Non-invasive prediction model for high-risk esophageal varices in the Chinese population

doi:10.3748/wjg.v26.i21.2839

Advanced Search

BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge

Home / Archive / Volume 26, Issue 21

This Article

Academic Content and Language Evaluation of This Article

CrossCheck and Google Search of This Article

Academic Rules and Norms of This Article

Citation of this article

Corresponding Author of This Article

Research Domain of This Article

Article-Type of This Article

Open-Access Policy of This Article

Times Cited Counts in Google of This Article

Number of Hits and Downloads for This Article

Total Article Views (7247)

All Articles published online

The chart showing PDF series, WORD series, HTML series, Figures (1-3) series, Tables (1-7) series.

Item

Count

PDF

393

WORD

208

HTML

3645

Figures (1-3)

391

Tables (1-7)

253

Sum=4890

Publishing Process of This Article

The chart showing Browse series, Download series.

Item

Count

Browse

854

Download

1503

Sum=2357

Jun 7, 2020 (publication date) through Nov 22, 2024

Times Cited of This Article

Times Cited (9)

Journal Information of This Article

Publication Name

World Journal of Gastroenterology

ISSN

1007-9327

Publisher of This Article

Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA

Retrospective Study

World J Gastroenterol. Jun 7, 2020; 26(21): 2839-2851
Published online Jun 7, 2020. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v26.i21.2839

Table 1 Comparison of general characteristics in the modeling group, n

Parameter	Patients with HEVs, n = 56	Patients with LEVs, n = 30	All patients, n = 86	P value
Age in yr	52.93 ± 11.61	54.70 ± 12.24	53.55 ± 11.79	0.35
Male (%)	33 (58.9)	14 (46.7)	47 (54.7)	0.43
Etiology, HBV/HCV	51/5	22/8	73/13	0.47
Course of disease in mo	48.3 ± 12.1	46.7 ± 11.3	48.1 ± 11.6	0.45
Child-Pugh class, A/B/C	31/19/6	9/16/0	40/35/6	< 0.05
Diameter of EVs in mm	0.8 ± 0.2	0.3 ± 0.1	0.6 ± 0.2	< 0.01
Red sign	39	0	39	< 0.01

P < 0.05 is considered statistically significant. HEVs: High-risk esophageal varices; LEVs: Low-risk esophageal varices; HBV: Hepatitis B virus; HCV: Hepatitis C virus.

Table 2 Comparison of general characteristics in the external validation group, n

Parameter	Patients with HEVs, n = 31	Patients with LEVs, n = 19	All patients, n = 50	P value
Age in yr	51.86 ± 10.93	55.33 ± 11.98	54.15 ± 10.38	0.37
Male (%)	18 (58.1)	10 (62.6)	28 (56.0)	0.46
Etiology, HBV/HCV	21/10	16/3	37/13	0.51
Course of disease in mo	47.6 ± 11.3	45.8 ± 12.1	46.9 ± 10.9	0.43
Child-Pugh class, A/B/C	11/18/2	7/12/0	18/30/2	< 0.05
Diameter of EVs in mm	0.8 ± 0.1	0.4 ± 0.1	0.6 ± 0.2	< 0.01
Red sign	11	0	11	< 0.01

P < 0.05 is considered statistically significant. HEVs: High-risk esophageal varices; LEVs: Low-risk esophageal varices; HBV: Hepatitis B virus; HCV; Hepatitis C virus.

Table 3 Univariate analysis of parameters of patients with high-risk esophageal varices and low-risk esophageal varices

Parameter	Patients with HEVs, n = 56	Patients with LEVs, n = 30	P value
PVSA, mm³	227.04 ± 76.66	183.81 ± 69.10	< 0.01
PVD, mm	14.35 ± 2.64	12.67 ± 2.58	< 0.01
SVD, mm	10.08 ± 3.36	8.52 ± 2.67	0.02
CTLV, cm³	901.95 ± 219.00	935.18 ± 299.83	0.66
CTSV, cm³	917.30 ± 394.37	546.00 ± 375.35	< 0.01
Ratio of liver and spleen volume	1.18 ± 0.57	3.16 ± 5.25	< 0.01
SSV, cm³	177.03 ± 33.41	175.34 ± 29.76	0.81
SLV, cm³	1052.08 ± 151.88	1044.40 ± 135.25	0.80
Rate of change of liver volume, %	-0.14 ± 0.20	-0.10 ± 0.29	0.68
Rate of change of spleen volume, %	4.21 ± 2.11	2.06 ± 2.07	< 0.01
Change of liver volume, cm³	-150.13 ± 224.10	-109.22 ± 300.13	0.56
Change of spleen volume, cm³	740.27 ± 382.77	370.66 ± 365.27	< 0.01
Spleen diameter, cm	15.81 ± 2.67	12.67 ± 2.58	<0.01
ALT, IU/L	57.68 (15-176)	40.97 (13-88)	<0.01
AST, IU/L	36.38 (10-81)	61.26 (18-164)	<0.01
TBIL, μmol/L	27.89 (3.5-73.69)	34.12 (6-119.7)	0.59
PT in s	13.69 (9.9-24)	13.50 (9.1-18.2)	0.85
TT in s	20.44 (17.2-27.9)	20.28 (16.9-23.1)	0.01
PLT, × 10⁹/L	57.68 (15-176)	73.77 (29-159)	0.05
LSM, kPa	20.45 (9.4-36.1)	26.8 (7.6-75)	0.26

