Platelet Count/Spleen Diameter Ratio for the Noninvasive Diagnosis of Esophageal Varices: Results of a Multicenter, Prospective, Validation Study

Giannini, Edoardo G.; Zaman, Atif; Kreil, Anna; Floreani, Annarosa; Dulbecco, Pietro; Testa, Emanuela; Sohaey, Roya; Verhey, Peter T.; Peck‐Radosavljevic, Markus; Mansi, C.; Savarino, Vincenzo; Testa, Roberto

doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00874.x

Cited by 213 publications

(197 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

178

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…D'Amico and Morabito 8 summarized these studies, and an ROC showed that none of these markers were reliable for the presence of GEV. In a recent multicenter, crosssectional study conducted by Giannini et al 22 using a novel PLT to spleen diameter ratio cutoff of 909, the diagnostic accuracy for GEV was 86% with a negative predictive value of 87%. The accuracy was maintained when the severity and etiology of the disease subgroups were considered.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Platelet count is not a predictor of the presence or development of gastroesophageal varices in cirrhosis

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current guidelines recommend esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) in patients with cirrhosis to screen for gastroesophageal varices (GEV). Thrombocytopenia has been proposed as a noninvasive test to predict the presence of GEV. There is no agreement regarding a specific platelet count (PLT) that can reliably predict GEV. The present longitudinal study aims to (1) further investigate the relationship between varices and PLT at the time of endoscopy, (2) investigate whether changes in PLT from the baseline over time can predict the development of GEV, and (3) investigate whether changes in PLT correlate with the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG). A secondary analysis was conducted for 213 subjects with compensated cirrhosis with portal hypertension but without GEV enrolled in a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial of a nonselective beta-blocker used to prevent GEV. PLTs were obtained every 3 months, and HVPG measurements and EGD were done annually. The PLTs were compared between subjects who did and did not develop GEV. In a median follow-up of 54.9 months, 84 patients developed GEV. PLT was greater than 150,000 in 15% of patients at the development of GEV. A receiver operating curve did not show any PLT with high sensitivity or specificity for the presence of GEV. Subjects with clinically insignificant portal hypertension (HVPG < 10 mm Hg) whose PLT remained greater than 100,000 had a 2-fold reduction in the occurrence of GEV (P ‫؍‬ 0.0374). A significant correlation was found between HVPG and PLT at the baseline, year 1, and year 5 (P < V ariceal hemorrhage is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in cirrhosis. 1-3 Primary prophylaxis with nonselective beta-blockers and endoscopic therapy with band ligation are effective in preventing variceal hemorrhage in patients with large varices. 1 Current guidelines recommend screening for gastroesophageal varices (GEV) with esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) in all patients with cirrhosis and starting prophylactic therapy in those with medium to large varices. [4][5][6][7] In patients without varices, EGD is repeated in 2-3 years, whereas in patients with small varices, the recommendation is to repeat EGD in 1-2 years. 2 Because of the cost and invasive nature of endoscopic screening, there is interest in developing a noninvasive predictor of the presence and development of GEV that would decrease the number of EGDs performed. The ideal noninvasive marker should be widely available at a reasonable cost, require minimal expertise, be reproducible, and be relatively unaffected by any other factors. A number of clinical, laboratory, and ultrasonographic variables have been considered. 8 However, the accuracy of these variables in predicting varices is currently inadequate to be recommended for clinical practice. 2 As varices are a direct consequence of portal hypertension, it is not surprising that the degree of portal hypertension determined by the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) has been found to be predictive of the

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Platelet count is not a predictor of the presence or development of gastroesophageal varices in cirrhosis

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several studies (21)(22)(23)(24)(25) have been performed in an attempt to validate this new parameter as a new noninvasive screening tool for EVs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Platelet Count to Spleen Diameter Ratio for the Diagnosis of Esophageal Varices: Is It Feasible?

Baig

Nagaraja

Varma

et al. 2008

Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AIM: To study the value of platelet count to spleen diameter ratio as a noninvasive parameter for diagnosing esophageal varices (EVs) in liver cirrhosis.METHODS: The laboratory and ultrasonographic variables were prospectively evaluated in 150 patients with liver cirrhosis. Only stable patients were included in the study. Patients with active gastrointestinal bleeding at the time of admission were excluded. All patients underwent screening upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.RESULTS: The platelet count, spleen diameter and platelet count to spleen diameter ratio in patients with EVs were significantly different from patients without EVs. The platelet count to spleen diameter ratio had the highest accuracy among the three parameters. By applying receiver operating characteristic curves, a platelet count to spleen diameter ratio cut-off value of 1014 was obtained, which gave positive and negative predictive values of 95.4% and 95.1%, respectively. The accuracy of this cut-off value as evaluated by applying receiver operating characteristic curves was 0.942 (95% CI 0.890 to 0.995).CONCLUSION: Among the noninvasive parameters studied, platelet count to spleen diameter ratio had the highest accuracy for diagnosing EVs. However, the evidence for the noninvasive diagnosis is not yet sufficient to replace endoscopy as a diagnostic screening tool for EVs in all cirrhotic patients. The platelet count to spleen diameter ratio may be a useful tool for diagnosing EVs in liver cirrhosis noninvasively when endoscopy facilities are not available.

show abstract

“…This versatile use of platelet count and thrombocytopenia is supported by the multi-faceted etiology of decreased platelet count in chronic liver disease patients [1,5]. Indeed, the platelet count is incorporated into numerous diagnostic algorithms aimed at non-invasively assessing the severity of chronic liver diseases and features of portal hypertension, can be used to pinpoint patients at higher risk of developing hepatocellular carcinoma in population studies, and is a predictor of death in cirrhotic patients with and without hepatocellular carcinoma [6][7][8][9][10][11][12].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Thrombocytopenia in Patients with Chronic Liver Disease: What’s in a Name?

Giannini

2012

Dig Dis Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Platelet Count/Spleen Diameter Ratio for the Noninvasive Diagnosis of Esophageal Varices: Results of a Multicenter, Prospective, Validation Study

Abstract: The platelet count/spleen diameter ratio may be proposed as a safe and reproducible means to improve the management of cirrhotic patients who should undergo screening endoscopy for EV.

Cited by 213 publications

References 37 publications

Platelet count is not a predictor of the presence or development of gastroesophageal varices in cirrhosis

Platelet count is not a predictor of the presence or development of gastroesophageal varices in cirrhosis

Platelet Count to Spleen Diameter Ratio for the Diagnosis of Esophageal Varices: Is It Feasible?

Thrombocytopenia in Patients with Chronic Liver Disease: What’s in a Name?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About