Liver Stiffness Measured by 2‐Dimensional Shear Wave Elastography: Prospective Evaluation of Healthy Volunteers and Patients With Liver Cirrhosis

2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (7) ◽  
pp. 1769-1777 ◽  
Author(s):  
Golo Petzold ◽  
Johannes Hofer ◽  
Volker Ellenrieder ◽  
Albrecht Neesse ◽  
Steffen Kunsch
Diagnostics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. 1817
Author(s):  
Jeong-Ju Yoo ◽  
Sang Gyune Kim ◽  
Young Seok Kim

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of two different types of 2-dimensional shear wave elastography (2D-SWE) for predicting liver fibrosis stages in comparison to transient elastography (TE), using a histologic METAVIR scoring system as the reference method. Methods: A total of 203 patients with chronic liver disease were prospectively enrolled in the study. Two different 2D-SWEs (LOGIQ S8 and E9 systems, GE Healthcare, Chalfont St Giles, UK) were assessed for liver stiffness in patients with chronic liver diseases. Patients received 2D-SWE examinations with the S8 and E9 systems, and also underwent TE (FibroScan®, Echosens, France) tests and liver biopsies on the same day. Results: The most common etiology of chronic liver disease was non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (28.7%), followed by chronic hepatitis B (25.1%). Liver fibrosis stages consisted of F0 (22.6%), F1 (29.7%), F2 (16.9%), F3 (12.8%) and F4 (17.9%). Overall, S8 and E9 were well correlated with the histologic fibrosis stages. The optimal cut-off values for S8 and E9 to differentiate significant fibrosis (≥F2) were 6.70 kPa and 6.42 kPa, respectively, while the cut-off values for S8 and E9 in distinguishing liver cirrhosis were 9.15 kPa and 8.88 kPa, respectively. Among the 195 patients who had successful measurements in both S8 and E9, liver stiffness showed good inter-equipment correlation (ICC: 0.900, p < 0.001). Regarding diagnostic ability, upon comparison (FibroScan®), there were no significant differences between 2D-SWEs and TE for detecting every stage of liver fibrosis. Conclusion: In comparison to TE, 2D-SWE with LOGIQ S8 and E9 (GE Healthcare) are useful non-invasive tools for predicting significant fibrosis and liver cirrhosis.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. e0244934
Author(s):  
Sona Frankova ◽  
Mariia Lunova ◽  
Halima Gottfriedova ◽  
Renata Senkerikova ◽  
Magdalena Neroldova ◽  
...  

Liver stiffness is a reliable non-invasive predictor of Hepatic Venous Pressure Gradient (HVPG) above 10 mm Hg. However, it failed to predict higher thresholds of HVPG. Our aim was to investigate whether liver stiffness and selected previously published non-invasive blood biomarkers could predict higher HVPG thresholds in liver transplant candidates without ongoing alcohol use. One hundred and nine liver transplant candidates with liver cirrhosis of various aetiologies underwent direct HVPG measurement, liver stiffness measurement by 2D shear-wave elastography (Aixplorer Multiwave, Supersonic Imagine, France) and assessment of blood HVPG biomarkers (osteopontin, VCAM-1, IL-6, TNF-α, IL-1ra/IL-1F3 and ELF score). The correlation between liver stiffness and HVPG was linear up to 30 mm Hg of HVPG (r = 0.765, p < 0.0001). The regression lines had similar slopes for HVPG values below and above 16 mm Hg (p > 0.05) and the correlation in patients with HVPG <16 mm Hg (r = 0.456, p = 0.01) was similar to patients with HVPG ≥ 16 mm Hg (r = 0.499, p < 0.0001). The correlation was similar in the subgroup patients with alcoholic (r = 0.718, p < 0.0001), NASH (r = 0.740, p = 0.008), cryptogenic (r = 0.648, p = 0,0377), cholestatic and autoimmune (r = 0.706, p < 0.0001) and viral cirrhosis (r = 0.756, p < 0.0001). Liver stiffness distinguished patients with HVPG above 16, and 20 mm Hg with AUROCs 0.90243, and 0.86824, sensitivity 0.7656, and 0.7027, and specificity 0.9333, and 0.8750. All studied blood biomarkers correlated better with liver stiffness than with HVPG and their AUROCs did not exceed 0.8 at both HVPG thresholds. Therefore, a composite predictor superior to liver stiffness could not be established. We conclude that liver stiffness is a clinically reliable predictor of higher HVPG thresholds in non-drinking subjects with advanced liver cirrhosis.


