无创生物标志物评估食管胃静脉曲张和门脉高压性胃病的能力较差。

IF 3.4 Q2 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Biomarker Insights Pub Date : 2025-05-16 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1177/11772719251339185
Kodjo Kunale Abassa, Xiaoning Guo, Shuyan Tan, Zhiling Liang, Siwei Tan
{"title":"无创生物标志物评估食管胃静脉曲张和门脉高压性胃病的能力较差。","authors":"Kodjo Kunale Abassa, Xiaoning Guo, Shuyan Tan, Zhiling Liang, Siwei Tan","doi":"10.1177/11772719251339185","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Noninvasive and cost-effective markers are needed to replace esophagogastroduodenoscopy in the screening for severe esophagogastric varices (EGVs) and portal hypertensive gastropathy (PHG).</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study evaluated the performances of several commonly used fibrosis markers in assessing EGVs and PHG in cirrhosis patients.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective cohort study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A series of 323 patients with cirrhosis were consecutively enrolled and endoscopically followed up until variceal eradication was achieved. The Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) score, albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) index, aspartate aminotransferase (AST)-to-alanine aminotransferase (ALT) ratio (AAR), AST-to-platelet ratio index (APRI), gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase-to-platelet ratio (GPR), and Lok score were calculated for each patient upon first admission. The performances of these markers in assessing EGVs and PHG were determined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the screening for clinically relevant esophageal varices (CREVs), none of the markers showed a significant ability to differentiate CREVs from non-CREVs (<i>P</i> > .05). The AAR (area under the curve (AUC): 0.581, sensitivity: 52.0%, specificity: 66.1%, <i>P</i> = .033) and the GPR (AUC = 0.596, sensitivity: 64.0%, specificity: 50.0%, <i>P</i> = .033) fairly differentiated clinically relevant gastric varices (CRGVs) from non-CRGVs patients. Moreover, no correlation was noted between PHG and CREVs (<i>r</i> = .016, <i>P</i> <i>=</i> .778) or between PHG and CRGVs (<i>r</i> = -.024, <i>P</i> = .666). Furthermore, no difference in the severity of PHG before and after variceal eradication was detected (<i>P</i> = .224).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The studied markers revealed poor to no ability to assess EGVs or PHG. Hence, they cannot be used to substitute EGD in the screening for EGVs. Furthermore, endoscopic eradication of EGVs did not affect the severity of PHG.</p>","PeriodicalId":47060,"journal":{"name":"Biomarker Insights","volume":"20 ","pages":"11772719251339185"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12084694/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Poor Abilities of Noninvasive Biomarkers to Assess Esophagogastric Varices and Portal Hypertensive Gastropathy.\",\"authors\":\"Kodjo Kunale Abassa, Xiaoning Guo, Shuyan Tan, Zhiling Liang, Siwei Tan\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/11772719251339185\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Noninvasive and cost-effective markers are needed to replace esophagogastroduodenoscopy in the screening for severe esophagogastric varices (EGVs) and portal hypertensive gastropathy (PHG).</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study evaluated the performances of several commonly used fibrosis markers in assessing EGVs and PHG in cirrhosis patients.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective cohort study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A series of 323 patients with cirrhosis were consecutively enrolled and endoscopically followed up until variceal eradication was achieved. The Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) score, albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) index, aspartate aminotransferase (AST)-to-alanine aminotransferase (ALT) ratio (AAR), AST-to-platelet ratio index (APRI), gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase-to-platelet ratio (GPR), and Lok score were calculated for each patient upon first admission. The performances of these markers in assessing EGVs and PHG were determined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the screening for clinically relevant esophageal varices (CREVs), none of the markers showed a significant ability to differentiate CREVs from non-CREVs (<i>P</i> > .05). The AAR (area under the curve (AUC): 0.581, sensitivity: 52.0%, specificity: 66.1%, <i>P</i> = .033) and the GPR (AUC = 0.596, sensitivity: 64.0%, specificity: 50.0%, <i>P</i> = .033) fairly differentiated clinically relevant gastric varices (CRGVs) from non-CRGVs patients. Moreover, no correlation was noted between PHG and CREVs (<i>r</i> = .016, <i>P</i> <i>=</i> .778) or between PHG and CRGVs (<i>r</i> = -.024, <i>P</i> = .666). Furthermore, no difference in the severity of PHG before and after variceal eradication was detected (<i>P</i> = .224).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The studied markers revealed poor to no ability to assess EGVs or PHG. Hence, they cannot be used to substitute EGD in the screening for EGVs. Furthermore, endoscopic eradication of EGVs did not affect the severity of PHG.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47060,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Biomarker Insights\",\"volume\":\"20 \",\"pages\":\"11772719251339185\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12084694/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Biomarker Insights\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/11772719251339185\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biomarker Insights","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/11772719251339185","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在筛查严重食管胃静脉曲张(EGVs)和门脉高压性胃病(PHG)时,需要无创和经济有效的标志物来替代食管胃十二指肠镜检查。目的:本研究评价几种常用的纤维化标志物在肝硬化患者egv和PHG评估中的作用。设计:回顾性队列研究。方法:对323例肝硬化患者进行内镜随访,直至静脉曲张根除。计算每位患者首次入院时的纤维化-4 (FIB-4)评分、白蛋白-胆红素(ALBI)指数、天冬氨酸转氨酶(AST)-丙氨酸转氨酶(ALT)比值(AAR)、AST-血小板比值指数(APRI)、γ -谷氨酰转肽酶-血小板比值(GPR)和Lok评分。测定这些标记物对egv和PHG的评价。结果:在临床相关食管静脉曲张(crev)筛查中,没有一项标志物显示出区分crev和非crev的显著能力(P < 0.05)。AAR(曲线下面积(AUC): 0.581,敏感性:52.0%,特异性:66.1%,P = 0.033)和GPR (AUC = 0.596,敏感性:64.0%,特异性:50.0%,P = 0.033)可将临床相关胃静脉曲张(CRGVs)与非CRGVs区分开来。此外,PHG与crev之间没有相关性(r =。016, P = .778)或PHG与CRGVs之间(r = -。024, p = .666)。此外,根除静脉曲张前后PHG的严重程度无差异(P = .224)。结论:所研究的标志物显示egv或PHG的评估能力差或无能力。因此,它们不能代替EGD筛选egv。此外,内镜下清除egv并不影响PHG的严重程度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Poor Abilities of Noninvasive Biomarkers to Assess Esophagogastric Varices and Portal Hypertensive Gastropathy.

