• Home
  • Browse
    • Current Issue
    • By Issue
    • By Author
    • By Subject
    • Author Index
    • Keyword Index
  • Journal Info
    • About Journal
    • Aims and Scope
    • Editorial Board
    • Publication Ethics
    • Indexing and Abstracting
    • Peer Review Process
  • Guide for Authors
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Reviewers
  • Contact Us
 
  • Login
  • Register
Home Articles List Article Information
  • Save Records
  • |
  • Printable Version
  • |
  • Recommend
  • |
  • How to cite Export to
    RIS EndNote BibTeX APA MLA Harvard Vancouver
  • |
  • Share Share
    CiteULike Mendeley Facebook Google LinkedIn Twitter
Afro-Egyptian Journal of Infectious and Endemic Diseases
arrow Articles in Press
arrow Current Issue
Journal Archive
Volume Volume 12 (2022)
Volume Volume 11 (2021)
Issue Issue 4
Issue Issue 3
Issue Issue 2
Issue Issue 1
Volume Volume 10 (2020)
Volume Volume 9 (2019)
Volume Volume 8 (2018)
Volume Volume 7 (2017)
Volume Volume 6 (2016)
Volume Volume 5 (2015)
Volume Volume 4 (2014)
Volume Volume 3 (2013)
Volume Volume 2 (2012)
Volume Volume 1 (2011)
Elwan, N., Hemisa, M., Soliman, H., Elhendawy, M., Soliman, S., Hawash, N., Badawi, R. (2021). Doppler Ultrasound and Fibroscan Parameters Versus Liver Biopsy ‎in Evaluation of Hepatic Fibrosis in Egyptian Patients with Chronic ‎Hepatitis C‎. Afro-Egyptian Journal of Infectious and Endemic Diseases, 11(2), 186-198. doi: 10.21608/aeji.2021.55780.1127
Nadia Elwan; Manal Hemisa; Hanan Soliman; Mohammed Elhendawy; Shimaa Soliman; Nehad Hawash; Rehab Badawi. "Doppler Ultrasound and Fibroscan Parameters Versus Liver Biopsy ‎in Evaluation of Hepatic Fibrosis in Egyptian Patients with Chronic ‎Hepatitis C‎". Afro-Egyptian Journal of Infectious and Endemic Diseases, 11, 2, 2021, 186-198. doi: 10.21608/aeji.2021.55780.1127
Elwan, N., Hemisa, M., Soliman, H., Elhendawy, M., Soliman, S., Hawash, N., Badawi, R. (2021). 'Doppler Ultrasound and Fibroscan Parameters Versus Liver Biopsy ‎in Evaluation of Hepatic Fibrosis in Egyptian Patients with Chronic ‎Hepatitis C‎', Afro-Egyptian Journal of Infectious and Endemic Diseases, 11(2), pp. 186-198. doi: 10.21608/aeji.2021.55780.1127
Elwan, N., Hemisa, M., Soliman, H., Elhendawy, M., Soliman, S., Hawash, N., Badawi, R. Doppler Ultrasound and Fibroscan Parameters Versus Liver Biopsy ‎in Evaluation of Hepatic Fibrosis in Egyptian Patients with Chronic ‎Hepatitis C‎. Afro-Egyptian Journal of Infectious and Endemic Diseases, 2021; 11(2): 186-198. doi: 10.21608/aeji.2021.55780.1127

Doppler Ultrasound and Fibroscan Parameters Versus Liver Biopsy ‎in Evaluation of Hepatic Fibrosis in Egyptian Patients with Chronic ‎Hepatitis C‎

Article 12, Volume 11, Issue 2, June 2021, Page 186-198  XML PDF (735.95 K)
Document Type: Original Article
DOI: 10.21608/aeji.2021.55780.1127
Authors
Nadia Elwan1; Manal Hemisa2; Hanan Solimanorcid 1; Mohammed Elhendawy1; Shimaa Soliman3; Nehad Hawash1; Rehab Badawi email 3
1Department of Tropical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University, Tanta, ‎Egypt‎.‎
2Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt‎.‎
3Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Menoufia ‎University Faculty of Medicine, Menoufia, Egypt ‎.‎
Abstract
Background and study aim: Liver biopsy is the gold standard method to assess hepatic ‎inflammation and fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C infection (HCV). The ‎non-invasive assessment of liver fibrosis is the key target that has ‎inspired many new methods because of the limitations of liver biopsy. ‎The aim of the work was to improve the efficiency of non-invasive liver ‎fibrosis assessment in Egyptian patients with chronic hepatitis C by ‎comparing Doppler ultrasound (US) of hepatic blood flow and ‎fibroscan with liver biopsy‎.
Patients and Method: ‎ In this retrospective analysis, 78 patients with HCV had already ‎undergone liver biopsies as part of work panel prior to HCV treatment. ‎Fibroscan examination, abdominal ultrasonography and Doppler ‎ultrasound were done to the patients by experienced operators‎‎.‎
Results: There was a strong positive‏ ‏correlation between the degree of liver ‎fibrosis by fibroscan and the degree of inflammation in the ‎histopathological analysis. Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) ‎curve analysis revealed that fibroscan failed to detect FII fibrosis. ‎However, fibroscan was more accurate in detecting FIII ‎fibrosis.The Doppler ultrasound parameter ROC curve analysis, ‎the portal vein blood flow volume  (PVBFV) was shown to be ‎more accurate  in  detecting  lower  grades  of  fibrosis  than  ‎higher‎.
Conclusion: For detection higher degrees of fibrosis, Fibroscan has a strong match ‎with liver biopsy; however, Doppler US is more sensitive in detecting ‎lower grades of fibrosis in patients infected with HCV‎ ‎‎‎.
Keywords
fibroscan; hepatitis C; Doppler
Main Subjects
Hepatology
Supplementary Files
download figure 1.pdf
download figure 2.pdf
download figure 3.pdf
download figure 4.pdf
download figure 5.pdf
download table 1.pdf
download table 2.pdf
download table 3.pdf
download table 4.pdf
Full Text

