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 asse...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
SAGE Publishing
2025-05-01
|
| Series: | Biomarker Insights |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1177/11772719251339185 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | 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. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1177-2719 |