
==== Front
Int J Hepatol
Int J Hepatol
IJH
International Journal of Hepatology
2090-3448
2090-3456
Wiley

10.1155/2024/9952610
Research Article
Evaluation of Noninvasive Tools for Predicting Esophageal Varices in Patients With Cirrhosis at Tygerberg Hospital, Cape Town
https://orcid.org/0009-0007-9286-8323
Kwape Lawrence kwapes77@gmail.com
1
Gabriel Shiraaz 1
Abdelsalem Ahmad 1
Rose Penelope 2
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2772-6085
Bathobakae Lefika 3
Peterson Dale 1
Moodley Desiree 1
Parker Mohammed 1
Moolla Saadiq 4
Parker Arifa 5 6
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4112-4707
Siamisang Keatlaretse 7
Van Rensburg Christoffel 1
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4366-4598
Fredericks Ernst 1
1 Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Department of Medicine Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences Stellenbosch University and Tygerberg Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa
2 Department of Paediatrics and Child Health Stellenbosch University and Tygerberg Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa
3 Internal Medicine St. Joseph's University Medical Center, Paterson, New Jersey, USA
4 Division of Pulmonology Department of Medicine Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences Stellenbosch University and Tygerberg Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa
5 Unit for Infection Prevention and Control Department of Medicine Stellenbosch University and Tygerberg Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa
6 Division of Infectious Diseases Department of Medicine Stellenbosch University and Tygerberg Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa
7 Department of Family Medicine and Public Health University of Botswana, Gaborone, Botswana
Academic Editor: Dirk Uhlmann

2024
11 9 2024
2024 99526105 12 2023
23 7 2024
6 8 2024
Copyright © 2024 Lawrence Kwape et al.
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Background: In patients with cirrhosis, esophageal variceal hemorrhage (EVH) is a devastating consequence of portal hypertension (PH). Upper endoscopy is considered the gold standard for the detection and diagnosis of esophageal varices (EVs), despite being invasive and costly. This study was aimed at identifying and evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of noninvasive tools in predicting EVs in patients with compensated cirrhosis.

Methods: This cross-sectional study included 50 patients with compensated cirrhosis at the Tygerberg Hospital Gastroenterology Clinic in Cape Town between November 2022 and May 2023. We collected clinical, anthropometric, and laboratory data from patients' physical and electronic charts. All patients underwent an abdominal ultrasound, vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE) to assess liver and splenic stiffness, and upper endoscopy. In this comparative study, we evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of different noninvasive tools in detecting EVs in patients with compensated cirrhosis.

Results: Of the 50 patients included in the study, 30 (60%) were female and 20 (40%) were male. The patients' age ranged from 18 to 83, with a mean age of 46.6 years. Cirrhosis was mainly due to alcohol use (n = 11, 22%), hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection (n = 11, 22%), and autoimmune hepatitis (n = 10, 20%). The patients included in the study were divided into two subgroups: with (n = 34, 68%) or without (n = 16, 32%) EVs. Statistically significant differences were detected between groups in platelet count (PC), liver stiffness measurement (LSM), spleen stiffness measurement (SSM), portal vein diameter (PVD), bipolar spleen diameter (SBD), aspartate aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index (APRI), fibrosis-4 index (FIB-4), platelet/bipolar spleen diameter ratio (PSR), liver stiffness-spleen size-platelet ratio (LSPS), liver stiffness-spleen stiffness-platelet ratio score (LS3PS), and spleen stiffness-spleen size-platelet ratio score (SSPS) (p < 0.001). The highest diagnostic precision was observed with SSM (96%), SSPS (96%), LS3PS (94%), LSPS (94%), PSR (94%), and PC (92%). SBD (88%), LSM (86%), APRI (82%), and FIB-4 (82%) had the lowest diagnostic accuracy.

Conclusion: SSM and SSPS have the highest diagnostic accuracy for predicting the presence of EVs in patients with compensated cirrhosis. LSPS, LS3PS, and PSR come second at 94%. We recommend SSM and SSPS in institutions with transient elastography equipped with the software necessary to measure splenic stiffness. We introduce and propose LS3PS as a novel composite score for predicting the presence of EVs in patients with compensated cirrhosis. Large-sample-size studies are needed to validate these prediction scores and to allow direct comparison with Baveno VII. These prediction tools can help clinicians avoid unnecessary endoscopic procedures in patients with compensated cirrhosis, especially in developing countries with limited resources such as South Africa.

Keywords

compensated cirrhosis
esophageal bleeding
esophageal varices
liver stiffness-spleen size-platelet ratio
Gastro Foundation
==== Body
pmc1. Introduction

Cirrhosis is histologically characterized by regenerative nodules surrounded by fibrous bands secondary to chronic inflammatory liver injury triggered by chronic liver disease, leading to portal hypertension (PH) and end-stage liver disease [1]. Liver cirrhosis evolves from being asymptomatic (compensated cirrhosis) to symptomatic (decompensated cirrhosis). Decompensation is marked by the development of obvious clinical signs, with the most frequent being ascites, variceal bleeding, encephalopathy, and jaundice [2]. A hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) > 5 mmHg indicates the presence of PH [3]. Clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH) is defined as an HVPG ≥ 10 mmHg [4]. Esophageal variceal bleeding (EVB) typically occurs when the HVPG is > 12 mmHg [5].

A progressive increase in PH leads to esophageal varices (EVs) due to portosystemic collateral circulation and eventually EVB [6]. The EV formation occurs at a rate of 8% per year [4]. Once EVs form, they progress from small to large at a rate of 5%–12% per year [7]. The risk of EVB is 25%–35%, accounting for 80%–90% of bleeding episodes in these patients [7]. EVB is the main cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with cirrhosis, despite improvements in the efficacy of endoscopic, pharmacological, surgical, and radiologic techniques [8]. The reported 1-year mortality for EVB ranges from 14.1% to 57% [6, 9, 10]. The overall mortality of isolated EVB is 20% at 5 years, increasing to 80% in addition to other decompensations [2]. The mortality risk is particularly high when EVB is associated with acute kidney injury and/or concurrent bacterial infections [11].

Endoscopy is the gold standard for diagnosing EVs and EVB in patients with decompensated cirrhosis. In patients with compensated cirrhosis, however, there are no clear indications for endoscopic evaluation of EVs [2]. Therefore, patients may be exposed to unnecessarily expensive and invasive procedures. This may result in an increase in the workload of the already busy endoscopy units and an additional financial burden on patients with chronic liver disease. Due to the unpleasant nature of the endoscopic procedure, patients may be reluctant to undergo endoscopy and become discouraged. The procedure also carries rare but serious complications, including perforation and bleeding. The annual incidence of complications varies among studies [12–14].

Simple noninvasive tools/markers have been developed to identify EVs in low-risk patients to avoid unnecessary endoscopy. These markers are used in routine laboratory investigations, making their daily application easier. These noninvasive markers of PH include platelet count (PC), platelet/bipolar spleen diameter ratio (PSR), aspartate aminotransferase-to-alanine aminotransferase (AST-to-ALT) ratio (AAR), fibrosis-4 index (FIB-4), and aspartate aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index (APRI). The APRI has been reported to predict significant fibrosis in chronic HCV infections [15]. The FIB-4 was developed to predict liver fibrosis in patients with HIV/HCV coinfection [16]. Studies worldwide, which included a variety of study populations and different etiologies of liver cirrhosis, have reported the controversial and doubtful utility of these markers in predicting the presence of EVs [17–20].

Vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE) is a noninvasive tool for measuring liver stiffness (LS) (liver stiffness measurement (LSM)) and spleen stiffness (SS) (spleen stiffness measurement (SSM)), which correlates with CSPH [21]. A meta-analysis demonstrated that LSM alone is not sufficiently accurate to diagnose EVs. The liver stiffness-spleen size-platelet ratio score (LSPS), a combination of three simple examination methods (LS, spleen size, and PC), has been established to accurately predict EVs in patients with cirrhosis [22]. The Baveno VII criteria state that compensated cirrhosis patients with LSM ≤ 15 kPa and/or PC ≥ 150 × 109 L and SSM ≤ 40 kPa have a low probability of having high-risk EVs; therefore, they can safely avoid endoscopy [23, 24].

The major challenges of these noninvasive tools are wide variations in optimal cutoffs and lack of external validity. The paucity of local data makes it even more challenging to adopt. In this study, we aimed to identify and evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of noninvasive tools in predicting EVs in patients with compensated cirrhosis, using the local data.

2. Methods

2.1. Study Design and Participants

We conducted a cross-sectional study among patients attending a daily gastroenterology outpatient clinic at Tygerberg Hospital in Cape Town, South Africa, between November 2022 and May 2023. Eligible patients were adults aged ≥ 18 years with compensated liver cirrhosis, regardless of the etiology. Compensated cirrhosis was diagnosed based on clinical examination, biochemical and imaging findings, or histology (only if available from previous liver biopsy results). The exclusion criteria were as follows: body mass index > 35, significant ascites, severe cardiopulmonary disease, renal failure, acute illness, pregnancy or breastfeeding, previous splenectomy or liver transplantation, previous transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent shunt procedure, and current or history of hepatocellular carcinoma. From a sample frame of a list of all patients attending the gastroenterology clinic during the study period, we used a systematic random sampling of three participants each day. On each day, we randomly selected the first participant from the numbered folded pieces of paper. Subsequently, every third patient in the clinic attendees was selected until the desired sample size for the day was reached.

2.2. Ethical Considerations and Informed Consent

Written informed consent was obtained from each patient before participation in the study. Ethical approval was obtained from the Stellenbosch University Health Research Ethics Committee (Ethics Reference No. S22/07/128).

2.3. Data Collection and Procedures

We used a researcher-administered questionnaire to obtain information on the patients' age, sex, etiology of cirrhosis, previous EVs, EVB and EV banding, comorbidities, and medications. For anthropometric measurements, we calculated BMI as weight in kilograms (kg) divided by height in meters squared. We evaluated the hemoglobin level (Hb), total leukocyte count (WCC), PC, mean corpuscular volume (MCV), serum albumin, serum bilirubin, aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), PT, INR, sodium, urea, and creatinine levels in all participants. Endoscopy was performed on all recruited patients using an Olympus or Fujinon video gastroscope with an endoscopic record of the EV grade, if present. EV grading was defined as Grades I, II, and III [25]. VCTE was used to obtain the LSM, SSM, and CAP score in all participants using the FibroScan 630 Expert [26]. All recruited patients underwent abdominal ultrasound conducted by a radiologist. The bipolar spleen diameter (SBD) corresponded to the largest diameter measured from the inferior most tip of the spleen to the highest splenic point along the diaphragm [27]. The diameter of the portal vein was measured in its extrahepatic portion at the hepatic hilum, where visualization was optimal, just before bifurcation at the widest part of the blood vessel. The average of three measurements was taken to minimize the measurement error. PVD measurement was performed using a 3.5-MHz curvilinear probes of the EDAN U2 prime edition and SONOSCAPE SSI-8000 ultrasound machines [28].

2.4. Calculation of Noninvasive Markers/Tools

The following formulas were used to calculate the evaluated noninvasive markers: 1. AAR = AST/ALT ratio [29].

2. FIB‐4 index = (year of age × AST)/(PLT × the square root of ALT) [16].

3. APRI = (AST/upper limit of normal) × 100/PLT 109/L [30].

4. PSR = PC/SBD ratio [31].

5. LSPSLSMvalueSBD/PC [32].

6. SSspleensizeplateletratioriskscoreSSPSSSMvalueSBD/PC [33].

7. LS3PS = LS‐SS‐platelet ratio score = LSM (kPa) × SSM (kPa)/PLT 109/L.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

All calculations were performed using SPSS software (Version 29.0 for Windows; SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois, United States). Univariate analysis was performed to determine the association of various clinical, laboratory, LSM, SSM, and ultrasonographic variables with the endoscopic presence of EVs using Student's t-test for continuous variables and the chi-square tests for categorical variables. Student's t-test was used for normally distributed data and the Mann–Whitney U test was used for nonnormally distributed data. The differences were considered statistically significant with a p value of less than 0.05. All variables were used in prediction scores for the presence of varices using logistic regression analysis (multivariate analysis) to identify relevant predictors. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to evaluate the performance of significant noninvasive markers and scores. The area under the curve (AUC) was estimated and reported with a 95% confidence interval.

3. Results

Fifty patients were recruited into the study from the 100 screened patients after excluding 50 ineligible patients. Demographic details are presented in Table 1. Thirty patients (60%) out of 50 were female, and 20 (40%) were male. The patients' age ranged from 18 to 83, with a mean age of 46.6 years. The most common causes of cirrhosis were found to be alcohol and hepatitis B viral infection, which accounted for 44% of cases (Figure 1).

Lower PC, all ultrasound and VCTE parameters, and all scores were associated with the presence of EVs in a statistically significant fashion (Table 2). SSM and SSPS scores had highest diagnostic accuracies followed by LS3PS, LSPS, and PSR as depicted in Table 3. Comparison between ROC curves of the various noninvasive tools is depicted in Figures 2(a) and 2(b).