Background: Noninvasive and cost-effective markers are needed to replace esophagogastroduodenoscopy in the screening for severe esophagogastric varices (EGVs) and portal hypertensive gastropathy (PHG).

Objective: This study evaluated the performances of several commonly used fibrosis markers in assessing EGVs and PHG in cirrhosis patients.

Design: Retrospective cohort study.

Methods: A series of 323 patients with cirrhosis were consecutively enrolled and endoscopically followed up until variceal eradication was achieved. The Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) score, albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) index, aspartate aminotransferase (AST)-to-alanine aminotransferase (ALT) ratio (AAR), AST-to-platelet ratio index (APRI), gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase-to-platelet ratio (GPR), and Lok score were calculated for each patient upon first admission. The performances of these markers in assessing EGVs and PHG were determined.

Results: In the screening for clinically relevant esophageal varices (CREVs), none of the markers showed a significant ability to differentiate CREVs from non-CREVs (P > .05). The AAR (area under the curve (AUC): 0.581, sensitivity: 52.0%, specificity: 66.1%, P = .033) and the GPR (AUC = 0.596, sensitivity: 64.0%, specificity: 50.0%, P = .033) fairly differentiated clinically relevant gastric varices (CRGVs) from non-CRGVs patients. Moreover, no correlation was noted between PHG and CREVs (r = .016, P= .778) or between PHG and CRGVs (r = -.024, P = .666). Furthermore, no difference in the severity of PHG before and after variceal eradication was detected (P = .224).

Conclusion: The studied markers revealed poor to no ability to assess EGVs or PHG. Hence, they cannot be used to substitute EGD in the screening for EGVs. Furthermore, endoscopic eradication of EGVs did not affect the severity of PHG.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Biomarker Insights
Biomarker Insights MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: An open access, peer reviewed electronic journal that covers all aspects of biomarker research and clinical applications.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信