Elkafoury, R., Kobtan, A., Soliman, H., Salah, R. (2025). Evaluation of Non-invasive Scores for Predicting Portal Hypertensive Gastropathy Severity in Egyptian Patients with Liver Cirrhosis. Afro-Egyptian Journal of Infectious and Endemic Diseases, 15(2), 148-158. doi: 10.21608/aeji.2025.331038.1422
Rania M Elkafoury; Abdelrahman A Kobtan; Hanan H Soliman; Raafat A Salah. "Evaluation of Non-invasive Scores for Predicting Portal Hypertensive Gastropathy Severity in Egyptian Patients with Liver Cirrhosis". Afro-Egyptian Journal of Infectious and Endemic Diseases, 15, 2, 2025, 148-158. doi: 10.21608/aeji.2025.331038.1422
Elkafoury, R., Kobtan, A., Soliman, H., Salah, R. (2025). 'Evaluation of Non-invasive Scores for Predicting Portal Hypertensive Gastropathy Severity in Egyptian Patients with Liver Cirrhosis', Afro-Egyptian Journal of Infectious and Endemic Diseases, 15(2), pp. 148-158. doi: 10.21608/aeji.2025.331038.1422
Elkafoury, R., Kobtan, A., Soliman, H., Salah, R. Evaluation of Non-invasive Scores for Predicting Portal Hypertensive Gastropathy Severity in Egyptian Patients with Liver Cirrhosis. Afro-Egyptian Journal of Infectious and Endemic Diseases, 2025; 15(2): 148-158. doi: 10.21608/aeji.2025.331038.1422
Evaluation of Non-invasive Scores for Predicting Portal Hypertensive Gastropathy Severity in Egyptian Patients with Liver Cirrhosis
Tropical Medicine and Infectious Diseases Department, Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University,Egypt.
Abstract
Background and study aim: Mucosal ectasia of the stomach in portal hypertension is recognized as portal hypertensive gastropathy (PHG). Liver stiffness measurement (LSM) recorded by transient elastography (Fibroscan) has a substantial association with portal hypertension and the anticipation of esophageal varices (EVs). We aimed to understand the contribution of LSM, liver stiffness-spleen size-to-platelet ratio score (LSPS), platelet count/spleen diameter ratio (PSR), and right lobe diameter/albumin ratio (RLAR) in predicting PHG occurrence and extent in cirrhotic patients. Patients and Methods: 192 cirrhotic patients were categorized into Group 1 (48 patients with PHG and EVs), Group 2 (48 patients with EVs), Group 3 (48 patients with PHG), and Group 4 (48 patients with neither PHG nor EVs as control). All patients underwent upper endoscopy, Ultrasonography, routine lab. and Fibroscan evaluation. Results: PSR correlated inversely while RLAR, LSM, and LSPS correlated directly with PHG presence and severity (P <0.001). PSR threshold of 3.11 predicted PHG with AUC 0.648, sensitivity 79.2%, specificity 39.6%, PPV 56.7%, and NPV 65.5%. LSM predicted PHG at a threshold of >18.35 kPa with an AUC of 0.622, sensitivity 76%, specificity 52.1%, PPV 61.3%, and NPV 68.5%. LSPS cut-off value of >2.12 predicted PHG with an AUC of 0.680, sensitivity 76%, specificity 53.1%, PPV 61.9%, and NPV 68.9%. Conclusion: LSM, LSPS, PSR, and RLAR are easy, non-invasive, inexpensive modalities predicting PHG existence and severity in cirrhotic patients.
Highlights
Transient elastography is a useful non-invasive tool for assessment of the presence and severity of portal hypertensive gastropathy (PHG).
Liver stiffness (LSM) and liver stiffness-spleen size-to-platelet ratio score (LSPS) correlate directly with PHG presence and severity.
Right lobe diameter/Albumin ratio (RLAR) correlates directly while Platelet count/spleen diameter ratio (PSR) correlates indirectly with PHG presence and severity.
Liver cirrhosis is the clinical outcome of numerous chronic hepatic disorders. Portal hypertension (PH), which is portal pressure greater than 10-12 mmHg, is a major consequence of cirrhosis. As a sequel of PH, portosystemic collaterals, esophageal varices (EVs), and portal hypertensive gastropathy (PHG) develop [1,2].
PHG is a pain-free state of ectasia of stomach mucosa and compromised mucosal defense in people with portal hypertension (PH) [3]. Endoscopically, PHG manifests as “snakeskin-like” gastric mucosa and primarily entails gastric corpus and fundus [4]. As per the Baveno II criteria, there are two levels of PHG: mild and severe. Red marks denote severe PHG, whereas mild PHG looks like a mosaic picture with a pale areola. Besides, gastric antral vascular ectasia (GAVE), where bands of erythematous mucosa are interrupted by healthy mucosa (watermelon stomach), almost always affects the antrum [5,6].
There is a wide diversity of reported PHG prevalence from 35% to 80% in cirrhotic patients. PHG is implicated in 2 to 12% of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), with severe PHG being responsible for about 95% of bleeding PHG; some cases can be potentially fatal. PHG also can present as chronic UGIB in 3 to 26% of cases, resulting in iron deficiency anemia. Nearly 12.5% of PHG hemorrhages result in death [6,7].Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is by far the best diagnostic modality of PHG.Endoscopy is an incursive modality with a financial and psychological burden on patients, hence the necessity for non-invasive diagnostic methods establishing optimum selection of EGD endoscopy[8].
Transient elastography (TE; Fibroscan) is a non-invading, ultrasound-based tool that evaluates liver stiffness measurement (LSM). TE offers strong sensitivity and specificity for fibrosis and cirrhosis, and it has gained popularity in recent years [9].
A good relationship between LSM and the existence of PH and EV has been proposed, implying the usefulness of LSM for predicting the occurrence of large EVs. Furthermore, the liver stiffness/ spleen size/ platelet ratio score (LSPS) was found to be a good predictor of EVs [10–12].Therefore, in this study, our goal was to anticipate PHG existence and severity non-invasively by measuring LSM and LSPS versus other noninvasive measures such as platelet count/spleen diameter ratio (PSR) and right lobe diameter/albumin ratio (RLAR) in patients with cirrhosis from Egypt.
METHODS
192 adult cirrhotic patients attending the endoscopy unit of the Tropical Medicine Department, at Tanta University Hospitals, participated in our cross-sectional investigation between June 2019 and June 2022. The study protocol received approval by the Tanta University Faculty of Medicine Research Ethics Committee in April 2019 (code 33090/04/19). Written consent had been taken from all participating individuals.
The sample size was determined using the study of Somboon P. and Hongthanakorn C. in 2015, who stated that LSM mean ± SD was 38.3 ± 18.8 and 30.27 ± 21.78 kPa in PHG sufferers and those without PHG, respectively. Considering an 80% power and a 2-sided significance threshold of 0.05. An estimated 192 cirrhotic patients (96 PHG patients and 96 non-PHG patients) made up the sample size [13].
Four groups of patients were generated: Group 1 (48 patients had both PHG and EVs), Group 2 (48 patients had EVs), Group 3 (48 patients had PHG), and Group 4 (48 patients had neither PHG nor EVs as a control).
The criteria of exclusion were the presence of severe ascites, Hepatocellular carcinoma, or a narrow intercostal space that disables TE examination, severe cardiopulmonary diseases, renal failure. Patients treated with non-selective beta-blockers which improved the PHG severity and progression. Patients having varices that had previously been eradicated. Pre-treatment with a portosystemic shunt. Splenectomy or the inability to measure spleen diameter.
A comprehensive history taking, clinical assessment, laboratory workup (complete blood count, liver functions panel, renal functions), Child-Pugh score, conventional ultrasound, upper endoscopy, and LSM using Fibroscan echosens 502 were done on all the patients.
LSM was performed in the right hepatic lobe by situating the Fibroscan probe on an intercostal space at the point where a transverse line from the xiphoid process crosses with the right mid-axillary line (a minimum of 1 cm under the liver capsule), while the patient is resting flat, completely abducting his/her right arm. A valid 10 measurements with a minimum of 60% success rate and ≤30% inter-quartile range (IQR) were necessary to obtain a valid LSM in kilopascals (kPa). The examination was performed initially using the M probe. Whenever the M probe was unable to obtain measurements, the XL probe was used [14].
EVs were classified using the Baveno classification for grading EVs into small, medium, and large. The Baveno II classification for severity of PHG was used to categorize PHG depending on the following categories: Mucosal pattern: mild findings are given a score of 1, and severe findings are given a score of 2. Red marks: isolated lesions receive a score of 1, while confluent red marks receive a score of 2. GAVE receives a score of 2 if present and 0 if absent. A total score of three or lower indicates mild PHG; a score of four or higher indicates severe PHG [5,15,16].
PSR was calculated by dividing the platelet count/(mm3) by the ultrasonic measured spleen diameter (mm). RLAR was calculated by dividing the ultrasonic measured right liver lobe diameter (cm) by the serum albumin level (gm/dl). LSPS was calculated using the formula = liver stiffness (kPa) × spleen diameter (cm)/platelet (/mm3) [17–19].
Statistics
IBM SPSS version 22 for Microsoft Windows (Armonk, NY) was utilized to analyze the data. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests with subsequent Tukey post hoc tests were utilized for mean comparisons. The Chi-square test was employed for categorical values. To find correlations among various variables, Spearman's rank correlation coefficient test was utilized. The area under the curve (AUC) was obtained using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. For PHG-related variables, the most discriminating "cut-offs" were selected using the highest Youden Index. Statistical significance was interpreted as P values < 0.05.
RESULTS
Of our 192 cirrhotic patients, 102 (53.1%) patients were males, while 90 (46.9%) were females. Our patients were 56.57 ± 8.38 years on average, and the four groups' variations were statistically non-significant in terms of age or sex. Regarding cirrhosis etiology, HCV came first with 175 (91.1%) of the patients, then Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), unidentified etiology, Wilson's disease, and HBV in 6 (3.1%), 6 (3.1%), 3 (1.6%), and 2 (1.04%) patients, respectively. (Table 1)
The clinical presence of mild ascites demonstrated a significant difference (P = 0.008), while jaundice and lower limb edema showed insignificant variations among the studied groups. Of our 192 patients, 132 (68.8%) fall into Child-Pugh class A, 52 (27.1%) in class B, and 8 (4.2%) in class C. The four groups differed significantly (P = 0.004). (Table 1)
Complete blood count showed that white blood cell counts in the four groups failed to vary significantly (P = 0.146). Group 2 had a considerably lower hemoglobin (Hb) level than Group 4 (P = 0.004). The platelet counts of groups 1, 2, and 3 were substantially reduced compared to those of group 4 (P < 0.001). (Table 1)
Serum bilirubin, ALT, and AST were insignificantly different amongst the groups (P > 0.05). Compared to group 4, serum albumin in the other 3 groups was noticeably reduced (P <0.001) and group 1 had significantly lower serum albumin than groups 2 and 3 (P =0.022 and P =0.023). In comparison to group 4, INR was substantially lower in groups 1 and 2 (P = 0.027 and P =0.003). (Table 1)
Between the studied groups, there were notable differences in serum creatinine and fasting blood sugar (P =0.005 and P =0.038). (Table 1)
Abdominal ultrasonic examination did not significantly vary between groups considering right lobe diameter while spleen diameter was considerably enlarged in group 1 than in group 4 (P =0.006). The sonographic presence of non-severe ascites was notably different amongst the studied groups (P =0.031). (Table 2)
In contrast to group 4, the PSR in the other 3 groups was significantly decreased (P <0.001). In comparison to group 4, RLAR was considerably higher in the other 3 groups (P <0.001). Also, in contrast to groups 2 and 3, RLAR in group 1 was considerably higher (P <0.001). (Table 2)
The Fibroscan findings demonstrated that the LSM median was significantly elevated in groups 1 and 2 than in groups 3 and group 4 (P <0.001). The controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) median demonstrated no discernable variances across the four groups (P =0.151). The LSPS was notably elevated in group 1 compared to groups 2, 3, and 4 and elevated in group 2 compared to group 4 (P <0.001). (Table 2)
The endoscopic findings demonstrated that 98 (50%) of our patients had EVs; 36 (37.5%) patients had small EVs, 37 (38.5%) patients had medium-sized varices, and 23 (24%) patients had large EVs. PHG was found in 96 (50%) patients; 66 (68.75%) patients experienced mild PHG, and 30 (31.25%) patients experienced severe PHG. (Table 2)
The Hb level, WBCs, and PHG presence and severity did not correlate significantly (P > 0.05). The platelet count was significantly inversely correlated with PHG existence and PHG severity represented by the PHG score (P <0.001) (Table 3). Insignificant correlations were detected between serum bilirubin, ALT, AST, or INR and PHG. Serum albumin demonstrated a significant indirect correlation with PHG presence and severity (P <0.001) (Table 3).
Child-Pugh class was directly associated with the existence of PHG (P =0.049). Ultrasonographic findings such as right liver lobe diameter, spleen diameter, and presence of mild ascites showed no significant correlations to PHG presence (P > 0.05). (Table 3)
PSR demonstrated a significant direct correlation with the existence and gravity of PHG (P <0.001) (Table 3). A cut-off level of 851 predicted the presence of PHG with AUC = 0.688, sensitivity 62.5%, specificity 70.8%, PPV 65.4%, and NPV 68.2%. (Table 4) (Figure 1)
A significant direct correlation between RLAR and the existence and severity of PHG was discovered (P <0.001) (Table 3). A cut-off level of > 3.11 had 79.2% sensitivity, 39.6% specificity, 56.7% PPV, 65.5% NPV, and an AUC of 0.648 for the prediction of PHG. (Table 4) (Figure 2)
LSM was directly associated with the existence (P =0.003) and severity (P <0.001) of PHG (Table 3). A cut-off level of > 18.35 kPa predicted PHG presence with an AUC of 0.622, sensitivity of 76%, specificity of 52.1%, PPV of 61.3%, and NPV of 68.5%. (Table 4) (Figure 3)
The CAP median demonstrated no significant association with PHG presence or severity (P > 0.05). LSPS demonstrated a significant direct association with the existence and extent of PHG (P <0.001) (Table 3). A cut-off level of > 2.12 predicted the presence of PHG with an AUC of 0.680, sensitivity of 76%, specificity of 53.1%, PPV of 61.9%, and NPV of 68.9%. (Table 4) (Figure 4)
Table (1). Patients baseline and laboratory characteristics
Group (n 48)
Group 2
(n 48)
Group 3
(n 48)
Group 4
(no 48)
P value
Age (y) Mean±SD.
56.19 ±8.1
58.65 ± 8
56.21 ± 6.2
55.25±10.5
0.229
Sex: male no. (%)
24 (50)
22 (45.8)
28 (58.3)
28 (58.3)
0.520
Cause n%
HCV
HBV
Wilson's
NAFLD
unknown
45 (93.75)
0
0
0
3 (6.25)
43 (89.6)
2 (4.2)
2 (4.2)
0
1 (2.1)
46 (95.8)
0
0
0
2 (4.2)
41 (85.4)
0
1 (2.1)
6 (12.5)
0
0.002*
Jaundice n (%)
5 (10.4)
7 (14.6)
6 (12.5)
0
0.068
Ascites n (%)
10 (20.8)
10 (20.8)
6 (12.5)
0
0.008*
LLedema n(%)
16 (33.3)
15 (31.25)
10 (20.8)
8 (16.7)
0.179
C. P. n%
A
B
C
24 (47.6)
21 (44.8)
3 (7.6)
30 (65)
16 (32)
2 (3)
36 (73.9)
9 (19.6)
3 (6.5)
42 (87.8)
6 (12.2)
0
0.004*
Hb (gm/dl): Mean±SD.
10.38 ± 2.2
9.74 ± 1.7
10.72 ± 2.1
11.13 ± 1.8
0.006*
P2= 0.004
WBCs×103 /(mm3) Mean±SD.
4.9 ± 2.4
4.7 ± 1.76
5.7 ± 2.7
5.3 ± 2.2
0.146
PLT× 103 /(mm3): Mean±SD.
106.3± 48.97
130.6± 49.2
124.5± 40.8
166.8± 46.3
<0.001*
P1<0.001, P2 0.001, P3<0.001
T. Bilirubin (mg/dl): Mean±SD.
1.42 ± 0.9
1.41 ± 1.15
1.27 ± 0.7
1.21 ± 0.6
0.588
AST (U/L): Mean±SD.
50.6± 22.9
45.5± 23.05
44.85± 21.7
43.6 ± 13.7
0.372
ALT (U/L): Mean±SD.
35.4±16.8
33.04± 18.7
34.06 ±12.4
33 ± 9.2
0.843
S. Albumin (gm/dl): Mean±SD.
3.08 ± 0.63
3.4 ± 0.54
3.4 ± 0.49
3.88 ± 0.49
<0.001*
P1<0.001, P2 <0.001, P3 <0.001, P40.022, P5 0.023
INR Mean± SD.
1.33 ± 0.29
1.39 ± 0.3
1.27 ± 0.31
1.17 ± 0.23
0.003*
P1 = 0.027, P2 =0.003
S. Cr(mg/dl)
Mean±SD.
0.82 ± 0.23
1.06 ± 0.62
1.02 ± 0.38
0.84 ± 0.11
0.005*
P2 0.04, P4 =0.02
FBS (mg/dl) Mean±SD.
142.2± 72.9
140.9±48.7
114.8± 28.7
125.02±55.9
0.038*
HCV: Hepatitis C virus, HBV: Hepatitis B virus, NAFLD: non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, Hb: hemoglobin, WBCs: white blood cells, AST: aspartate aminotransferase, ALT: alanine aminotransferase, INR: international normalized ratio. * Statistically significant at P <0.05, P1: p value for Group 1 and Group 4 comparison, P2: p value for Group 2 and Group 4 comparison, P3: p value for Group 3 and Group 4 comparison, P4: p value for Group 1 and Group 2, P5: p value for Group 1 and Group 3.
Table (2). Radiological, endoscopic findings and scores.
