Prospective and retrospective analysis shows correlation between portal pressure gradient and liver elastography in chronic liver disease patients, indicating effective risk stratification.
Risk stratification in liver disease includes liver elastography (LE) and portal pressure gradient (PPG) measurement. We examined the efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-liver biopsy (EUS-LB) and the correlation between EUS-PPG and EUS-LE in patients with liver disease. This is a prospective and retrospective, single-center study. Data from patients who underwent concomitant EUS-LE, EUS-PPG, and EUS-LB were analyzed. Histologically, significant fibrosis (SF) was considered F2-F4, non-significant fibrosis (NSF) as F0-F1, advanced fibrosis (AF) as F3-F4, and non-advanced fibrosis (NAF) as F0-F2. In total, 25 patients underwent EUS-PPG measurement; 60% were male (mean age, 60 years). EUS-LE and EUS-LB were performed in 88% and 96% of patients, respectively (the technical success rate was 100%). The mean number of portal tracts was 14.3. Histological diagnosis was achieved in all patients; 67% had SF. The mean EUS-LE was 24.1 kPa, and the mean PPG was 4.6 mmHg. Portal hypertension (PH; PPG >5 mmHg) and clinically significant PH (PPG >10 mmHg) were found in 44% and 12%, respectively. Patients with SF had a higher mean PPG (5.9 vs 2.8 mmHg; p = 0.003) and mean shear wave measurement (SWM; 30.0 vs 15.6 kPa; p = 0.02) compared to the NSF group. Patients with AF had a higher mean PPG (6.0 vs 3.4 mmHg; p = 0.01) and mean SWM (32.0 vs 18.8 kPa; p = 0.04) compared to the NAF group. There were no significant adverse events. Concomitant EUS-LB and PPG is safe. EUS-PPG and EUS-LE correlate with the degree of fibrosis on histology. Larger studies are needed to optimize their values in clinical practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yousaf et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: