Abstract
Esophageal varices (EVs) can be accurately predicted using PH and varices risk scores. We aimed to validate their prognostic performances. Methods: We enrolled patients with B-viral cirrhosis as the training cohort (n = 503). Areas under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs) for HEV were calculated for PH (=−5.953 + 0.188 × liver stiffness (LS) + 1.583 × sex (1:male/0:female) + 26.705 × spleen diameter/platelet count ratio) and varices (=−4.364 + 0.538 × spleen diameter −0.049 × platelet count −0.044 × LS + 0.001 × LS × platelet count) risk scores, and compared to LSPS (=LS × spleen diameter/platelet count). An independent cohort was recruited for further validation (n = 222). In the training cohort, the varices risk score showed the highest AUROC (0.926), followed by the PH risk score (0.924) and LSPS (0.924), but without any statistically significant differences. For varices risk scores ≤−1.70 and ≥1.48, a 95.0% negative predictive value (NPV) and 91.2% positive predictive value (PPV) were observed, respectively. At PH risk scores ≤2.25 and ≥7.71, 95.0% NPV and 90.0% PPV were observed, respectively. At LSPS ≤1.73 and ≥13.9, 95.3% NPV and 95.0% PPV were observed, respectively. The EV bleeding (EVB) risk during follow-up increased stepwise and significantly when stratified by PH, varices risk scores, and LSPS (all p < 0.001). In the validation cohort, NPVs were generally similar when stratified by PH (88.2%), varices risk scores (93.2%), and LSPS (88.9%); however, corresponding PPVs were suboptimal. PH and variceal risk scores are reliable for predicting HEV and future EVB. Patients with PH and varices risk scores ≤2.25 and ≤−1.70, respectively, may avoid endoscopy safely. For convenience, LSPS might be a good alternative, with comparable prognostic performance to these two models.
Highlights
Portal hypertension (PH) is a progressive complication of liver cirrhosis, leading to portosystemic collaterals, such as esophageal varices (EVs) [1,2]
EV bleeding (EVB) is one of the most life-threatening complications, and it can accelerate the progression of hepatic decompensation to a stage wherein patients have an extremely high risk of death [3,4]
The current guidelines recommend screening all patients with cirrhosis by endoscopy to identify those with high-risk EVs (HEVs), so that prophylactic treatment may be considered [5,6,7]
Summary
Portal hypertension (PH) is a progressive complication of liver cirrhosis, leading to portosystemic collaterals, such as esophageal varices (EVs) [1,2]. The current guidelines recommend screening all patients with cirrhosis by endoscopy to identify those with high-risk EVs (HEVs), so that prophylactic treatment may be considered [5,6,7]. Because the prevalence of EVB at any given point in time is approximately 15–25%, most patients undergoing screening endoscopy either do not have varices or have varices that do not require prophylactic therapy [8]. Periodic endoscopic screening in all cirrhotic patients, especially those belonging to the so-called “low-risk group,” might unnecessarily increase the financial burden and medical workload of endoscopy units. Compliance with screening endoscopy may be limited because even asymptomatic patients are required to repeatedly undergo an unpleasant endoscopic procedure and an interruption in work productivity, with a small, but significant, risk of complications
Published Version (Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have