Group1
(no. = 48)
Group2
(no. =48)
Group3
(no. = 48)
Group4
(no. = 48)
P value
US: Mean±SD.
Liver (RL)(cm)
Spleen D (cm)
Ascites no. (%)
12.6 ± 1.46
16.24 ±2.38
12 (25)
12.4 ±1.12
16.1 ±2.47
12 (25)
12.1±1.21
15.7 ± 2.39
6 (12.5)
12.26 ±1.31
15.03 ±1.84
3 (6.25)
0.260
0.048*
0.031*
P1=0.006
PSR: Mean±SD.
679.6± 364.8
856.95± 403.04
826.3 ±331.8
1132.7± 346.05
<0.001*
P1<0.001, P2= 0.001, P3 <0.001
RLAR: Mean±SD.
4.24 ± 0.97
3.73 ± 0.65
3.64 ± 0.74
3.22 ± 0.6
<0.001*
P1< 0.001, P2 0.007, P3 0.036, P4 0.005, P5 0.001
LSM (kPa)
Mean ± SD.
29.51± 15.64
28.08 ± 14.3
21.44 ± 4.36
17.51 ± 4.33
<0.001*
P1 <0.001, P2 <0.001, P5 0.002, P6 0.019
CAP (dB/m)
Mean±SD.
206.75± 62.87
197.08± 75.69
195.02± 77.08
224.83 ± 65.35
0.151
LSPS Mean±SD.
5.66± 4.8
4.03± 2.64
3.18± 1.83
1.69± 0.61
<0.001*
P1 <0.001, P2 0.001, P4 0.03, P5 <0.001
EVs grading n%
Small
Medium
Large
15 (31.25)
19 (39.6)
14 (29.2)
21 (43.75)
18 (37.5)
9 (18.75)
0.347
PHG Score n(%)
Mild (score ≤ 3)
Severe(score≥ 4)
37 (77.1)
11 (22.9)
29 (60.4)
19 (39.6)
0.078
PSR: platelet count/spleen diameter ratio, RLAR: right liver lobe diameter/albumin ratio, LSM: liver stiffness measurement, CAP: controlled attenuation parameter, EVs: esophageal varices, PHG: portal hypertensive gastropathy, LSPS: liver stiffness-spleen size-to-platelet ratio score, * statistically significant at P <0.05, P1: p-value for Group 1 and Group 4 comparison, P2: p-value for Group 2 and Group 4 comparison, P3: p-value for Group 3 and Group 4 comparison, P4: p-value for Group 1 and Group 2 comparison, P5: p-value for Group 1 and Group 3 comparison, P6: p-value for Group 2 and Group 3 comparison.
Table (3). Correlations between the laboratory, radiologic, and endoscopic findings and PHG presence and severity
PHG presence
PHG Score (severity)
r
P value
r
P value
Hb (gm/dl)
0.038
0.602
-0.058
0.425
WBCs × 103 /(mm3)
0.032
0.655
-0.026
0.725
Platelets × 103 /(mm3)
-0.339
<0.001*
-0.356
<0.001*
T. Bilirubin (mg/dl)
0.075
0.304
0.092
0.206
AST (U/L)
0.056
0.442
0.131
0.069
ALT (U/L)
0.052
0.471
0.117
0.107
S. Albumin (gm/dl)
-0.326
<0.001*
-0.337
<0.001*
INR
0.09
0.213
0.124
0.086
Child class
0.142
0.049*
0.133
0.066
US
Liver (RL) (cm)
Spleen D (cm)
Ascites
-0.028
0.095
0.041
0.703
0.191
0.568
-0.033
0.111
0.084
0.65
0.125
0.249
PSR
-0.325
<0.001*
-0.34
<0.001*
RLAR
0.256
<0.001*
0.272
<0.001*
LSM median (kPa)
0.212
0.003*
0.263
<0.001*
CAP median (dB/m)
-0.057
0.435
-0.099
0.147
LSPS
0.312
<0.001*
0.343
<0.001*
PHG: portal hypertensive gastropathy, Hb: hemoglobin, WBCs: white blood cells, AST: aspartate aminotransferase, ALT: alanine aminotransferase, INR: international normalized ratio, PSR: platelet count/spleen diameter ratio, RLAR: right liver lobe diameter/albumin ratio, LSM: liver stiffness measurement, CAP: controlled attenuation parameter, LSPS: liver stiffness-spleen size-to-platelet ratio score, * statistically significant at P <0.05
Table (4). Cut-off values for detection of PHG presence
Cut off
value
AUC
P
value
Sensitivity
Specificity
PPV
NPV
Accuracy
PSR
851
0.688
<0.001*
62.5
70.8
65.4
68.2
66.67
RLAR
3.11
0.648
<0.001*
79.2
39.6
56.7
65.5
59.38
LSM (kPa)
18.35
0.622
0.003*
76
52.1
61.3
68.5
64.06
LSPS
2.12
0.680
<0.001*
76
53.1
61.9
68.9
64.58
PHG: portal hypertensive gastropathy, PSR: platelet count/spleen diameter ratio, RLAR: right liver lobe diameter/albumin ratio, LSPS: liver stiffness-spleen size-to-platelet ratio score, AUC: area under the curve, PPV: positive predictive value, NPV: negative predictive value, * statistically significant at P <0.05
DISCUSSION
Cirrhosis and portal hypertension frequently result in PHG. Several non-invasive laboratory and clinical parameters were studied for the anticipation of PHG severity. [11,17]
TE is a technique that measures liver stiffness as a proxy for liver fibrosis using ultrasonic shear waves. The Baveno VII consensus set the criteria of platelet count ≤150,000/mm3 and LSM ≥20 kPa to predict Evs' existence and the need for endoscopic variceal screening. [18]So we aimed to evaluate LSM, LSPS, PSR, and RLAR for the prediction of PHG.
According to our study, platelet count, serum albumin, INR, Child-Pugh class, spleen diameter, presence of non-severe ascites, PSR, RLAR, LSM, and LSPS were related to PHG presence and severity.
Patients with EVs &/PHG had significantly reduced platelet count than those without EVs or PHG. As portal hypertension-associated hypersplenism and reduced thrombopoietin release from the liver, leads to thrombocytopenia. Serum albumin level was substantially reduced in EVs &/PHG patients compared to patients without either condition. Serum albumin level and platelet count correlated inversely with PHG existence and severity. INR showed a significant difference among groups 1 and 2 versus group 4. In liver cirrhosis, the liver function is compromised, leading to reduced synthesis of albumin and prothrombin. [17, 19–21]
We found thattheChild-Pugh class positively correlated with PHG presence, which is consistent with Abbasi et al. (2018), Sungkar et al. (2018), and Wu et al. (2022), who contributed this association to the advancement of hepatic disease, and increasing portal pressure, resulting in abnormalities in gastric microcirculation, impairment of mucosal defense mechanisms, and mucosal injury. Also, the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system activation results in the advancement of liver fibrosis and portal hypertension. [20, 22, 23]
Patients having both EVs and PHG had significantly larger spleens compared to those with no EVs or PHG. Splenomegaly is linked to the increase in portal pressure and liver fibrosis. Spleen enlargement results in increasing the splenic blood flow, leading to more portal system congestion and elevation of portal pressure. [24]
PSR was notably lower in EVs &/PHG patients compared to patients with no EVs or PHG. PSR correlated inversely with the existence and gravity of PHG with a threshold of ≤ 851 for anticipation of PHG (AUC 0.688, sensitivity 62.5%, specificity 70.8%, PPV 65.4%, and NPV 68.2%). Mangone et al. (2012) found that a PSR cut-off level of
RLAR was substantially elevated in EVs &/PHG patients in contrast to the control group. RLAR correlated directly with the existence and gravity of PHG with a cut-off level of > 3.11 for foreseeing PHG existence (AUC 0.648, sensitivity of 97.2%, specificity of 39.6%, PPV of 56.7%, and NPV of 65.5%). Mandhwani et al. (2017) stated that an RLAR value of 4.422 had a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 28.72%, 70.59%, 84.38%, and 15.19%, respectively, for the detection of PHG. Amer et al. (2021) set a value of > 4 with an AUC of 0.874, sensitivity of 74%, specificity of 80%, PPV of 78.7%, and NPV of 75.5%. [11,17]
Groups 1 and 2 had a substantially higher LSM median than groups 3 and 4. Also, a direct correlation between the PHG presence and severity was detected. As portal hypertension, the presence and advancement of cirrhosis state, presence, size, and eradication of EVs affect the presence and severity of PHG. LSM is a useful predictor of portal hypertension as it strongly corresponds with values of HVPG up to 12 mm Hg and can foresee the likelihood of hepatic decompensation, HCC, and death. In our study, a threshold of > 18.35 kPa detected PHG existence with an AUC of 0.622, sensitivity of 76%, specificity of 52.1%, PPV of 61.3%, and NPV of 68.5%. [26–30]
LSPS is a score combining liver stiffness, spleen diameter, and platelet count to anticipate the existence of EVs and greater risk varices. Shibata et al. (2016) set an LSPS level of 1.1 for the detection of EVs in Japanese patients with an AUC of 0.821, sensitivity of 61.5%, specificity of 89%, PPV of 53.3%, and NPV of 91.9%. (34) JiaMei et al. (2018) used a value of >1.59 for the detection of EVs with an AUC of 0.994, sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 93.2%, PPV of 91.4%, and NPV of 100%. [12, 31–33]
In our study, we evaluated LSPS for the prediction of PHG. We found that LSPS was elevated in groups 1 and 2 more than in groups 3 and 4. LSPS was positively related to the existence and gravity of PHG. We found that a cut-off value of > 2.12 predicted PHG with an AUC of 0.680, sensitivity of 76%, specificity of 53.1%, PPV of 61.9%, and NPV of 68.9%.
The limitation of our study was the limited number of patients with isolated PHG. A similar study on a larger number of PHG patients may be helpful for the confirmation and generalization of our results.
CONCLUSION
PSR, RLAR, LSM, and LSPS are promising non-invasive predictors for the existence and severity of PHG in cirrhotic patients. It is advised to conduct extensive research to support these findings.
Ethical approval: Tanta University Faculty of Medicine Research Ethics Committee approved the study protocol in April 2019 (code 33090/04/19).
Conflict of Interest: The authors disclose that there was not any conflict of interest.
Funding Sources: This research was not supported by any funding.
Author contribution: We declare that all listed authors have made substantial contributions to all of the following three parts of the manuscript: Research design, acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; drafting the paper or revising it critically; and approving the submitted version. We also declare that no one who qualifies for authorship has been excluded from the list of authors.
References
Ginès P, Krag A, Abraldes JG, Solà E, Fabrellas N, Kamath PS. Liver cirrhosis. Lancet (London, England). 2021;398(10308):1359–76.
Sharma M, Singh S, Desai V, Shah VH, Kamath PS, Murad MH, et al. Comparison of Therapies for Primary Prevention of Esophageal Variceal Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis. Hepatology. 2019;69(4):1657–75.
Snyder P, Ali R, Poles M, Gross SA. Portal hypertensive gastropathy with a focus on management. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;9(9):1207–16.
Chung WJ i. Management of portal hypertensive gastropathy and other bleeding. Clin Mol Hepatol. 2014;20(1):1.
Stewart CA, Sanyal AJ. Grading portal gastropathy: Validation of a gastropathy scoring system. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003;98(8):1758–65.
Gjeorgjievski M, Cappell MS. Portal hypertensive gastropathy: A systematic review of the pathophysiology, clinical presentation, natural history, and therapy. World J Hepatol. 2016;8(4):231–62.
de Macedo GFS, Ferreira FG, Ribeiro MA, Szutan LA, Assef MS, Rossini LGB. Reliability in endoscopic diagnosis of portal hypertensive gastropathy. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;5(7):323–31.
Geng XX, Huang RG, Lin JM, Jiang N, Yang XX. Transient elastography in clinical detection of liver cirrhosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Saudi J Gastroenterol. 2016;22(4):294–303.
Al Ghamdi MH, Fallatah HI, Akbar HO. Transient Elastography (Fibroscan) Compared to Diagnostic Endoscopy in the Diagnosis of Varices in Patients with Cirrhosis. Sci J Clin Med. 2017;5(6):55–9.
Mandhwani R, Hanif FM, Ul Haque MM, Wadhwa RK, Hassan Luck N, Mubarak M. Noninvasive clinical predictors of portal hypertensive gastropathy in patients with liver cirrhosis. J Transl Intern Med. 2017;5(3):169–73.
Manatsathit W, Samant H, Kapur S, Ingviya T, Esmadi M, Wijarnpreecha K, et al. Accuracy of liver stiffness, spleen stiffness, and LS-spleen diameter to platelet ratio score in the detection of esophageal varices: Systemic review and meta-analysis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;33(10):1696–706.
Somboon P, C H. Spleen Stiffness as Predictor of Esophageal Varices and Portal Hypertensive Gastropathy in Cirrhotic Patients. THAI J GASTROENTEROL. 2015;16(3):128–35.
Dietrich CF, Bamber J, Berzigotti A, Bota S, Cantisani V, Castera L, et al. EFSUMB Guidelines and Recommendations on the Clinical Use of Liver Ultrasound Elastography, Update 2017 (Long Version). Ultraschall der Medizin. 2017;38(4):e16–47.
De Franchis R. Evolving Consensus in Portal Hypertension Report of the Baveno IV Consensus Workshop on the methodology of diagnosis and therapy in portal hypertension. In: Journal of Hepatology. Elsevier; 2005. p. 167–76.
De Franchis R. Revising consensus in portal hypertension: Report of the Baveno v consensus workshop on methodology of diagnosis and therapy in portal hypertension. In: Journal of Hepatology. 2010. p. 762–8.
Sagar M, Sriram V, Hari Priya V, Ramanarasimham V, Behera K. Platelet Count/Spleen Diameter Ratio and Ast/Alt Ratio As Non Invasive Parameters For The Detection Of Esophageal Varices In Patients With Liver Cirrhosis. INDIAN J Res. 2018;7(9):44–50.
Akram M, Soomro MH, Magsi M. The Right Liver Lobe Size/Albumin Concentration Ratio in Identifying Esophageal Varices among Patients with Liver Cirrhosis. Middle East J Dig Dis. 2019;11(1):32–7.
Wang X, Han H, Yang J, Cheng Y, Yin X, Gu L, et al. Liver stiffness-spleen diameter to platelet ratio score (LSPS model) predicts variceal rebleeding for cirrhotic patients. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023;35(4):488–96.
Amer I, El Shennawy E, El Batea H, Ahmed M, El Sharawy S, Mahros A. Accuracy of noninvasive tests in the prediction of portal hypertensive gastropathy in Egyptian patients with cirrhosis. JGH open. open access J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;5(2):286–93.
de Franchis R, Bosch J, Garcia-Tsao G, Reiberger T, Ripoll C, Abraldes JG, et al. Baveno VII – Renewing consensus in portal hypertension. J Hepatol. 2022;76(4):959–74.
Min YYW, Bae SYS, Gwak GGYY, Paik YH, Choi MS, Lee JH, et al. A clinical predictor of varices and portal hypertensive gastropathy in patients with chronic liver disease Yang. Clin Mol Hepatol. 2012;18(2):178–84.
Wu R, Liu K, Shi C, Tian H, Wang N. Risk factors for portal hypertensive gastropathy. BMC Gastroenterol. 2022;22(1):1–7.
El-Kalla F, Mansour L, Kobtan A, Elzeftawy A, Abo Ali L, Abd-Elsalam S, et al. Blood Ammonia Level Correlates with Severity of Cirrhotic Portal Hypertensive Gastropathy. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2018;2018:1–9.
Abbasi A, Naz S, Irshad F. Portal Gastropathy; Characteristic Histological Features of Portal Gastropathy in Liver Cirrhosis and its Correlation With CHILD-PUGH Score. Prof Med J. 2018 Dec 8;25(12):1899–904.
Sungkar T, Zain LH, Siregar GA. Portal hypertensive gastropathy: association with Child-Pugh score in liver cirrhosis. In: IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. IOP Publishing; 2018. p. 012202.
Bolognesi M, Merkel C, Sacerdoti D, Nava V, Gatta A. Role of spleen enlargement in cirrhosis with portal hypertension. Dig Liver Dis. 2002 Feb 1;34(2):144–50.
Mangone M, Moretti A, Alivernini F, Papi C, Orefice R, Dezi A, et al. Platelet count/spleen diameter ratio for non-invasive diagnosis of oesophageal varices: Is it useful in compensated cirrhosis? Dig Liver Dis. 2012;44(6):504–7.
Marrache MK, Bou Daher H, Rockey DC. The relationship between portal hypertension and portal hypertensive gastropathy. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2021;57(3):340–4.
Nishino K, Kawanaka M, Manabe N, Suehiro M, Kawamoto H, Haruma K. Portal Hypertensive Gastropathy in Liver Cirrhosis: Prevalence, Natural History, and Risk Factors. Intern Med. 2022;61(5):605.
Oho K. Diagnosis and endoscopic classification of portal hypertensive gastroenteropathy. In: Obara K, editor. Clinical Investigation of Portal Hypertension. Springer Singapore; 2019. p. 463–72.
Ripoll C, Garcia-Tsao G. Management of Gastropathy and Gastric Vascular Ectasia in Portal Hypertension. Clin Liver Dis. 2010;14(2):281–95.
Singh S, Fujii LL, Murad MH, Wang Z, Asrani SK, Ehman RL, et al. Liver stiffness is associated with risk of decompensation, liver cancer, and death in patients with chronic liver diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013 Dec 1;11(12):1573-1584.e2.
Shibata S, Joshita S, Umemura T, Yamazaki T, Fujimori N, Ichikawa Y, et al. Liver stiffness-spleen size-to-platelet ratio risk score detects esophageal varices in chronic liver disease. Springerplus. 2016;5(1):998.
JiaMei Z, ZhiChao B, Yan L, XiaoJuan Z, YongHua Z, MingLei W, et al. Value of liver stiffness-spleen diameter-to-platelet ratio score in predicting esophageal varices in patients with liver cirrhosis. J Clin Hepatol. 2018;34(11):2341–4.