Cargando…

Non-invasive assessment of portal hypertension using quantitative magnetic resonance imaging

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) measurement is currently the only validated technique to accurately evaluate changes in portal pressure. In this study, we evaluate the use of non-contrast quantitative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as a surrogate measure of portal pr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Palaniyappan, Naaventhan, Cox, Eleanor, Bradley, Christopher, Scott, Robert, Austin, Andrew, O’Neill, Richard, Ramjas, Greg, Travis, Simon, White, Hilary, Singh, Rajeev, Thurley, Peter, Guha, Indra Neil, Francis, Susan, Aithal, Guruprasad Padur
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5123896/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27475617
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2016.07.021
_version_ 1782469788460646400
author Palaniyappan, Naaventhan
Cox, Eleanor
Bradley, Christopher
Scott, Robert
Austin, Andrew
O’Neill, Richard
Ramjas, Greg
Travis, Simon
White, Hilary
Singh, Rajeev
Thurley, Peter
Guha, Indra Neil
Francis, Susan
Aithal, Guruprasad Padur
author_facet Palaniyappan, Naaventhan
Cox, Eleanor
Bradley, Christopher
Scott, Robert
Austin, Andrew
O’Neill, Richard
Ramjas, Greg
Travis, Simon
White, Hilary
Singh, Rajeev
Thurley, Peter
Guha, Indra Neil
Francis, Susan
Aithal, Guruprasad Padur
author_sort Palaniyappan, Naaventhan
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND & AIMS: Hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) measurement is currently the only validated technique to accurately evaluate changes in portal pressure. In this study, we evaluate the use of non-contrast quantitative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as a surrogate measure of portal pressure. METHODS: Thirty patients undergoing HVPG measurement were prospectively recruited. MR parameters of longitudinal relaxation time (T(1)), perfusion of the liver and spleen (by arterial spin labelling), and blood flow in the portal, splanchnic and collateral circulation (by phase contrast MRI) were assessed. We estimated the liver stiffness measurement (LSM) and enhanced liver fibrosis (ELF) score. The correlation of all non-invasive parameters with HVPG was evaluated. RESULTS: The mean (range) HVPG of the patients was 9.8 (1–22) mmHg, and 14 patients (48%) had clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH, HVPG ⩾10 mmHg). Liver T(1) relaxation time, splenic artery and superior mesenteric artery velocity correlated significantly with HVPG. Using multiple linear regression, liver T(1) and splenic artery velocity remained as the two parameters in the multivariate model significantly associated with HVPG (R = 0.90, p <0.001). This correlation was maintained in patients with CSPH (R = 0.85, p <0.001). A validation cohort (n = 10) showed this linear model provided a good prediction of HVPG. LSM and ELF score correlated significantly with HVPG in the whole population but the correlation was absent in CSPH. CONCLUSIONS: MR parameters related to both hepatic architecture and splanchnic haemodynamics correlate significantly with HVPG. This proposed model, confirmed in a validation cohort, could replace the invasive HVPG measurement. LAY SUMMARY: In patients with cirrhosis, the development and progression of portal hypertension is related to worse outcomes. However, the standard technique of assessing portal pressure is invasive and not widely used in clinical practice. Here, we have studied the use of non-invasive MRI in evaluating portal pressure. The MRI measures of liver architecture and blood flow in the splenic artery correlated well with portal pressure. Therefore, this non-invasive method can potentially be used to assess portal pressure in clinical trials and monitoring treatment in practice.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5123896
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-51238962016-12-01 Non-invasive assessment of portal hypertension using quantitative magnetic resonance imaging Palaniyappan, Naaventhan Cox, Eleanor Bradley, Christopher Scott, Robert Austin, Andrew O’Neill, Richard Ramjas, Greg Travis, Simon White, Hilary Singh, Rajeev Thurley, Peter Guha, Indra Neil Francis, Susan Aithal, Guruprasad Padur J Hepatol Research Article BACKGROUND & AIMS: Hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) measurement is currently the only validated technique to accurately evaluate changes in portal pressure. In this study, we evaluate the use of non-contrast quantitative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as a surrogate measure of portal pressure. METHODS: Thirty patients undergoing HVPG measurement were prospectively recruited. MR