Liver international : official journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver · 2020
Measurement of liver and spleen stiffness as complementary methods for assessment of liver fibrosis in autoimmune hepatitis.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Janik Maciej K, Kruk Beata, Szczepankiewicz Benedykt, Kostrzewa Konrad, Raszeja-Wyszomirska Joanna, Górnicka Barbara, Lammert Frank, Milkiewicz Piotr, Krawczyk Marcin
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Liver stiffness measurements (LSM), commonly performed by transient elastography (TE) or two-dimensional shear wave elastography (2D-SWE), are used to quantify liver fibrosis. Active hepatitis, a hallmark of autoimmune hepatitis (AIH), could bias LSM. This bias might be overcome by measurement spleen 2D-SWE. Here, we compare liver and spleen 2D-SWE to TE and liver biopsy (LB) in prospectively recruited patients with AIH.
METHODS: We analysed liver and spleen 2D-SWE in relation to liver TE in 90 patients treated ≥ 6 months for AIH. Liver and spleen 2D-SWE were also compared to LB in 63 individuals with AIH. Finally, we evaluated these tools in 220 patients with AIH and during 18 months follow-up.
RESULTS: Liver 2D-SWE correlated with surrogate markers of active hepatitis (ALT and IgG, both P < .001) but there was no link between spleen 2D-SWE and ALT. Liver 2D-SWE, but not spleen 2D-SWE, was associated with histopathological inflammatory score (P < .01). When compared to LB, the optimal cut-offs for detecting cirrhosis by liver and spleen 2D-SWE were 16.1 kPa (AUROC 0.93) and 29.8 kPa (AUROC 0.95), respectively. In patients with active hepatitis the combined diagnostic approach including liver and spleen 2D-SWE had significantly better AUROC for detecting cirrhosis than liver 2D-SWE alone.
CONCLUSIONS: Liver and spleen 2D-SWE are reliable complementary methods for the diagnosis of advanced fibrosis in AIH. Spleen 2D-SWE seems to be less biased by inflammation and could facilitate fibrosis assessment in therapy-naïve patients or in the presence of active hepatitis.
METHODS: We analysed liver and spleen 2D-SWE in relation to liver TE in 90 patients treated ≥ 6 months for AIH. Liver and spleen 2D-SWE were also compared to LB in 63 individuals with AIH. Finally, we evaluated these tools in 220 patients with AIH and during 18 months follow-up.
RESULTS: Liver 2D-SWE correlated with surrogate markers of active hepatitis (ALT and IgG, both P < .001) but there was no link between spleen 2D-SWE and ALT. Liver 2D-SWE, but not spleen 2D-SWE, was associated with histopathological inflammatory score (P < .01). When compared to LB, the optimal cut-offs for detecting cirrhosis by liver and spleen 2D-SWE were 16.1 kPa (AUROC 0.93) and 29.8 kPa (AUROC 0.95), respectively. In patients with active hepatitis the combined diagnostic approach including liver and spleen 2D-SWE had significantly better AUROC for detecting cirrhosis than liver 2D-SWE alone.
CONCLUSIONS: Liver and spleen 2D-SWE are reliable complementary methods for the diagnosis of advanced fibrosis in AIH. Spleen 2D-SWE seems to be less biased by inflammation and could facilitate fibrosis assessment in therapy-naïve patients or in the presence of active hepatitis.