P < 0.05 is considered statistically significant. HEVs: High-risk esophageal varices; LEVs: Low-risk esophageal varices; PVSA: Portal vein surface area; PVD: Portal vein diameter; SVD: Splenic vein diameter; CTLV: Actual liver volume measured by CT; CTSV: Actual spleen volume measured by CT; SSV: Standard spleen volume calculated by equation; SLV: Standard liver volume calculated by equation; ALT: Alanine aminotransferase; AST: Aspartate aminotransferase; TBIL: Total bilirubin; PT: Prothrombin time; TT: Thrombin time; LSM: Liver stiff measurement.

Table 4 Multivariate analysis of parameters of patients with high-risk esophageal varices and low-risk esophageal varices

Parameter	Patients with HEVs, n = 56	Patients with LEVs, n = 30	P value
PVSA, mm³	227.04 ± 76.66	183.81 ± 69.10	0.52
PVD, mm	14.35 ± 2.64	12.67 ± 2.58	0.60
SVD, mm	10.08 ± 3.36	8.52 ± 2.67	0.20
CTSV, cm³	917.30 ± 394.37	546.00 ± 375.35	0.26
Ratio of liver and spleen volume, %	1.18 ± 0.57	3.16 ± 5.25	< 0.01
Rate of change of spleen volume, %	4.21 ± 2.11	2.06 ± 2.07	0.047
Change of spleen volume, cm³	740.27 ± 382.77	370.66 ± 365.27	0.30
Spleen diameter, cm	15.81 ± 2.67	12.67 ± 2.58	0.58
ALT, IU/L	57.68 (15-176)	40.97 (13-88)	0.71
AST, IU/L	36.38 (10-81)	61.26 (18-164)	< 0.01
TT in s	20.44 (17.2-27.9)	20.28 (16.9-23.1)	0.93

P < 0.05 is considered statistically significant. HEVs: High-risk esophageal varices; LEVs: Low-risk esophageal varices; PVSA: Portal vein surface area; PVD: Portal vein diameter; SVD: Splenic vein diameter; ALT: Alanine aminotransferase; AST: Aspartate aminotransferase; PT: Prothrombin time; TT: Thrombin time.

Table 5 Parameters used to establish the non-invasive prediction model

Parameter	B	SE	Wals	df	Sig	Exp (B)	95%CI of exp (B)
Ratio of liver and spleen volume	-2.162	0.683	10.028	1	0.002	0.115	0.030-0.439
Rate of spleen volume change	-0.314	0.246	1.619	1	0.203	0.731	0.451-1.185
AST	-0.070	0.020	12.672	1	0.000	0.933	0.898-0.969
Constant	8.342	2.413	11.946	1	0.001	4194.879

AST: Aspartate aminotransferase; df: Degree of freedom; CI: Confidence interval.

Table 6 Comparison of various parameters of each model

	Area	SE	Sig	95%CI of exp (B)	Sensitivity	Specificity	Youden’s index
The new model	0.865	0.054	0.000	0.759-0.970	0.91	0.80	0.71
LSPS	0.591	0.072	0.210	0.450-0.732	0.85	0.37	0.22
VRI	0.717	0.065	0.003	0.589-0.844	0.70	0.74	0.44
APRI	0.431	0.074	0.344	0.285-0.577	0.95	0.15	0.10
AAR	0.445	0.080	0.447	0.288-0.601	0.93	0.33	0.26

CI: Confidence interval.

Table 7 Comparison of accuracy of each model in predicting high-risk esophageal varices of patients in the modeling group

	Accuracy, %	Positive predictive value, %	Negative predictive value, %	Cutoff value
New model	84.9	96.4	63.3	0.5713638
LSPS	82.1	85.0	37.0	3.0852585
VRI	70.1	70.0	74.1	0.52695
APRI	67.4	96.4	13.3	0.5671263
AAR	68.6	89.3	30	0.9861111

LSPS: Liver stiffness-spleen diameter to platelet ratio score; VRI: Variceal risk index; APRI: Aspartate transaminase to platelet ratio index; AAR: Aspartate transaminase/alanine aminotransferase ratio.

Citation: Yang LB, Xu JY, Tantai XX, Li H, Xiao CL, Yang CF, Zhang H, Dong L, Zhao G. Non-invasive prediction model for high-risk esophageal varices in the Chinese population. World J Gastroenterol 2020; 26(21): 2839-2851
URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v26/i21/2839.htm
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v26.i21.2839