parameters of longitudinal relaxation time (T(1)), perfusion of the liver and spleen (by arterial spin labelling), and blood flow in the portal, splanchnic and collateral circulation (by phase contrast MRI) were assessed. We estimated the liver stiffness measurement (LSM) and enhanced liver fibrosis (ELF) score. The correlation of all non-invasive parameters with HVPG was evaluated. RESULTS: The mean (range) HVPG of the patients was 9.8 (1–22) mmHg, and 14 patients (48%) had clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH, HVPG ⩾10 mmHg). Liver T(1) relaxation time, splenic artery and superior mesenteric artery velocity correlated significantly with HVPG. Using multiple linear regression, liver T(1) and splenic artery velocity remained as the two parameters in the multivariate model significantly associated with HVPG (R = 0.90, p <0.001). This correlation was maintained in patients with CSPH (R = 0.85, p <0.001). A validation cohort (n = 10) showed this linear model provided a good prediction of HVPG. LSM and ELF score correlated significantly with HVPG in the whole population but the correlation was absent in CSPH. CONCLUSIONS: MR parameters related to both hepatic architecture and splanchnic haemodynamics correlate significantly with HVPG. This proposed model, confirmed in a validation cohort, could replace the invasive HVPG measurement. LAY SUMMARY: In patients with cirrhosis, the development and progression of portal hypertension is related to worse outcomes. However, the standard technique of assessing portal pressure is invasive and not widely used in clinical practice. Here, we have studied the use of non-invasive MRI in evaluating portal pressure. The MRI measures of liver architecture and blood flow in the splenic artery correlated well with portal pressure. Therefore, this non-invasive method can potentially be used to assess portal pressure in clinical trials and monitoring treatment in practice. Elsevier 2016-12 /pmc/articles/PMC5123896/ /pubmed/27475617 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2016.07.021 Text en © 2016 European Association for the Study of the Liver. Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Research Article
Palaniyappan, Naaventhan
Cox, Eleanor
Bradley, Christopher
Scott, Robert
Austin, Andrew
O’Neill, Richard
Ramjas, Greg
Travis, Simon
White, Hilary
Singh, Rajeev
Thurley, Peter
Guha, Indra Neil
Francis, Susan
Aithal, Guruprasad Padur
Non-invasive assessment of portal hypertension using quantitative magnetic resonance imaging
title Non-invasive assessment of portal hypertension using quantitative magnetic resonance imaging
title_full Non-invasive assessment of portal hypertension using quantitative magnetic resonance imaging
title_fullStr Non-invasive assessment of portal hypertension using quantitative magnetic resonance imaging
title_full_unstemmed Non-invasive assessment of portal hypertension using quantitative magnetic resonance imaging
title_short Non-invasive assessment of portal hypertension using quantitative magnetic resonance imaging
title_sort non-invasive assessment of portal hypertension using quantitative magnetic resonance imaging
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5123896/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27475617
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2016.07.021
work_keys_str_mv AT palaniyappannaaventhan noninvasiveassessmentofportalhypertensionusingquantitativemagneticresonanceimaging
AT coxeleanor noninvasiveassessmentofportalhypertensionusingquantitativemagneticresonanceimaging
AT bradleychristopher noninvasiveassessmentofportalhypertensionusingquantitativemagneticresonanceimaging
AT scottrobert noninvasiveassessmentofportalhypertensionusingquantitativemagneticresonanceimaging
AT austinandrew noninvasiveassessmentofportalhypertensionusingquantitativemagneticresonanceimaging
AT oneillrichard noninvasiveassessmentofportalhypertensionusingquantitativemagneticresonanceimaging
AT ramjasgreg noninvasiveassessmentofportalhypertensionusingquantitativemagneticresonanceimaging
AT travissimon noninvasiveassessmentofportalhypertensionusingquantitativemagneticresonanceimaging
AT whitehilary noninvasiveassessmentofportalhypertensionusingquantitativemagneticresonanceimaging
AT singhrajeev noninvasiveassessmentofportalhypertensionusingquantitativemagneticresonanceimaging
AT thurleypeter noninvasiveassessmentofportalhypertensionusingquantitativemagneticresonanceimaging
AT guhaindraneil noninvasiveassessmentofportalhypertensionusingquantitativemagneticresonanceimaging
AT francissusan noninvasiveassessmentofportalhypertensionusingquantitativemagneticresonanceimaging
AT aithalguruprasadpadur noninvasiveassessmentofportalhypertensionusingquantitativemagneticresonanceimaging