INTRODUCTION

Egypt has the highest incidence of hepatitis C (HCV) infection ‎worldwide with major public and economic health burden [1]. With ‎persistent liver damage; fibrosis can progress to cirrhosis in up to 15% to ‎‎20% of cases within 20 years [2]. An estimation of fibrosis progression ‎is critical for assessing the outcome of HCV infection. The gold standard ‎for assessing the grade of liver fibrosis is liver biopsy, which provides ‎diagnostic information not only on fibrosis but also on many other ‎processes of liver damage, such as necrosis, inflammation, steatosis, ‎copper or iron hepatic deposits [3]. Because of its complications, such as ‎bleeding or pain, sampling error can occur in up to 25% of cases with ‎biopsy perception inter- and intra-observer variability [4] and its ‎limitation in distinguishing between stages F1 and F2 of fibrosis [5] and, ‎in order to assess the severity of liver fibrosis, non-invasive methods ‎have been developed [6]. The non-invasive tools available are either ‎‎"biological" methods based on serum fibrosis biomarker levels or‎ ‎‎"physical" methods based on the measurement of liver stiffness using ‎transient elastography [7]‎.‎

Ultrasound-based elastography has led to a breakthrough in the ‎assessment of fibrosis by different methods: one-dimensional ultrasound ‎elastography-transient elastography (TE); or two-dimensional ultrasound ‎‎(or B-mode) using conventional ultrasound imaging-acoustic radiation ‎force (ARFI) imaging or point shear wave elastography (pSWE), real-‎time 2D shear wave elastography (2D-SWE) and real-time elastography ‎‎(RTE) [8]. ‎

The first ultrasound-based elastography for the diagnosis and ‎staging of liver fibrosis [9] is transient elastography (Fibroscan®, ‎Echosens, Paris). By calculation of low- frequency elastic shear wave ‎velocity distributed through the liver, TE uses a mono-dimensional ‎ultrasound to estimate liver stiffness. TE can be accomplished in brief ‎periods and has outstanding (typically less than 5 minutes) intra- and ‎inter- observer variability [10]. ‎

Ultrasound is the screening tool for initial assessment of the liver. With ‎the appearance of Doppler ultrasound carried non-invasive means to ‎evaluate secondary changes of blood circulation to chronic liver disease.  ‎It could detect the decrease of the portal vein flow velocity and caliber ‎increases, both indicative of portal hypertension [12]. Through the ‎comparison of Doppler ultrasounds of hepatic blood flow and fibroscan ‎with liver biopsy, we aimed to enhance the non-invasive assessment of ‎liver fibrosis in Egyptian patients with chronic hepatitis C. ‎

METHODS

This was a retrospective comparative observational analysis, with a ‎purposive convenience nonrandomized sample. The informed consent ‎form authorizing the collection of this data was signed by all patients. ‎‎250 medical records were reviewed and 78 patients were enrolled with ‎chronic HCV genotype 4 infection. The inclusion criterion included ‎chronic HCV- infected patients aged 18 years or older, male or female, ‎who were assessed for treatment (pegylated interferon and ribavirin) ‎under the national therapeutic regimen. ‎

Exclusion criteria: ‎

‎1-    Any medical history of compensated or decompensated congestive ‎heart failure to prevent influence of retrograde hepatic blood flow caused ‎by cardiac reflux  ‎

‎2-    History of decompensated liver disease ‎

‎3-    Post liver transplantation (to prevent anastomosis affecting blood flow ‎measurement) ‎

‎4-    Pregnancy ‎

‎5-    Age less than 18 years ‎

‎6-    Hepatitis B virus co-infected patients ‎

We used the free sample size calculator for cohort study at ‎‎(http://www.openepi.com/ SampleSize/SSCohort.htm) to calculate the ‎sample size for this study. At test power of 0.8 and confidence interval ‎of 95%, sample size was assumed to be 74 patients

