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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |