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
Meta-Analysis
. 2022 Jul;32(7):4616-4627.
doi: 10.1007/s00330-022-08601-0. Epub 2022 Feb 15.

Prediction of high-risk esophageal varices in patients with chronic liver disease with point and 2D shear wave elastography: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Prediction of high-risk esophageal varices in patients with chronic liver disease with point and 2D shear wave elastography: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Yue Liu et al. Eur Radiol. 2022 Jul.

Abstract

Objective: To assess the diagnostic performance of liver stiffness (LS) and spleen stiffness (SS) measured by point shear wave elastography (pSWE) and 2D shear wave elastography (2D-SWE) in the detection of high-risk esophageal varices (HREV) and to compare their diagnostic accuracy.

Methods: Through systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases, we included 17 articles reporting the diagnostic performance of LS or SS measured by pSWE or 2D-SWE for HREV. We used a bivariate random-effects model to estimate pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), area under summary receiver operator characteristic curve (AUSROC), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR).

Results: For LS, there was no significant difference between the pooled sensitivity, 0.89 (95% confidence interval CI, 0.81-0.94) vs. 0.8 (95% CI, 0.72-0.86) (p = 0.13), and specificity, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.73-0.87) vs. 0.73 (95% CI, 0.65-0.79) (p = 0.07) of pSWE and 2D-SWE. The AUSROC and DOR of pSWE were higher than those of 2D-SWE: 0.92 (95% CI, 0.89-0.94) vs. 0.84 (95% CI, 0.80-0.87), p = 0.03, 33 (95% CI, 25-61) vs. 11 (95% CI, 5-22), (p < 0.01). For SS, there was no significant difference between the pooled sensitivity 0.91 (95% CI, 0.78-0.96) vs. 0.89 (95% CI, 0.80-0.94) (p = 0.43); specificity, 0.79 (95% CI, 0.72-0.84) vs. 0.72 (95% CI, 0.63-0.79) (p = 0.06); and DOR, 35 (95% CI, 13-100) vs. 20 (95% CI, 8-50) (p = 0.16) of pSWE and 2D-SWE.

Conclusion: LS and SS measured by pSWE and 2D-SWE have good accuracy in predicting HREV.

Key points: • There is modest difference between the diagnostic performance of LS and SS measured by pSWE and 2D-SWE. • LS and SS measured by pSWE and 2D-SWE both have high sensitivity, specificity, and AUSROC for the evaluation of HREV in patients with CLD. • pSWE and 2D-SWE are promising tools for noninvasive monitoring risk of esophageal varices bleeding of CLD patients.

Keywords: Elasticity imaging techniques; Esophageal and gastric varices; Liver cirrhosis; Spleen.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Garcia-Tsao G, Bosch J, Groszmann RJ (2008) Portal hypertension and variceal bleeding--unresolved issues. Summary of an American Association for the study of liver diseases and European Association for the study of the liver single-topic conference. Hepatology 47:1764–1772
    1. Garcia-Tsao G, Bosch J (2010) Management of varices and variceal hemorrhage in cirrhosis. N Engl J Med 362:823–832 - DOI
    1. Tripathi D, Stanley AJ, Hayes PC et al (2015) U.K. guidelines on the management of variceal haemorrhage in cirrhotic patients. Gut 64:1680–1704 - DOI
    1. Spiegel BM, Targownik L, Dulai GS, Karsan HA, Gralnek IM (2003) Endoscopic screening for esophageal varices in cirrhosis: is it ever cost effective? Hepatology 37:366–377 - DOI
    1. Merli M, Nicolini G, Angeloni S et al (2003) Incidence and natural history of small esophageal varices in cirrhotic patients. J Hepatol 38:266–272 - DOI

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources