninvasive screening for esophageal varices are the Baveno VI and expanded Baveno VI criteria. Even these accepted criteria are not 100% accurate and have some limitations. Here, we summarize the current literature on the noninvasive diagnosis of esophageal varices in liver cirrhosis patients and highlight the remaining issues.

A novel spleen-dedicated stiffness measurement by FibroScan® improves the screening of high-risk oesophageal varices

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Several non-invasive tests (NITs) have been developed to diagnose oesophageal varices (EV), including the recent Baveno VI criteria to rule out high-risk varices (HRV). Spleen stiffness measurement (SSM) with the standard FibroScan® (SSM@50Hz) has been evaluated. However, the EV grading could be underestimated because of a ceiling threshold (75 kPa) of the SSM@50Hz. The aims were to evaluate SSM by a novel spleen-dedicated FibroScan® (SSM@100Hz) for EV diagnosis compared with SSM@50Hz, other validated NITs and Baveno VI criteria.

METHODS

This prospective multicentre study consecutively enrolled patients with chronic liver disease; blood data, endoscopy, liver stiffness measurement (LSM), SSM@50Hz and SSM@100Hz were collected.

RESULTS

Two hundred and sixty patients met inclusion criteria. SSM@100Hz success rate was significantly higher than that of SSM@50Hz (92.5% vs 76.0%, P < .001). SSM@100Hz accuracy for the presence of EV (AUC = 0.728) and HRV (AUC = 0.756) was higher than in other NITs. SSM@100Hz AUC for large EV (0.782) was higher than SSM@50Hz (0.720, P = .027). AUC for HRV with SSM@100Hz (0.780) was higher than with LSM (0.615, P < .001). The spared endoscopy rate of Baveno VI criteria (8.1%) was significantly increased by the combination to SSM@50Hz (26.5%) or SSM@100Hz (38.9%, P < .001 vs others). The missed HRV rate was, respectively, 0% and 4.7% for combinations.

CONCLUSIONS

SSM@100Hz is a new performant non-invasive marker for EV and HRV providing a higher accuracy than SSM@50Hz and other NITs. The combination of Baveno VI criteria and SSM@100Hz significantly increased the spared endoscopy rate compared to Baveno VI criteria alone or combined with SSM@50Hz. Clinical trial number: NCT02180113.

Contrast-Enhanced CT May Be a Diagnostic Alternative for Gastroesophageal Varices in Cirrhosis with and without Previous Endoscopic Variceal Therapy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Liver fibrosis blood tests, platelet count/spleen diameter ratio (PSR), and contrast-enhanced CT are diagnostic alternatives for gastroesophageal varices, but they have heterogeneous diagnostic performance among different study populations. Our study is aimed at evaluating their diagnostic accuracy for esophageal varices (EVs) and gastric varices (GVs) in cirrhotic patients with and without previous endoscopic variceal therapy.

METHODS

Patients with liver cirrhosis who underwent blood tests and contrast-enhanced CT scans as well as endoscopic surveillance should be potentially eligible. EVs needing treatment (EVNTs) and GVs needing treatment (GVNTs) were recorded according to the endoscopic results. Area under the curves (AUCs) were calculated.

RESULTS

Overall, 279 patients were included. In 175 patients without previous endoscopic variceal therapy, including primary prophylaxis population (n = 70), acute bleeding population (n = 38), and previous bleeding population (n = 67), the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced CT for EVNTs was higher (AUCs = 0.816-0.876) as compared to blood tests and PSR; by comparison, the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced CT for GVNTs was statistically significant among primary prophylaxis population (AUC = 0.731, P = 0.0316), but not acute or previous bleeding population. In 104 patients with previous endoscopic variceal therapy (i.e., secondary prophylaxis population), contrast-enhanced CT was the only statistically significant alternative for diagnosing EVNTs and GVNTs but with modest accuracy (AUCs = 0.673 and 0.661, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Contrast-enhanced CT might be a diagnostic alternative for EVNTs in cirrhotic patients, but its diagnostic performance was slightly weakened in secondary prophylaxis population. Additionally, contrast-enhanced CT may be considered for diagnosis of GVNTs in primary prophylaxis population without previous endoscopic variceal therapy and secondary prophylaxis population.

Baveno Criteria Safely Identify Patients With Compensated Advanced Chronic Liver Disease Who Can Avoid Variceal Screening Endoscopy: A Diagnostic Test Accuracy Meta-Analysis

Background: The Baveno VI Consensus Workshop defined criteria (liver stiffness measured by transient elastography <20 kPa and platelet count >150 × 109 cells/L) to identify those patients with compensated advanced chronic liver diseases (cACLD) who are unlikely to have varices needing treatment (VNTs) and can safely avoid variceal screening endoscopy. This meta-analysis aimed to quantify the safety and efficacy of these criteria in suspected cACLD with liver stiffness >10 kPa and in compensated chronic liver diseases (cCLD) irrespective of liver stiffness. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in nine databases for studies discussed cACLD or cCLD and tested Baveno criteria against variceal screening endoscopy. The main safety and efficacy endpoints were missed VNT rate and spared endoscopy rate (SER), respectively; calculated with the random effect model. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated with the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic model. For all outcome measures, 95% confidence intervals were computed. Heterogeneity was tested with I 2-statistics. Results: The search yielded 13 studies including 4,464 patients which reported on suspected cACLD. Pooled missed VNT rate was 0.3% (0.1-0.6%; I 2 = 45.5%), pooled SER was 32.8% (24.8-41.4%; I 2 = 97.0%). Sensitivity, specificity, and AUC of Baveno criteria were 97% (95-98%), 41% (27-57%), and 96% (94-97%), respectively. In the subgroups of cACLD from hepatitis C and B viruses, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease/steatohepatitis, or alcohol, missed VNT rates were 0.0% (0.0-0.3%), 1.2% (0.4-2.2%), 0.0% (0.0-1.3%), or 0.0% (0.0-0.4%), while SERs were 24.2% (20.5-28.1%), 24.9% (21.7-28.4%), 38.6% (10.9-70.8%), or 27.0% (16.9-38.4%), respectively. If we expanded the study population to cCLD, 27 studies included 7,534 patients. Missed VNT rate was 0.2% (0.1-0.5%; I 2 = 39.8%) with a SER of 30.5% (25.2-36.2%; I 2 = 96.1%) while Se, Sp, and AUC were 97% (93-99%), 35% (27-44%), and 80% (77-84%), respectively. Conclusions: The application of Baveno criteria significantly reduces the number of unnecessary variceal screening endoscopies while being safe: cACLD patients with liver stiffness <20 kPa and platelet count > 150 × 109 cells/L carry a very low chance (i.e., 0.3%) of having VNTs. The criteria preserve low missed VNT rate with lower diagnostic performance among cCLD patients.

Performance of Baveno VI and Expanded Baveno VI Criteria for Excluding High-Risk Varices in Patients With Chronic Liver Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

We aimed to assess the accuracy of Baveno VI criteria for identification of high-risk varices (HRVs) and varices of any size in patients with compensated advanced chronic liver disease (cACLD).

METHODS

We performed a systematic search of publications through December 2018 for studies that assessed the accuracy of Baveno VI criteria for screening for varices in patients with cACLD. We used hierarchical models to synthesize evidence. We also conducted a post hoc analysis to assess the accuracy of Εxpanded Baveno VI criteria. We appraised the confidence in estimates using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.

RESULTS

We identified 30 studies (8469 participants). Pooled values of Baveno VI criteria for HRVs (26 studies) were a sensitivity of 0.97 (95% CI, 0.95-0.98) and a specificity of 0.32 (95% CI, 0.26-0.39). Pooled sensitivity of Εxpanded Baveno VI criteria for HRVs (12 studies) was 0.90 (95% CI, 0.85-0.93) and specificity was 0.51 (95% CI, 0.45-0.57). In 1000 patients with cACLD, with a prevalence of HRVs of 20%, Baveno VI criteria would prevent endoscopy in 262 patients, but 6 patients with HRVs would be missed. Instead, use of the Εxpanded Baveno VI criteria would result in 428 patients avoiding endoscopy, but 20 patients with HRVs would be missed. The credibility of our findings is moderate or low, mainly owing to the retrospective design of most studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Baveno VI criteria have high diagnostic accuracy as a triage test for screening for HRVs in patients with cACLD. Expanded Baveno VI criteria could reduce the proportion of unnecessary endoscopies further, nevertheless with a higher rate of missed HRVs.

How to clarify the Baveno VI criteria for ruling out varices needing treatment by noninvasive tests

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Baveno VI criteria enabled the screening of varices needing treatment (VNT) without endoscopy but created confusion by not stating the method used to calculate the 5% missed VNT limit, resulting in different calculations across validation studies. We analysed those calculations to clarify their diagnostic meaning.

METHODS

(a) Literature review and recalculation of the missed VNT rates according to the three definitions encountered. (b) Contingency table comparison of these latter to determine their diagnostic meanings. (c) Real case analysis. 4/Simulation of variations in the three main statistical descriptors (VNT, missed VNT or spared endoscopies).

RESULTS

Missed VNT rates in the three definitions varied five- to 10-fold across 7 papers. The contingency table showed that the definitions based on VNT prevalence and spared endoscopy as reference corresponded, respectively, to sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV). The whole population-based definition corresponded to diagnostic accuracy (not pertinent in that setting). Real case analysis showed that concerning liver stiffness, the 95% sensitivity and NPV cut-offs for VNT were, respectively, 14.1 and 26.5 kPa. The VNT-based definition offered a more statistically powerful paired comparison between diagnostic tests, whereas the definition based on spared endoscopies was hampered by an unpaired comparison. Case simulation showed that the VNT-based definition was the most sensitive to descriptor variations.

CONCLUSION

The definitions of missed VNT rate placing VNT or spared endoscopy as the denominator are appropriate, providing, respectively, sensitivity and NPV for VNT. We privilege the first since it corresponds to the true proportion of missed VNT.