Author(s):  
Anders Batman Mjelle ◽  
Anesa Mulabecirovic ◽  
Roald Flesland Havre ◽  
Edda Jonina Olafsdottir ◽  
Odd Helge Gilja ◽  
...  

Abstract Purpose Liver elastography is increasingly being applied in screening for and follow-up of pediatric liver disease, and has been shown to correlate well with fibrosis staging through liver biopsy. Because time is of the essence when examining children, we wanted to evaluate if a reliable result can be achieved with fewer acquisitions. Materials and Methods 243 healthy children aged 4–17 years were examined after three hours of fasting. Participants were divided into four age groups: 4–7 years; 8–11 years; 12–14 years and 15–17 years. Both two-dimensional shear wave elastography (2D-SWE; GE Logiq E9) and point shear wave elastography (pSWE; Samsung RS80A with Prestige) were performed in all participants, while transient elastography (TE, Fibroscan) was performed in a subset of 87 children aged 8–17 years. Median liver stiffness measurement (LSM) values of 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 acquisitions were compared with the median value of 10 acquisitions (reference standard). Comparison was performed for all participants together as well as within every specific age group. We investigated both the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) with absolute agreement and all outliers more than 10 %, 20 % or ≥ 0.5 or 1.0 kPa from the median of 10 acquisitions. Results For all three systems there was no significant difference between three and ten acquisitions, with ICCs ≥ 0.97. All systems needed 4 acquisitions to achieve no LSM deviating ≥ 1.0 kPa of a median of ten. To achieve no LSM deviating ≥ 20 % of a median of ten acquisitions, pSWE and TE needed 4 acquisitions, while 2D-SWE required 6 acquisitions. Conclusion Our results contradict recommendations of 10 acquisitions for pSWE and TE and only 3 for 2D-SWE.


2016 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 525-532 ◽  
Author(s):  
Monica Lupșor-Platon ◽  
Radu Badea ◽  
Mirela Gersak ◽  
Anca Maniu ◽  
Ioana Rusu ◽  
...  

There has been great interest in the development of non-invasive techniques for the diagnosis of liver fibrosis in chronic liver diseases, including ultrasound elastographic methods. Some of these methods have already been adequately studied for the non-invasive assessment of diffuse liver diseases. Others, however, such as two-dimensional Shear Wave Elastography (SWE), of more recent appearance, have yet to be validated and some aspects are for the moment incompletely elucidated. This review discusses some of the aspects related to two-dimensional SWE: the examination technique, the examination performance indicators, intra and interobserver agreement and clinical applications. Recommendations for a high-quality examination technique are formulated. Key words:  –  –  – Two-dimensional Shear Wave Elastography. Abbreviations: 2D- SWE: Two-dimensional Shear Wave Elastography; 3D- SWE: Three-dimensional Shear Wave Elastography; AUROC: area under the receiver operating characteristic curves; ARFI Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse Elastography; EFSUMB: European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology; HVPG: hepatic venous pressure gradient; LS: liver stiffness; LR: likelihood ratio; NPV: negative predictive value; PPV: positive predictive value; ROI: region of interest; RT-E: Real Time-Elastography; Se: sensitivity; Sp: specificity; TE: Transient Elastography; US: ultrasound; VM: valid measurement; E: Young’s modulus


Endocrine ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Domenico Corica ◽  
Antonio Bottari ◽  
Tommaso Aversa ◽  
Letteria Anna Morabito ◽  
Selenia Curatola ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 402-410 ◽  
Author(s):  
Golo Petzold ◽  
Melissa Porsche ◽  
Volker Ellenrieder ◽  
Steffen Kunsch ◽  
Albrecht Neesse

2018 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paraskevi Galina ◽  
Efthymia Alexopoulou ◽  
Aglaia Zellos ◽  
Virginia Grigoraki ◽  
Tania Siahanidou ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document