Why the study?
Invasive central venous pressure measurement carries potential complications and technical demands, prompting evaluation of non-invasive liver stiffness measurement as an alternative surrogate in heart failure.
Does non-invasive liver stiffness measurement accurately assess central venous pressure compared to invasive catheter measurement in patients with heart failure?
Does non-invasive liver stiffness measurement accurately assess central venous pressure compared to invasive catheter measurement in patients with heart failure?
Non-invasive liver stiffness measurement using vibration-controlled transient elastography correlates well with invasive central venous pressure and may serve as a non-invasive surrogate in heart failure patients.
May support LSM as non-invasive CVP surrogate in HF; leaves open prospective validation before clinical adoption.
AIMS: Central venous pressure (CVP) is an important variable in assessing heart failure (HF) patients. However, invasive CVP measurement using right heart catheterization is associated with potential complications, and accurate measurement requires careful attention to technique. In this multicentre pilot study, we aimed to evaluate whether non-invasively measured liver stiffness can be used to assess CVP in patients with HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients aged 18 to 85 years with a history of HF (or left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] ≤40%) who required central venous line placement with CVP measurement were enrolled in an open-label study. Patients underwent simultaneous invasive catheter CVP measurement and non-invasive liver stiffness measurement (LSM) using vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE). The primary endpoint was the agreement between CVP and LSM-derived CVP (-5.9 + 6.8 × ln[LSM]) in the supine position. Among the 38 patients who completed the study, 34 (89.5%) were male, the mean age was 63.8 years, and the median LVEF was 24.5%. CVP correlated with LSM-derived CVP (Spearman r = 0.53, p < 0.001). Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated a mean difference (measured CVP minus LSM-derived CVP) of 0.11 mmHg (95% confidence interval -1.31, 1.54). LSM identified clinically significant CVP elevation (>10 mmHg) with an area under the curve of 0.83. An LSM threshold >10 kPa yielded a sensitivity of 0.73 and a specificity of 0.78, correctly classifying CVP (>10 or ≤10 mmHg) in 76% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Liver stiffness measurement is a promising non-invasive surrogate for CVP in patients with HF. Future studies are warranted to validate these findings and to assess the role of LSM for the screening, diagnosis, monitoring, and prognostic stratification of patients with HF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Girerd et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: