Dergiler / Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology / 2017 / Cilt: 28 - Sayı: 5

Platelet count to splenic diameter ratio and other noninvasive markers as predictors of esophageal varices in patients with liver cirrhosis

Sayfa
347–352
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

It will definitely reduce the need for endoscopy as screening purposes and lower the medical expenditures.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Background/Aims: Endoscopy as a screening modality for esophageal varices is becoming difficult because of its invasiveness, cost, and increased burden of liver cirrhosis.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:This study aims to determine the diagnostic accuracy of simple and noninvasive markers in detecting esophageal varices.Materials and Methods: Four variables (platelet count, portal vein diameter, splenic diameter, and ratio of platelet count to splenic diameter PC/SD] ratio) were studied in 150 cirrhotic patients.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:It will definitely reduce the need for endoscopy as screening purposes and lower the medical expenditures.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Özet

Background/Aims: Endoscopy as a screening modality for esophageal varices is becoming difficult because of its invasiveness, cost, and increased burden of liver cirrhosis. This study aims to determine the diagnostic accuracy of simple and noninvasive markers in detecting esophageal varices.Materials and Methods: Four variables (platelet count, portal vein diameter, splenic diameter, and ratio of platelet count to splenic diameter PC/SD] ratio) were studied in 150 cirrhotic patients. Endoscopy was performed to detect esophageal varices in the patients. The diagnostic accuracy of these variables was determined by obtaining area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC). The cutoff value of each variable and its sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and positive and negative likelihood ratios were obtained using the Youden index. Pairwise comparison of these variables was performed using the Hanley and McNeil method to determine the most reliable screening tool among them.Results: The PC/SD ratio was the most reliable indicator for the presence of varices: AUC=0.9 (p<0.0001; cutoff value, <=1077.42; sensitivity, 88.75%; specificity, 81.43%). The AUC for platelets and splenic diameter was 0.85 (p<0.0001) and 0.77 (p<0.0001), respectively, showing they were also good indicators. The portal vein diameter was not a good predictor for esophageal varices (AUC=0.59). Pairwise comparison of these variables showed that the PC/SD ratio is statistically significant for predicting esophageal varices among these markers (p<0.05).Conclusion: The PC/SD ratio is found to be the most reliable marker to prognosticate esophageal varices. It is easy to obtain and can be used with other markers to identify the high-risk patients for developing esophageal varices. It will definitely reduce the need for endoscopy as screening purposes and lower the medical expenditures.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

JAMİL, Z., MALİK, M., DURRANİ, A. A. (2017). Platelet count to splenic diameter ratio and other noninvasive markers as predictors of esophageal varices in patients with liver cirrhosis. Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology, Cilt: 28 - Sayı: 5, 347–352. https://ajindex.com/articles/410175

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (14)

  1. Sebastiani G, Gkouvatsos K, Pantopoulos K. Chronic hepatitis C and liver fibrosis. World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20: 11033-53
  2. Ripoll C, Groszmann R, Garcia-Tsao G,et al. Hepatic venous pressure gradient predicts clinical decompensation in patients with compensated cirrhosis. Gastroenterology 2007; 133: 481-8
  3. Cho EJ, Kim MY, Lee J-H, et al. Diagnostic and Prognostic Values of Noninvasive Predictors of Portal Hypertension in Patients with Alcoholic Cirrhosis. PLoS One 2015;h10: e0133935
  4. Lim YS. Practical approach to endoscopic management for bleeding gastric varices. Korean J Radiol. 2012; 13: 40-4
  5. Abd-Elsalam S, Habba E, Elkhalawany W, et al. Correlation of platelets count with endoscopic findings in a cohort of Egyptian patients with liver cirrhosis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2016; 95: e3853
  6. Garcia-Tsao G, Sanyal AJ, Grace ND, Carey W. Prevention and management of gastroesophageal varices and variceal hemorrhage in cirrhosis. Hepatology 2007; 46: 922-38
  7. Rye K, Mortimore G, Austin A, Freeman J. Non-invasive Diagnosis of Oesophageal Varices Using Systemic Haemodynamic Measurements by Finometry: Comparison with Other Non-invasive Predictive Scores. J Clin Exp Hepatol 2016; 6: 19-202
  8. Abraldes JG, Bureau C, Stefanescu H, et al. Noninvasive tools and risk of clinically significant portal hypertension and varices in compensated cirrhosis: The "Anticipate" study. Hepatology. 2016; 64: 2173-84
  9. Zhang E-L, Zhang Z-Y, Wang S-P, et al. Predicting the severity of liver cirrhosis through clinical parameters. J Surg Res 2016; 204: 274-81
  10. Kang W, Kim SU, Ahn SH. Non-invasive prediction of forthcoming cirrhosis-related complications. World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20: 2613-23
  11. Peng Y, Qi X, Guo X. Child-Pugh Versus MELD Score for the Assessment of Prognosis in Liver Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies. Medicine (Baltimore) 2016; 95: e2877
  12. Nashaat EH, Abd-Elaziz H, Sabry M, Ibrahim AA. Non-endoscopic predictors of esophageal varices and portal hypertensive gastropathy. Nat Sci 2010; 8: 43-50
  13. Abbasi A, Butt N, Bhutto AR, Munir SM. Correlation of thrombocytopenia with grading of esophageal varices in chronic liver disease patients. J Coll Physicians Surg Pakistan 2010; 20: 369-72
  14. Giannini E, Botta F, Borro P, et al. Platelet count/spleen diameter ratio: proposal and validation of a non-invasive parameter to predict the presence of oesophageal varices in patients with liver cirrhosis. Gut 200