‎Liver biopsy specimens were obtained under complete a septic ‎procedures to retrieve 15mm core or at least 15 portal tracts.The ‎specimen was processed and stained with hematoxline and eosine.  ‎Fibrosis was tagedona 0ñ 4scale:F0, no fibrosis; F1, portal fibrosis ‎without septa; F2, portal fibrosis and few septa; F3, numerous septa ‎without cirrhosis; and F4, cirrhosis according to METAVIR scoring ‎system [11].‎

Liver biopsies were taken from 78 HCV- infected Egyptian patients as a ‎part of the work-up before HCV treatment. Fibroscan analysis, ‎abdominal ultrasonography, and Doppler ultrasound were performed by ‎a qualified operator who has no data of the patient's clinical history, ‎biochemical examination, or histo pathological results. ‎

All records of the patients are documented in the hospital inpatient and ‎outpatient clinics in the Tropical Medicine Department of Tanta ‎University Hospital, Tanta, Egypt‏.‏‎ ‎

All patients were exposed to ‎

‎-    History taking,  complete clinical examination, laboratory tests ‎including the full blood analysis, blood urea , serum creatinine  the liver ‎function tests (liver enzymes, albumin and bilirubin), prothrombin time, ‎activity, and APRI score were calculated in each patient, and patients ‎were then exposed to: ‎

‎-    Abdominal ultrasonography.‎

‎-    Transient Elastography (Fibroscan): The hepatic stiffness ‎measurements were conducted by skilled operators following the ‎manufacturer's recommendations, using the 502M fibroscan (echosens-‎France) probe. It was performed with the patient in supine posture and ‎totally abducted by the right arm from the intercostal transthoracic ‎window on the right liver lobe. ‎

The interquartile range (IQR) was considered accurate with a score of ‎less than 30 % and a success rate of not less than 70 %. The median ‎value was known to be an indication of the elastic state of the liver.  The ‎median value was determined automatically by the software, and the ‎results were expressed in Kilopascals (kPa). All measurements were ‎done with the FibroScan (M) probe after a fasting period of 6 hours. ‎The elastogram score obtained by the device is interpreted through ‎special software to identify the corresponding fibrosis stage in the ‎Metavir score.‎

‎-  Doppler ultrasound was done by using Toshiba Nemio XG apparatus ‎with a convex probe 3.5 MHz to assess:‎

a) ‎        the diameter of the portal vein and the volume of the portal vein ‎blood flow

b) ‎ ‎ the Hepatic venous resistance index (HVRI) for the right hepatic ‎vein

c) ‎ The Hepatic artery resistance index (HARI)‎

d) ‎ The Hepatic artery pulsatility index  (HAPI) ‎

e) ‎ The Splenic artery resistance index  (SARI)‎

The normal diameter of portal vein is highly variable but does not ‎exceed 16mm in a resting state on quiet respiration [43]. Normal hepatic ‎artery RI was reported by McNaughton and Abu-Yousef, to be 0.55–‎‎0.7 [44], while normal hepatic pulsatility index was reported by ‎Schneider et al, to be 0.92±0.1 [45]. The normal value of splenic artery ‎resistive index (SARI) was reported by Loanitescu to be 0.51 +/- ‎‎0.05 [46]. ‎

Statistical analysis:

The data was analyzed using version 2 of Sigma ‎Stat. Quantitative data are presented as mean and SD while qualitative ‎data are expressed as number and percent. Non-normally distributed data ‎are expressed as range (min-max) and median.‎

Difference among groups was performed using independent-sample ‎student t-test between groups when normally distributed or ‎ManneWhitney U test if not normally distributed.‎

The Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) curves were developed to ‎assess the accuracy of the diagnosis prediction of fibrosis using version ‎‎13.0 of the Social Sciences Statistical Package (SPSS) (IBM Corp, ‎Armonk, NY, USA). The areas of individual tests with 95% confidence ‎intervals under ROC curves (AUCs) were calculated and compared. The ‎coefficient of Correlation was measured by Spearman’s correlation. The ‎findings were found statistically significant when p

RESULTS

 This retrospective research was conducted on 78 HCV patients with a ‎mean age of 43.17 ± 10.77 years and 37 (47.4%) males. There was no ‎statistical difference in (AST to Platelet Ratio Index) APRI score among ‎patients categorized according to fibrosis degree in liver biopsy (P> ‎‎0.05).‎

Sixty patients had abnormal findings in ultrasound; 20 patients had ‎bright liver, 12 patients had periportal fibrosis, and 28 had ultrasonic ‎findings of liver cirrhosis as coarse echo pattern, irregular outlines, ‎enlarged caudate lobe and shrunken liver in some patients. Regarding ‎splenic examination 16 patients had splenomegaly. The kidney ‎examination in all patients showed normal size and good differentiation ‎between cortex and medulla except for one patient who had grade one ‎nephropathy.‎

According to fibrosis and activity detected by liver biopsy:‎

‎•‎    ‎ According to fibrosis degree according to METAVIR scoring ‎system[11]: 57 patients with mild fibrosis (F1 and F2) and 21 patients ‎with significant fibrosis (F3).‎

‎•‎    According to activity degree: 35 patients with mild activity (A1) ‎and 43 patients who showed moderate to severe activity (A2-A3) ‎

‎In order to evaluate the fibroscan results (figure 1):‎

There was a statistically significant difference in fibroscan results with ‎higher scores detected in higher fibrosis P

‎The analysis of Doppler ultrasonic parameters of the liver:‎

The normal diameter of portal vein is highly variable but does not ‎exceed 16mm in a resting state on quiet respiration [43].‎

There  was  a statistically  significant  decrease  in portal vein flow ‎volume (P<0.001) in  moderate fibrosis  in comparison to mild fibrosis ‎also, Portal  vein  flow  volume  was decreased significantly in the  ‎patients  when compared to the average documented values P <0.001, ‎Also   a  significant negative  correlation  between  fibrosis  degree  in  ‎liver  biopsy  and portal  vein  flow  volume was found  (r= - 0.55 ,  p ‎‎<0.001). No statistical differences in splenic artery resistance index ‎‎(SARI) , hepatic  artery  resistance  index  (HARI), and hepatic artery ‎pulsatility index (HAPI)  (P> 0.05) between the two groups, however, ‎in our patients ,HARI , HAPI , and SARI were significantly higher ‎compared to the average documented values (p=0.03,

As regards ROC  curve  of  portal  vein  blood  flow  volume  for  the ‎detection  of  fibrosis  degree  in  liver biopsy; For F2,  AUC was 0.645 ‎‎(95% CI = 0.424-0.866). At a cut-off point ≤ 0.443  L/min, the portal ‎vein  blood  flow  volume  had  sensitivity  of  76.9%  and  specificity  ‎of  60%  in  detecting  F2  hepatic fibrosis in liver biopsy and For F3, it ‎was not an accurate method (AUC = 0.201, 95% CI=0.61-0.340) ‎figure 2.‎

DISCUSSION

In order to improve the efficacy of noninvasive evaluation of  liver ‎fibrosis , we compared Doppler ultrasound of hepatic blood flow and ‎fibroscan: with liver biopsy in In Egyptian chronic hepatitis C patients‏.‏‎ ‎In all of the patients who were examined, a statistically significant ‎positive correlation was observed between ultrasound findings and ‎fibrosis score, liver biopsy, and fibroscan results as changes in liver echo ‎pattern and texture were accompanied with increased estimated fibrosis ‎levels in liver biopsy and fibroscan. This was similar to that obtained by ‎Nishiura et al. (2005) who found that the increase of the texture of the ‎liver parenchymal obtained by ultrasound has a statistically significant ‎correlation with the degree of liver fibrosis [17]. ‎

Our results were also supported by the results of Abd El Dayem et al, ‎‎(2013) who showed the diagnosis of hepatic fibrosis, by ‎ultrasonography had 87.5% sensitivity, 77.5 % specificity, and 84.0 % ‎accuracy, mainly significant fibrosis (F2-4). But, they concluded that ‎ultrasound imaging cannot identify or precisely diagnose fibrosis in the ‎absence of cirrhosis stigma, like shrunken liver and ascites [18]. It  was  ‎also  in  agreement  with Davoudi et al, 2015 who found a  ‎significant   positive  correlation  between  total their  gray-scale score  ‎and  liver  fibrosis.  They concluded that the liver parenchyma ‎echogenicity may be enough and simple for use in clinical practice to ‎detect fibrosis stage [19] Abd El Maksoud et al. (2015) have also, ‎suggested that echo texture is significantly correlated with the level of ‎fibrosis [20]. Choong et al. (2012), concluded that routine clinical ‎ultrasound is not successful for liver fibrosis staging, giving treatment ‎options , or determining the prognosis of chronic hepatitis secondary to ‎chronic liver disease. They observed, however, that ultrasound is still ‎beneficial for cirrhosis detection [21].‎

Fibroscan results revealed a strong positive association with the ‎grade of fibrosis and activity index in histopathological analysis. ‎Fibroscan was seemed to be more effective for F3 fibrosis diagnosis. To ‎diagnose F3 fibrosis, we registered a 7.95 kPa fibroscan cut-off value. ‎

Similar findings were obtained by several authors reporting ‎distinct but nearby cutoff values such as Castéra et al, (2005) who ‎reported a cutoff value of 9.5 for fibrosis prediction   ≥ F3 with ‎specificity 91% and sensitivity 73% [22]. In addition,  Ziol et al. ‎‎(2005) who  stated   a cutoff   value  of  9.6  for  prediction  of  fibrosis  ‎‎≥ F3  with specificity 85% and sensitivity  of 86% [23]. Arena  et  al. ‎(2008)  who put cut off value of  ≥ 10.8 for prediction of  fibrosis  ≥ F3 ‎with specificity 94% and sensitivity 91% [24], This  was  similar  to  the  ‎results  of  Fahmy  and  Badran, (2011)  who concluded that:  With ‎AUCs 0.92 and 0.95, TE is the most accurate tool for predicting severe ‎fibrosis and cirrhosis and finding that with TE at 7 kPa, 86% were ‎correctly classified for the prediction of significant hepatic fibrosis [25]. ‎

Similar to our results, Lutz et al. (2012) ROC analysis showed that in ‎lower fibrosis stages Fibroscan lacks accuracy; and that there was a ‎significant correlation between fibrosis degree detected by fibroscan and ‎inflammation in the histopathological analysis [26]. The positive ‎correlation between liver biopsy and the fibroscan score was also, ‎concluded by Abd El Maksoud et al. (2015), with  moderate  ‎agreement  (matching)  between liver  biopsy  and  fibroscan,  the  ‎lowest  matching  was  in  F0  and  the highest was in F3 [20]. This was ‎in line with El-Saadany S et al. 2016, who studied fibrosan and biopsy ‎results in 348 CHC patients and found that fibroscan data in moderate ‎fibrosis (p < 0.001) were positively correlated with biopsy, but not mild ‎and no fibrosis (p=0.12) and concluded that fibroscan was correlated ‎with fibrosis degree in liver biopsy and could be applied as a ‎noninvasive tool for diagnosis moderate (F2– F3), but not mild (F1) ‎fibrosis [27].‎

We tested Doppler US parameters as an indirect method for ‎grading of hepatic fibrosis. All  our patients had continuous  ‎hepatopetal blood flow, with a significant negative correlation  ‎between PVBF and fibrosis degree in liver biopsy and fibroscan ‎score. These results may be  attributed to the increased of hepatic ‎parenchymal  resistance that might be caused by fibrosis [28].‎

In 2002, Vyas et al. analyzed PVBF and PVV and observed that PVBF ‎and PVV in cirrhotic patients were considerably lower than controls ‎‎[29]. These changes increase as  the liver disease gets rising, while Shi ‎et al. (2005) who has observed 38 cirrhosis patients (Child grades A to ‎C) and 20 controls showed that no variation in the diameter of the portal ‎vein is obtained  between controls and cirrhotic patients‏.‏

Portal flow for child C cirrhosis was significantly lower than for Child A ‎and Child B cirrhosis, but no variations of PVBF was found among ‎Child A and B cirrhosis patients and the controls [30].‎

On  the  other  hand Walsh et al. (1998)  reported that portal  vein flow  and  total  hepatic  flow  were  similar  in  chronic hepatitis  ‎C  and controls  (The indices of inflammation or degree of hepatic ‎fibrosis were not linked to the state of the liver ). These results may be ‎due to the use of old fashion and inaccurate apparatus [31]. While 36 ‎patients with chronic viral hepatitis,  30 patients without any signs of ‎liver disease as a control group, and 63 patients with cirrhosis with no ‎PVBF difference between three groups were observed by Haktanir et ‎al. (2005), the PVD increased significantly and the mean PVV ‎decreased significantly in cirrhosis compared with hepatitis and control ‎groups [32]. One of the limitations of our study is a few patients with ‎cirrhosis grade 4. The small sample size limits our ability to detect ‎significant fibrosis if any.  Also, the  discrepancy between  our  results  ‎and  the  results  obtained  from  studies that included cirrhotic groups ‎may be due to increased hepatic inflow and decreased  PVV mean  these ‎changes that accompany portal hypertension. ‎

ROC curve analysis showed that PVB was more accurate in ‎detecting lower grades of fibrosis than higher grades. ‎

Normal hepatic artery RI was reported by McNaughton and ‎Abu-Yousef, to be 0.55–0.7 [44], while normal hepatic pulsatility ‎index was reported by Schneider et al, to be 0.92±0.1[45].‎

There was a significant increase in mean values of HARI and ‎HAPI in our patients compared to the normally documented values of ‎HARI and HAPI in healthy subjects. These circulatory changes are ‎considered to be occurring in patients with chronic hepatic disease in ‎hepatic arteries are related to the architectural deterioration that occurs ‎within the liver with greater severity of the disease [33].‎

But there was no difference regarding HARI and HAPI between ‎the two studied groups who had been categorized according to degree of ‎fibrosis by liver biopsy, also there was no difference between HARI and ‎HAPI between the two studied groups who had been categorized ‎according to the degree of fibrosis by fibroscan, and there was no ‎correlation between HARI or HAPI and the degree of inflammation in ‎liver biopsy. ‎

Our Results were  similar to those found by Salvatore et al. ‎‎(2012)  who studied  100 patients who had a liver disease caused by ‎hepatitis C,  compared results of Doppler parameters with results of ‎fibroscan  for  detection  of the degree of liver stiffness  and they found ‎that in these patients HARI rises  progressively compared  to healthy ‎subjects.  They put a cut-off value of 0.64 for HARI  at which Patients ‎with LS values above 13 kPa with high sensitivity (84.4 %) and ‎moderate specificity may be identified (69.1%),  but finally, they ‎concluded that fibroscan  results  were  more  accurate  than Doppler ‎parameters despite the direct correlation between HARI and liver ‎stiffness [34].‎

