Rapid Communication
Copyright ©2008 The WJG Press and Baishideng. All rights reserved.
World J Gastroenterol. Mar 28, 2008; 14(12): 1898-1902
Published online Mar 28, 2008. doi: 10.3748/wjg.14.1898
Portal hemodynamics as predictors of high risk esophageal varices in cirrhotic patients
Mohammad K Tarzamni, Mohammad H Somi, Sara Farhang, Morteza Jalilvand
Mohammad K Tarzamni, Mohammad H Somi, Sara Farhang, Morteza Jalilvand, Liver and Gastrointestinal Diseases Research Center, Tabriz University of medical sciences, Tabriz, East Azerbaijan, Iran
Author contributions: Tarzamni MK, Somi MH, Jalilvand M and Farhang S designed and performed research; Sara Farhang analyzed data and wrote the paper.
Correspondence to: Dr. Sara Farhang, Liver and Gastrointestinal Diseases Research Center, Imam Hospital, University Ave, Tabriz, East Azerbaijan, Iran. sfarhang@yahoo.com
Telephone: +98-411-3367473
Fax: +98-411-3367499
Received: October 6, 2007
Revised: December 4, 2007
Published online: March 28, 2008
Abstract

AIM: To evaluate portal hypertension parameters in liver cirrhosis patients with and without esophageal varices (EV).

METHODS: A cohort of patients with biopsy confirmed liver cirrhosis was investigated endoscopically and with color Doppler ultrasonography as a possible non-invasive predictive tool. The relationship between portal hemodynamics and the presence and size of EV was evaluated using uni- and multivariate approaches.

RESULTS: Eighty five consecutive cirrhotic patients (43 men and 42 women) were enrolled. Mean age (± SD) was 47.5 (± 15.9). Portal vein diameter (13.88 ± 2.42 vs 12.00 ± 1.69, P < 0.0005) and liver vascular index (8.31 ± 2.72 vs 17.8 ± 6.28, P < 0.0005) were found to be significantly higher in patients with EV irrespective of size and in patients with large varices (14.54 ± 1.48 vs 13.24 ± 2.55, P < 0.05 and 6.45 ± 2.78 vs 10.96 ± 5.05, P < 0.0005, respectively), while portal vein flow velocity (13.25 ± 3.66 vs 20.25 ± 5.05, P < 0.0005), congestion index (CI) (0.11 ± 0.03 vs 0.06 ± 0.03, P < 0.0005), portal hypertensive index (2.62 ± 0.79 vs 1.33 ± 0.53, P < 0.0005), and hepatic (0.73 ± 0.07 vs 0.66 ± 0.07, P < 0.001) and splenic artery resistance index (RI) (0.73 ± 0.06 vs 0.62 ± 0.08, P < 0.0005) were significantly lower. A logistic regression model confirmed spleen size (P = 0.002, AUC 0.72) and portal hypertensive index (P = 0.040, AUC 0.79) as independent predictors for the occurrence of large esophageal varices (LEV).

CONCLUSION: Our data suggest two independent situations for beginning endoscopic evaluation of compensated cirrhotic patients: Portal hypertensive index > 2.08 and spleen size > 15.05 cm. These factors may help identifying patients with a low probability of LEV who may not need upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Keywords: Liver cirrhosis; Doppler ultrasound; Portal hemodynamics; Esophageal varices; Prediction