Liver international : official journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver · 2026
Liver and Spleen Stiffness as Non-Invasive Tools Assessing Liver Congestion in Patients With Budd-Chiari Syndrome.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Fodor Andreea, Thompson Marcos A, Nicoara-Farcau Oana, Belmonte Ernesto, Garcia-Criado Ángeles, Darnell Anna, Pérez-Campuzano Valeria, Vizcarra Pamela, Requejo Isabel, Falga Ángeles, Veléz Marina, Fernandez Irene, Sueiras Adriana, Torres Sonia, Gazda Jakub, Baiges Anna, Shalaby Sarah, Ojeda Asunción, Martin Diego San, Procopet Bogdan, Hernández-Gea Virginia, Turon Fanny, García-Pagan Juan Carlos
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Assessing liver congestion and portal hypertension (PHT) in Budd-Chiari syndrome (BCS) remains challenging. We evaluated liver and spleen stiffness measurements (LSM, SSM) obtained by transient elastography as non-invasive tools for identifying clinically meaningful liver congestion in BCS.
METHODS: This retrospective study included consecutive patients with BCS followed at our unit. At each visit, patients were classified as having a controlled or uncontrolled clinical status based on clinical, biochemical, imaging and/or hemodynamic data, by absence or presence of clinically significant PHT. LSM and SSM were independently obtained at all visits and diagnostic performance for classifying clinical status was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis.
RESULTS: Sixty-six patients were included with a median follow-up of 65.5 months (range:2-182): 34 had persistently controlled status, 11 persistently uncontrolled, 14 initially uncontrolled improved to sustained controlled status and 7 showed fluctuating status. Two-hundred eighty-nine LSM were obtained during periods of controlled clinical status (median:15.1 kPa, IQR:10.9-19.9) and 203 during uncontrolled status (median: 41.1 kPa, IQR: 34.8-64.5). LSM discriminated controlled from uncontrolled status (AUC 0.985). LSM cut-off of 25 kPa yielded 97.5% sensitivity, 92.5% specificity, 97.6% negative predictive value and 90% positive predictive value. SSM showed good discrimination (AUC 0.854), with values ≤ 30 kPa ruling out and > 40 kPa ruling in uncontrolled status, but accuracy was inferior to LSM. LSM values rapidly decreased following liver congestion resolution after interventional procedures.
CONCLUSIONS: In BCS, LSM shows excellent concordance with clinical status and periodic assessment may facilitate clinical management. SSM provides complementary information but does not outperform LSM.
METHODS: This retrospective study included consecutive patients with BCS followed at our unit. At each visit, patients were classified as having a controlled or uncontrolled clinical status based on clinical, biochemical, imaging and/or hemodynamic data, by absence or presence of clinically significant PHT. LSM and SSM were independently obtained at all visits and diagnostic performance for classifying clinical status was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis.
RESULTS: Sixty-six patients were included with a median follow-up of 65.5 months (range:2-182): 34 had persistently controlled status, 11 persistently uncontrolled, 14 initially uncontrolled improved to sustained controlled status and 7 showed fluctuating status. Two-hundred eighty-nine LSM were obtained during periods of controlled clinical status (median:15.1 kPa, IQR:10.9-19.9) and 203 during uncontrolled status (median: 41.1 kPa, IQR: 34.8-64.5). LSM discriminated controlled from uncontrolled status (AUC 0.985). LSM cut-off of 25 kPa yielded 97.5% sensitivity, 92.5% specificity, 97.6% negative predictive value and 90% positive predictive value. SSM showed good discrimination (AUC 0.854), with values ≤ 30 kPa ruling out and > 40 kPa ruling in uncontrolled status, but accuracy was inferior to LSM. LSM values rapidly decreased following liver congestion resolution after interventional procedures.
CONCLUSIONS: In BCS, LSM shows excellent concordance with clinical status and periodic assessment may facilitate clinical management. SSM provides complementary information but does not outperform LSM.