Although Piscaglia et al. (2001) observed that HARI was higher in ‎patients with severe hepatic fibrosis because the hepatic artery resistance ‎indices seem to be influenced by inflammation and chronic repair that ‎determine hepatic fibrous deposition, and secondly by aging [35]. On ‎the other hand, Lutz et al (2012) observed that HARI did not display ‎any substantial variations in fibrosis scores F1-F3 but was significantly ‎higher in cirrhosis, although no statistically significant differences in ‎HAPI measurements in the various stages of fibrosis (F0-F4/cirrhosis) ‎was found [26]. In comparison, Lim et al. (2005) did not find an ‎association between HARI values and histological scores [36].‎

The normal value of splenic artery resistive index (SARI) was reported ‎by Loanitescu to be 0.51 +/- 0.05 [46]. ‎

A significant increase in the mean value of SARI measured among ‎all patients in our study was found compared to normally documented ‎values, this difference may be explained as the advance of hepatic ‎fibrosis contributes to increased portal resistance, which induces ‎increased resistance to splenic artery outflow[37].‎

But our results did not find any significant differences among the ‎studied groups and there was no correlation between SARI and fibrosis ‎score neither to liver biopsy nor fibroscan results.‎

Similar to our result Liu et al, (2007) documented that SARI and ‎SAPI were correlated with the degree of fibrosis [38].‎

Results in this work were different from that obtained by ‎Salvatore et al. (2012) who found that there was a direct correlation ‎between SARI and liver stiffness taking into consideration that the study ‎was restricted to the TE values for F ≥ ‏‎2. The SARI cutoff value of 0.56 ‎was used to detect patients with LS values >13 kPa with strong ‎sensitivity (81.3%) and moderate specificity (48.5%). However, they ‎concluded that despite the significant correlation between LS and ‎Doppler US parameters, they were not excellent in detecting liver ‎stiffness [34].‎

While Cançado et al. (2007) found that the results of SARI were ‎similar in patients with chronic hepatitis and healthy individuals, but it ‎was established that patients with cirrhosis had greater indices [39].‎

We also measured the hepatic vein resistance index of the right ‎hepatic vein (HVRI) and there was no significant difference between the ‎two studied groups and there was no correlation with fibrosis score in ‎liver biopsy or in fibroscan results (p > 0.05). as far we know, the only ‎study conducted with the estimation of HVRI by Lutz et al. (2012 ) ‎who studied 125 patients (with different grade of fibrosis from F0 to F4‎‎) the results showed that HVRI associated with the stage of fibrosis ‎showed the patients without fibrosis exhibited uppermost scores and no ‎significant difference between the different stages of fibrosis was noticed ‎and that HVRI could detect fibrosis of the F2 or higher stages, but it is ‎of limited value in detecting mild fibrosis and that it has superior ‎sensitivity and specificity than fibroscan and HVRI values were not ‎affected significantly by different stages of inflammation or steatosis. ‎This difference may be due to the difference in the study population as ‎they included patients with mixed causes of hepatic cirrhosis while in ‎our result we included only HCV- infected patients who were not ‎cirrhotic [26].‎

The limitation of the study: this was a retrospective study that ‎leads to losing of some records and data .so numbers of cases in our ‎study were less; and it was a single center study.‎

 

CONCLUSION

Fibroscan has a good matching with liver biopsy in the detection of ‎higher grades of fibrosis and it lacks accuracy in detecting lower grades ‎of fibrosis. Fibroscan results were affected by grade of inflammation in ‎liver biopsy which may cause overestimation of grade of fibrosis.  ‎However, Doppler US is more sensitive in detecting lower grades of ‎fibrosis than higher grades in HCV infected patients‎.

Funding:  None. ‎

Conflict of interest: none.‎

Ethical consideration ‎

Institutional ethical committee approval was obtained before the start of ‎the study. The study protocol conforms to the ethical guidelines of the ‎‎1975 Declaration of Helsinki as reflected in a prior approval by the ‎institution's human research committee.‎

