Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2021 Mar 18:13:25-36.
doi: 10.2147/HMER.S278077. eCollection 2021.

Approaches to the Diagnosis of Portal Hypertension: Non-Invasive or Invasive Tests?

Elton Dajti  1   2 , Luigina Vanessa Alemanni  1   2 , Giovanni Marasco  1   2 , Marco Montagnani  1   2 , Francesco Azzaroli  1   2
Affiliations
Review

Approaches to the Diagnosis of Portal Hypertension: Non-Invasive or Invasive Tests?

Elton Dajti et al. Hepat Med. .

Abstract

Portal hypertension is the main driver of complications in patients with advanced chronic liver disease (ACLD) and is defined by values of hepatic venous pressure gradient measurement (HVPG) >5 mmHg. Values of HVPG ≥10 mmHg determine the presence of clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH), the main predictor of the risk of variceal bleeding, hepatic decompensation, and mortality. However, its measurement is invasive and requires high expertise, so its routine use outside third level centers or clinical trials is limited. In the last decades, several non-invasive tests (NITs) have been developed and validated for the diagnosis of portal hypertension. Among these, liver (LSM) and spleen stiffness measurement (SSM) are the most promising tools available, as they have been proven accurate to predict CSPH, high-risk esophageal varices, decompensation, and mortality in patients with ACLD. In the last Baveno VI Consensus proceedings, LSM evaluation was recommended for the first time for diagnosis of CSPH (LSM >20-25 kPa) and the screening of patients with a low probability of having high-risk varices (LSM <20 kPa and platelet count >150.000/mm3). In this review, we aimed to summarize the growing evidence supporting the use of non-invasive tests for the evaluation of portal hypertension in patients with chronic liver disease.

Keywords: hepatic venous pressure gradient; liver cirrhosis; liver stiffness; portal hypertension; spleen stiffness.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Sepanlou SG, Safiri S, Bisignano C, et al. The global, regional, and national burden of cirrhosis by cause in 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;5(3):245–266. doi:10.1016/S2468-1253(19)30349-8 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. de Franchis R, Baveno VI Faculty. Expanding consensus in portal hypertension: report of the Baveno VI Consensus Workshop: stratifying risk and individualizing care for portal hypertension. J Hepatol. 2015;63(3):743–752. doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2015.05.022 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Angeli P, Bernardi M, Villanueva C, et al. EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of patients with decompensated cirrhosis. J Hepatol. 2018;69(2):406–460. doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2018.03.024 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bosch J, Abraldes JG, Berzigotti A, García-Pagan JC. The clinical use of HVPG measurements in chronic liver disease. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;6(10):573–582. doi:10.1038/nrgastro.2009.149 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Garcia-Tsao G, Abraldes JG, Berzigotti A, Bosch J. Portal hypertensive bleeding in cirrhosis: risk stratification, diagnosis, and management: 2016 practice guidance by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. 2017;65(1):310–335. doi:10.1002/hep.28906 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources