Clinics and research in hepatology and gastroenterology · 2021
Novel albumin, bilirubin and platelet criteria for the exclusion of high-risk varices in compensated advanced chronic liver disease: A validation study.
СтатьяВалидационное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wong Yu Jun, Kew Guan Sen, Tan Poh Seng, Chen Zhaojin, Putera Martin, Yip Wenjun Alexander, Ang Tiing Leong, Fock Kwong Ming, Lee Guan Huei, Hsiang John, Huang Daniel Q, Kwek Andrew, Muthiah Mark D, Kumar Rahul, Tan Malcolm, Tan Jessica, Thurairajah Prem Harichander, Teo Eng Kiong, Tai Bee Choo, Lim Seng Gee
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Availability of transient elastography (TE) limits the application of Baveno-VI criteria. In a derivation study, the ABP criteria (Albumin >40 g/l, Bilirubin <22 μmol/l and Platelet >114,000/μl) had been shown to perform well in identifying compensated advanced chronic liver disease (cACLD) patients without high-risk varices (HRV). We aim to externally validate this novel ABP criteria for the exclusion of HRVs among cACLD patients.
METHODS: Data was retrospectively collected from consecutive cACLD patients with paired TE and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) performed between 2011 and 2017 in Changi General Hospital, Singapore. We estimate the discriminative ability of ABP criteria in validation cohort using AUROC and calibration-in-the-large. We subsequently compare the performance between ABP and Baveno-VI criteria in the validation cohort.
RESULTS: Among 314 patients included in our validation cohort, 32 (10.2%) had HRV on screening EGD. Application of ABP criteria within this validation cohort has increased discriminative ability than the derivation cohort. The AUROC of validation and derivation cohort were 0.68 (0.60-0.76) and 0.66 (0.60-0.76), respectively. The mean and standard error for calibration-in-the-large and calibration slope were -0.08 (0.22) and 0.93 (0.26) respectively. The ABP criteria had excellent performance in excluding HRV and will spare more screening EGDs than the Baveno-VI criteria (39.2% vs 27.4%, p < 0.001), without missing more HRVs.
CONCLUSION: We validated the performance of ABP criteria for the exclusion of HRVs in cACLD patients. ABP criteria is superior to Baveno-VI criteria by sparing more screening EGD without the need of TE.
METHODS: Data was retrospectively collected from consecutive cACLD patients with paired TE and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) performed between 2011 and 2017 in Changi General Hospital, Singapore. We estimate the discriminative ability of ABP criteria in validation cohort using AUROC and calibration-in-the-large. We subsequently compare the performance between ABP and Baveno-VI criteria in the validation cohort.
RESULTS: Among 314 patients included in our validation cohort, 32 (10.2%) had HRV on screening EGD. Application of ABP criteria within this validation cohort has increased discriminative ability than the derivation cohort. The AUROC of validation and derivation cohort were 0.68 (0.60-0.76) and 0.66 (0.60-0.76), respectively. The mean and standard error for calibration-in-the-large and calibration slope were -0.08 (0.22) and 0.93 (0.26) respectively. The ABP criteria had excellent performance in excluding HRV and will spare more screening EGDs than the Baveno-VI criteria (39.2% vs 27.4%, p < 0.001), without missing more HRVs.
CONCLUSION: We validated the performance of ABP criteria for the exclusion of HRVs in cACLD patients. ABP criteria is superior to Baveno-VI criteria by sparing more screening EGD without the need of TE.