Diagnostics (Nov 2022)

Shear Wave Dispersion Slope Measured with Shear Wave Dispersion Imaging Is Associated with Variceal Hemorrhage in Cirrhotic Patients

  • Xiaohui Sun,
  • Li Zhang,
  • Ling Jiang,
  • Ligang Cui,
  • Xiaoguang Li

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12122909
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 12, no. 12
p. 2909

Abstract

Read online

Background and Objectives: Portal hypertension (PH), as the main consequence of cirrhosis, leads to the development of gastroesophageal varices (GEVs). Variceal hemorrhage (VH) caused by the rupture of GEVs is a life-threatening emergency. Thus, the prediction of VH risk is considerably important. Our pilot study aimed to identify the risk factors of variceal hemorrhage (VH) in cirrhosis. Materials and Methods: Cirrhotic patients were prospectively included and divided into two groups according to the presence or absence of VH. Conventional ultrasound and shear wave dispersion (SWD) imaging were conducted to detect the portal vein diameter, spleen diameter, ascites, liver stiffness (LS) and shear wave dispersion slope (SWDS). The laboratory tests were recorded, including platelets (PLT), alanine transaminase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), total bilirubin (TBIL) and albumin (ALB). The risk factors of VH were screened using univariate analyses and identified using multivariate logistic regression. The ROC curves were used to assess diagnostic accuracy. Comparisons between AUCs were performed using the Delong method. Results: Sixty-five patients with 22 VHs were finally included. The SWDS, spleen diameter and ascites were identified as independent risk factors for VH. The SWDS showed good performance for diagnosing VH (AUC = 0.768, 95% CI: 0.647–0.864), and sensitively identified 95.5% (95% CI: 77.2%–99.9%) of patients with VH. Including the three risk factors in multivariate logistic regression, we obtained a formula for diagnosing VH: −20.749 + 0.804 × SWDS + 0.449 × spleen diameter + 1.803 × ascites (no ascites = 0, ascites = 1). Comparison of AUCs revealed that the formula (AUC = 0.900, 95% CI: 0.800–0.961) performed better than LS, SWDS, and spleen diameter in diagnosing VH (p p p < 0.05). Conclusions: SWDS is a sensitive parameter for assessing the risk of VH. Combining the SWDS, spleen diameter and ascites resulted in good diagnostic accuracy.

Keywords