4. Discussion

This outpatient cross-sectional study found PC, LSM, SSM, PVD, SBD, APRI, FIB-4, PSR, LSPS, LS3PS, and SSPS (p < 0.001) to be significantly associated with the presence of EVs. The highest diagnostic precision was observed with SSPS (96%) and SSM (96%). These were followed by LS3PS (94%), LSPS (94%), PSR (94%), PC (92%), SBD (88%), LS (86%), APRI (82%), FIB-4 (82%), and PVD (80%). PC was the most significant serum marker in the study. This study found that PC was significantly lower in cirrhotic patients with EVs than in patients without EVs. The PC cutoff value of < 145.1 had a sensitivity of 88%, a specificity of 100%, a PPV of 100%, an NPV of 80%, and a diagnostic precision of 92% in predicting the presence of EVs. Studies in Africa—Côte d'Ivoire, Egypt, and Uganda [34, 35]—showed similar results. This is also in agreement with multiple studies outside Africa, which mainly used a PC cutoff of < 100 with varying sensitivities, specificities, and diagnostic accuracies to predict the presence of EVs [31, 36–44]. The lower the PC, the higher the risk of EVs and EVB. Possible reasons for different cutoff values for PC could be varying degrees/severities of liver dysfunction as well as different etiologies for cirrhosis in different studies [45]. The etiology of thrombocytopenia in cirrhosis is multifactorial and includes platelet splenic sequestration due to PH and decreased thrombopoietin production, resulting in impaired platelet production. Thrombocytopenia may also be due to various medications used in the treatment of liver disease and its complications, including, but not limited to, immunosuppressants and antibiotics. Alcohol and certain viruses also have a bone marrow-suppressive effect [46].

Ultrasound findings associated with the presence of EVs included PVD and SBD (p < 0.001). Elastographic findings associated with EVs included LSM and SSM (p < 0.001). We found PVD to be significantly higher in patients with cirrhosis with EVs compared to those without EVs. A PVD cutoff value of ≥ 11.05 mm had a sensitivity of 74%, specificity of 94%, PPV of 96%, NPV of 63%, and diagnostic accuracy of 80% in predicting the presence of EVs. This is comparable to previous studies reporting PVD cutoff values from 11 to 14 mm with different sensitivities and specificities to predict the presence of EVs [47]. Variations in PVD could be explained by differences in study populations with varying etiologies and severity of liver cirrhosis, as well as different ethnic distributions [48].

Our study found that a higher SBD was significantly associated with the presence of EVs. SBD cutoff value of ≥ 121.9 mm had a sensitivity of 82%, specificity of 100%, PPV of 100%, NPV of 73%, and diagnostic precision of 88%. A study conducted in Nepal reported a sensitivity of 94.5% and a specificity of 75% for the prediction of EV presence using a 139-mm-diameter cutoff value for the spleen [49]. Increased PH leads to hypersplenism, resulting in splenomegaly [50]. The larger the diameter/volume of the spleen, the higher the risk of EVs.

This study found that patients with cirrhosis and EVs had a significantly higher LSM than patients with cirrhosis without EVs. An LSM cutoff value greater than or equal to 22.04 kPa had a sensitivity of 79%, specificity of 100%, PPV of 100%, NPV of 69%, and diagnostic precision of 86%. Our findings are comparable to those of a meta-analysis that included 44 studies carried out in Europe, Asia, Africa, and America. They found variable LSM cutoff values ranging from 6.1 to 29.7 kPa with high diagnostic accuracy (AUROC summary of 0.83) and a combined sensitivity of 82% and specificity of 68% for predicting the presence of EVs [51]. The literature reports a high variance in LS cutoff values, making it difficult to be used as a single tool to predict EVs; hence, the Baveno VII guidelines state that cirrhosis patients with an LSM ≤ 15 kPa and PC > 150 × 109/L have a predictive value of more than 90% in excluding high-risk EVs that need intervention [24]. Different aims and approaches of the authors, as well as varying liver cirrhosis etiologies in various studies, could explain the variance in LS cutoff values [52]. LS is mainly the result of increased HVPG and high liver collagen content in patients with advanced cirrhosis [53].

The current study found that SSM values were significantly higher in cirrhosis patients with EVs than in those without EVs. An SSM cutoff value > 34.5 kPa had a sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 88%, a PPV of 94%, an NPV of 100%, and the highest diagnostic precision of 96% in predicting the presence of EVs. This is in agreement with various studies reporting that SSM combined with other parameters, such as LSM, has high diagnostic accuracy for predicting the presence of EVs [54–56]. The current results are also consistent with work done in Germany that reported that SSM < 21.7 kPa was able to rule out CSPH with a sensitivity of 91.9% and SSM > 35.6 kPa was able to rule in CSPH, with a specificity of > 90% [57]. According to the Baveno VII criteria, SSM can be used in patients with advanced compensated liver disease, secondary to untreated HCV and HBV, to rule out and rule in CSPH (SSM < 21 kPa and SSM > 50 kPa, respectively) [24]. Splenic congestion due to PH causes architectural changes in the splenic arteries and veins, resulting in fibrosis and increased splenic stiffness [58].