A combined model based on spleen stiffness measurement and Baveno VI criteria to rule out high-risk varices in advanced chronic liver disease

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Recently, Baveno VI guidelines suggested that esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) can be avoided in patients with compensated advanced chronic liver disease (cACLD) who have a liver stiffness measurement (LSM) <20 kPa and platelet count >150,000/mm³. We aimed to: assess the performance of spleen stiffness measurement (SSM) in ruling out patients with high-risk varices (HRV); validate Baveno VI criteria in a large population and assess how the sequential use of Baveno VI criteria and SSM could safely avoid the need for endoscopy.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 498 patients with cACLD who had undergone LSM/SSM by transient elastography (TE) (FibroScan®), platelet count and EGDs from 2012 to 2016 referred to our tertiary centre. The new combined model was validated internally by a split-validation method, and externally in a prospective multicentre cohort of 115 patients.

RESULTS

SSM, LSM, platelet count and Child-Pugh-B were independent predictors of HRV. Applying the newly identified SSM cut-off (≤46 kPa) or Baveno VI criteria, 35.8% and 21.7% of patients in the internal validation cohort could have avoided EGD, with only 2% of HRVs being missed with either model. The combination of SSM with Baveno VI criteria would have avoided an additional 22.5% of EGDs, reaching a final value of 43.8% spared EGDs, with <5% missed HRVs. Results were confirmed in the prospective external validation cohort, as the combined Baveno VI/SSM ≤46 model would have safely spared (0 HRV missed) 37.4% of EGDs, compared to 16.5% when using the Baveno VI criteria alone.

CONCLUSIONS

A non-invasive prediction model combining SSM with Baveno VI criteria may be useful to rule out HRV and could make it possible to avoid a significantly larger number of unnecessary EGDs compared to Baveno VI criteria only.

LAY SUMMARY

Spleen stiffness measurement assessed by transient elastography, the most widely used elastography technique, is a non-invasive technique that can help the physician to better stratify the degree of portal hypertension and the risk of esophageal varices in patients with compensated advanced chronic liver disease. Performing spleen stiffness measurement together with liver stiffness measurement during the same examination is simple and fast and this sequential model can identify a greater number of patients that can safely avoid endoscopy, which is an invasive and expensive examination.

Noninvasive Assessment of Portal Hypertension in Advanced Chronic Liver Disease: An Update

The assessment of portal hypertension is a relevant step in the evaluation of newly diagnosed advanced chronic liver disease (ACLD). The current gold standard includes the invasive evaluation of hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) and endoscopy. However, noninvasive or minimally invasive techniques to assess portal hypertension have been proposed and well established. In the present manuscript, we review clinical studies on the use of noninvasive or minimally invasive techniques to assess portal hypertension in ACLD patients.

A single blood test adjusted for different liver fibrosis targets improves fibrosis staging and especially cirrhosis diagnosis

Fibrosis blood tests are usually developed using significant fibrosis, which is a unique diagnostic target; however, these tests are employed for other diagnostic targets, such as cirrhosis. We aimed to improve fibrosis staging accuracy by simultaneously targeting biomarkers for several diagnostic targets. A total of 3,809 patients were included, comprising 1,012 individuals with chronic hepatitis C (CHC) into a derivation population and 2,797 individuals into validation populations of different etiologies (CHC, chronic hepatitis B, human immunodeficiency virus/CHC, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, alcohol) using Metavir fibrosis stages as reference. FibroMeter biomarkers were targeted for different fibrosis‐stage combinations into classical scores by logistic regression. Independent scores were combined into a single score reflecting Metavir stages by linear regression and called Multi‐FibroMeter Version Second Generation (V2G). The primary objective was to combine the advantages of a test targeted for significant fibrosis (FibroMeter^V2G) with those of a test targeted for cirrhosis (CirrhoMeter^V2G). In the derivation CHC population, we first compared Multi‐FibroMeter^V2G to FibroMeter^V2G and observed significant increases in the cirrhosis area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), Obuchowski index (reflecting all fibrosis‐stage AUROCs), and classification metric (six classes expressed as a correctly classified percentage) and a nonsignificant increase in significant fibrosis AUROC. Thereafter, we compared it to CirroMeter^V2G and observed a nonsignificant increase in the cirrhosis AUROC. In all 3,809 patients, respective accuracies for Multi‐FibroMeter^V2G and FibroMeter^V2G were the following: cirrhosis AUROC, 0.906 versus 0.878 (P < 0.001; versus CirroMeter^V2G, 0.897, P = 0.014); Obuchowski index, 0.795 versus 0.791 (P = 0.059); classification, 86.0% versus 82.1% (P < 0.001); significant fibrosis AUROC, 0.833 versus 0.832 (P = 0.366). Multi‐FibroMeter^V2G had the highest correlation with the area of portoseptal fibrosis and the highest reproducibility over time. Correct classification rates of Multi‐FibroMeter with hyaluronate (V2G, 86.0%) or without (V3G, 86.1%) did not differ (P = 0.938). Conclusion: Multitargeting biomarkers significantly improves fibrosis staging and especially cirrhosis diagnosis compared to classical single‐targeted blood tests. (Hepatology Communications 2018;2:455‐466)