Cargando…

Portal vein flow velocity as a possible fast noninvasive screening tool for esophageal varices in cirrhotic patients

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is the gold standard tool in both screening/diagnosis and management of varices in cirrhotic patients; however, its invasive nature may be uncomfortable to some patients, and in addition, it may be unavailable in some centers that cannot afford it...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Elkenawy, Yara N, Elarabawy, Reda A, Ahmed, Layla M, Elsawy, Abdallah A
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7411658/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32782943
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jgh3.12301
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND AND AIM: Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is the gold standard tool in both screening/diagnosis and management of varices in cirrhotic patients; however, its invasive nature may be uncomfortable to some patients, and in addition, it may be unavailable in some centers that cannot afford it. Therefore, to decrease the economic and physical burden on patients, multiple noninvasive clinical, laboratory, and radiological parameters are evaluated as triage screening predictors of varices before patients' referral to endoscopy. In this respect, we tried to evaluate the validity of portal vein velocity (PVV) as a noninvasive screening tool of esophageal varices (EV). METHODS: One hundred thirty‐five cirrhotic patients were consecutively enrolled in this cross‐sectional study. All patients were evaluated independently and blindly by EGD as the gold standard and then by Doppler ultrasound on portal vein (PV). RESULTS: Univariate regression showed significant coefficients for PVV, platelet (PLT), albumin, bilirubin, international normalized ratio (INR), portal vein diameter, and ascites; however, multivariable regression showed significant coefficients only for PVV, PLT, and albumin; (P = 0.000, 0.000, and 0.006, respectively). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), sensitivity, specificity, LR+, and LR− values were then calculated and validated using bootstrap analysis. PVV was more accurate than other evaluated parameters (AUROC: 0.927 and P = 0.000). The most accurate rule out cutoff value for PVV was ≥19 cm/s with the sensitivity of 97% and LR− of 0.05. CONCLUSION: PVV may be useful as a noninvasive triage test for selection of the high‐risk cirrhotic patients who should be referred to and could benefit from EGD. We could highlight using PVV to rule out EV at a cutoff value ≥19 cm/s, reserving EGD only for patients with the PVV value <19 cm/s.