References
  1. Guerra J, Garenne M, Mohamed MK, Fontanet A. HCV burden of infection in Egypt: results from a nationwide survey. J Viral Hepatitis 2012; 19: 560–567.
  2. Lauer G, Walker B. Hepatitis C virus infection. N Engl J Med 2002; 345 (1): 41 – 52.
  3. Sebastiani G, Alberti A. Noninvasive fibrosis biomarkers reduce but not substitute the need for liver biopsy. World J Gastroenterol 2006; 12(23): 3682-3694.
  4. Kleiner D, Brunt E, Van Natta M, Behling C, Contos M, Cummings O, et al. Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis Clinical Research Network. 2005. Design and validation of a histological scoring system for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatology 2005; 41: 1313–1321.
  5. Poynard T, Lenaour G, Vaillant JC, Capron F,  Munteanu M, Eyraud D, et al. Liver biopsy analysis has a low level of performance for diagnosis of intermediate stages of fibrosis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012; 10(6): 657-63.e7.
  6. Sporea I, Sirli R, Deleanu AE, Popescu A, Focsa M, Danila M, et al. S2084 Transient Elastography (FibroScanR) as Compared toReal-Time  Elastography  (Siemens)  in  Patients with  Chronic Hepatopathies. Gastroenterology 2009; 136(5): A-327.
  7. Castera L, Bedossa P. How to assess liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C: serum markers or transient elastography vs. liver biopsy? Liver Int 2011; 31 (1), 13-17.
  8. Thiele M, Detlefsen S, Sevelsted Møller L, Madsen BS, Fuglsang Hansen J, Fialla AD, et al. Transient and 2-dimensional shear-wave elastography provide comparable assessment of alcoholic liver fibrosis and cirrhosis. Gastroenterology 2015; 150: 123–133. 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.09.040
  9. Sandrin L, Fourquet B, Hasquenoph JM, Yon S, Fournier C, Mal F, et al. Transient elastography: a new noninvasive method for assessment of hepatic fibrosis. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 2003; 29: 1705–1713. 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.
  10. Boursier J, Konaté A, Gorea G, Reaud S, Quemener E, Oberti F, et al. Reproducibility of liver stiffness measurement by ultrasonographic elastometry. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol 2008; 6: 1263–1269. 10.
  11. Bedossa P. Intra-observer and inter-observer variations in liver biopsy interpretation in patients with chronic hepatitis C. The French METAVIR Cooperative Study Group. Hepatology 1994; 20:15-20.
  12. Piscaglia F, Donati G, Serra C, Muratori R, Solmi L, Gaiani S, et al. Value of splanchnic Doppler ultrasound in the diagnosis of portal hypertension. Ultrasound Med Biol 2001; 27 (7), 893–899.
  13. Brown H, Halliwell M, Qamar M, Read A, Evans J and Wells P.N. Measurement of normal portal venous blood flow by Doppler ultrasound. Gut 1989; 30 (4): 503-509.
  14. McNaughton D, Abu-Yousef M. Doppler US of the Liver Made Simple. RadioGraphics 2011; 31 (1): 161–188.
  15. Schneider A, Kalk J, Klein C. Hepatic arterial pulsatility index in cirrhosis: correlation with portal pressure. J Hepatol 1999; 30 (5): 876-881.
  16. Loanitescu S, Lliescu L, Harza M, Ismail G, Copaci L. Ultrasound of the spleen (Chapter 8). In EFSUMB Course Book Student  Edition (2013). Editors: J. Tuma, R. Badea, and C. F. Dietrich, P23.
  17. Nishiura T, Watanabe H, Ito M, Matsuoka Y, Yano K, Daikoku M, et al. Ultrasound evaluation of the fibrosis stage in chronic liver disease by the simultaneous use of low and high frequency probes. Br J Radiol 2005; 78 (927): 189–197
  18. Abd El Dayem W, Emam M, Shaheen N, Emara M, Darweish E and Abd El Wahab N. Can combinations of non-invasive parameters replace liver biopsy in the diagnosis of hepatic fibrosis in Egyptian patients with chronic hepatitis C. British Microbiology Research Journal 2013; 3(3): 259-271.
  19. Davoudi Y, Layegh P, Sima H, Tatari S, and Faghani R. Diagnostic Value of Conventional and Doppler Ultrasound Findings in Liver Fibrosis in Patients with Chronic Viral Hepatitis. Journal of Medical Ultrasound 2015; 23 (3): 123-128.
  20. Abd El Maksoud A, Taha M, El Kassas M, Mahdy R, Mohamed G, Samy H. Prospective comparison of transient elastography and liver biopsy for the assessment of fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C infection. The Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine 2015; 46 (2): 293–297.
  21. Choong C, Venkatesh S, Siew E. Accuracy of routine clinical ultrasound for staging of liver fibrosis. J Clin Imaging Sci 2012; 2(3): 58-64.
  22. Castéra L, Vergniol J, Foucher J, Le Bail B, Chanteloup E, Haaser M. Prospective comparison of transient elastography, Fibrotest, APRI, and liver biopsy for the assessment of fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C. Gastroenterology 2005; 128 (2): 343-350.
  23. Ziol M, Handra-Luca A, Kettaneh A, Christidis C, Mal F, Kazemi F. Noninvasive assessment of liver fibrosis by measurement of stiffness in patients with chronic hepatitis C. Hepatology 2005; 41 (1): 48-54.
  24. Arena U, Vizzutti F, Abraldes J, Corti G, Stasi C, Moscarella S. Reliability of transient elastography for the diagnosis of advanced fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C. Gut 2008; 57 (9): 1288–1293.
  25. Fahmy M, Badran H.  Comparison of transient elastography to Doppler indices in prediction of hepatitis C induced liver fibrosis and cirrhosis. The Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine 2011; 42(2): 111-117.
  26. Lutz H, Gassler N, Tischendorf F, Trautwein C, and Tischendorf J. Doppler ultrasound of hepatic blood flow for non-invasive evaluation of liver fibrosis compared with liver biopsy and transient elastography. Dig Dis Sci 2012; 57(8): 2222-2230.
  27. El Saadany S, Soliman H, Ziada DH, Hamisa M, Hefeda M, Selim A, et al. Fibroscan versus liver biopsy in the evaluation of response among  the  Egyptian  HCV  infected  patients  to treatment.  The Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine 2016; 47: 1–7.
  28. Iwao T, Toyonaga A, Oho K, Tayama C, Masumoto H, Sakai T, et al. Value of Doppler ultrasound parameters of portal vein and hepatic artery in the diagnosis of cirrhosis and portal hypertension. Am J Gastroenterol 1997; 92 (6): 1012–1017
  29. Vyas K, Gala B, Sawant P, Das H, Kulhalli P, Mahajan S. Assessment of portal hemodynamics by ultrasound color Doppler and laser Doppler velocimetry in liver cirrhosis. Indian J Gastroenterol 2002; 21 (5): 176-178.
  30. Shi B, Wang X, Mu Q, Wu T, Xu J. Value of portal hemodynamics and hypersplenism in cirrhosis staging. World J Gastroenterol 2005; 11 (5): 708-711.
  31. Walsh K, Leen E, MacSween R, Morris A. Hepatic blood flow changes in chronic hepatitis C measured by duplex Doppler color sonography: relationship to histological features. Dig Dis Sci 1998; 43(12): 2584-2590.
  32. Haktanir A, Cihan B, Celenk C, Cihan S. Value of Doppler Sonography in Assessing the Progression of Chronic Viral Hepatitis and in the Diagnosis and Grading of Cirrhosis. J Ultrasound Med 2005; 24 (3): 311–321.
  33. Piscaglia F, Gaiani S, Zironi G, Gramantieri L, Casali A, Siringo S, Serra C, et al. Intra- and extrahepatic arterial resistances in chronic hepatitis and liver cirrhosis. Ultrasound Med Biol 1997; 23 (5): 675–682.
  34. Salvatore V, Borghi A, Peri E, Colecchia A, Li Bassi S, Montrone L, et al. Relationship between hepatic haemodynamics assessed by Doppler ultrasound and liver stiffness. Digestive and Liver Disease 2012; 44 (2): 154–159.
  35. Piscaglia F, Gaiani S, Calderoni D, Donati G, Celli N, Gramantieri L, et al . Influence of liver fibrosis on hepatic artery Doppler resistance index in chronic hepatitis of viral origin. Scand J Gastroenterol 2001; 36 (6): 647-652.
  36. Lim A, Patel N, Eckersley R, Kuo Y, Goldin R, Thomas H, et al. Can Doppler sonography grade the severity of hepatitis C-related liver disease? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005; 184 (6): 1848-1853.
  37. Bolognesi M, Sacerdoti D, Merkel C, Gerunda G, Maffei-Faccioli A, Angeli P, et al. Splenic Doppler impedance indices: influence of different portal hemodynamic conditions. Hepatology 1996; 23 (5): 1035–1040.
  38. Liu C, Hsu S, Lin J, Hwang U, Liu C, Yang P, et al. Noninvasive Diagnosis of Hepatic Fibrosis in Patients with Chronic Hepatitis C by Splenic Doppler Impedance Index. Clinical Gasteroenterology and Hepatology 2007; 5(10): 1199-1206.
  39. Cançado D, Carvalho A, Resende C. Utilization of splenic impedance indices in the evaluation of portal hypertension. Radiol Bras 2007; 40 (3): 155–159
  40. Manning DS, Afdhal NH. Diagnosis and quantitation of fibrosis. Gastroenterology 2008; 134: 1670-81. [PubMed Abstract]
  41. Regev A, Berho M, Jeffers LJ, et al. Sampling error and intraobserver variation in liver biopsy in patients with chronic HCV infection. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 2614-8.
  42. Bravo AA, Sheth SG, Chopra S. Liver biopsy. N Engl J Med 2001; 344:495-500.
  43. Gorka TS, Gorka W. Doppler sonographic diagnosis of severe portal vein pulsatility in constrictive pericarditis: flow normalization after pericardiectomy. J Clin Ultrasound 1999; 27(2): 84–88.
  44. McNaughton DA, Abu-Yousef MM. Doppler US of the Liver Made Simple. RadioGraphics 2011; 31 (1): 161–188.
  45. Schneider AW, Kalk JF, Klein CP. Hepatic arterial pulsatility index in cirrhosis: correlation with portal pressure. J Hepatol 1999; 30 (5): 876-81.
  46. Loanitescu S, Lliescu L, Harza M, Ismail G, Copaci L. Ultrasound of the spleen. In EFSUMB Course Book Student Edition. Editors: J. Tuma, R. Badea, and C. F. Dietrich. Chapter 8, P23, 2013.
 

 

 

Statistics
Article View: 376
PDF Download: 250
Home | Glossary | News | Aims and Scope | Sitemap
Top Top

Journal Management System. Designed by NotionWave.