This study evaluated various scores, including APRI, FIB-4, PSR, LSPS, LS3PS, and SSPS (p < 0.001), in predicting the presence of EVs in patients with compensated cirrhosis. The SSPS had the highest diagnostic accuracy in predicting the presence of EVs, followed by LS3PS, LSPS, and PSR. The APRI and FIB-4 scores demonstrated the lowest diagnostic accuracies. An SSPS cutoff value ≥ 2 had a sensitivity of 97%, a specificity of 94%, a PPV of 97%, an NPV of 94%, and a diagnostic precision of 96% in predicting the presence of EVs. There is a paucity of studies that evaluate SSPS in predicting EVs in patients with cirrhosis. Our work is comparable to a study in Korea that reported a sensitivity of 64.1%, specificity of 96.15%, and AUC of 0.85 using SSPS with a cutoff value of ≥ 3.70 to predict the presence of EVs in HBV cirrhosis patients [33]. SSPS is an additional emphasis that combining SSM, which is directly related to PH, with SBD and PC yields the highest diagnostic accuracy in predicting EVs, although more work is needed with larger sample sizes and broader cirrhosis etiologies.

In our study, LSPS had a sensitivity of 91%, a specificity 100%, a PPV of 100%, an NPV of 84%, and a diagnostic precision of 94% using a cutoff value of ≥ 0.2 to predict the presence of EVs. This is comparable to the work done in Bangladesh, which reported that an LSPS cutoff value of ≥ 0.879 has 90.9% diagnostic accuracy in predicting EVs [22]. A meta-analysis of five studies across the world reported a pooled sensitivity of 69%, specificity of 86%, and AUC of 0.87 for LSPS in predicting the presence of EVs [59]. LSPS is a demonstration that combining LSM with SBD and PC further improves diagnostic accuracy instead of using LSM, SBD, or PC as a single tool for the prediction of EV presence. The current study found that the PSR score had a sensitivity of 91%, a specificity of 100%, a PPV of 100%, an NPV of 84%, and a diagnostic precision of 94% in predicting the presence of EVs at a cutoff value of < 1287.6. This is comparable to the findings reported in the meta-analysis of 49 articles done worldwide, including Africa, which presented a pooled sensitivity of 84%, specificity of 78%, and AUC of 0.87 using PSR cutoff < 909 (Figure 3) in predicting the presence of EVs [29].

LS3PS (Figure 4) had a cutoff value of > 4.96, a sensitivity of 91%, a specificity of 100%, a PPV of 100%, an NPV of 84%, and a diagnostic precision of 94% in predicting the presence of EVs. No studies have evaluated LS3PS for the prediction of EVs in patients with compensated cirrhosis. We formulated and tested the accuracy of LS3PS in our study for the first time and recommend it as a composite score for the prediction of EVs in compensated cirrhosis. LS3PS assessed the diagnostic accuracy of the combination of SSM, which is directly related to PH, with LSM and PC in predicting EVs. More studies with larger sample sizes and greater variation in cirrhosis etiologies are needed to validate the LS3PS score. This will also allow for a comparison with the currently used Baveno VII.

The APRI cutoff value of ≥ 0.91 had a sensitivity of 85%, a specificity of 75%, a PPV of 87%, an NPV of 71%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 82%, making it less reliable for predicting the presence of EVs. Our results are similar to those of previous studies conducted in other parts of the world. A study in Brazil demonstrated that an APRI cutoff value of > 1.3 has a sensitivity of 64.7%, specificity of 72.7%, PPV of 86.5%, and NPV of 43.2% to predict the presence of EVs, making it insufficient to independently predict the presence of EVs [60]. The APRI was initially described for the noninvasive prediction of fibrosis in patients with HCV [61]. In our study, the FIB-4 cutoff > 2.34 had a sensitivity of 79%, a specificity of 88%, a PPV of 93%, an NPV of 67%, and a diagnostic precision of 82% in predicting the presence of EVs. Our findings are consistent with a study in Egypt that reported that the FIB-4 cutoff value of > 2.78 has a sensitivity of 84% and a specificity of 86.67% in predicting the presence of EVs in patients with HCV cirrhosis [62]. The FIB-4 score was developed to predict liver fibrosis in patients with HIV/HCV coinfection [16].

To our knowledge, this is the first South African study to evaluate the precision of noninvasive tools in predicting the presence of EVs in patients with compensated liver cirrhosis. However, our findings should be interpreted with caution considering several limitations. The study cannot be generalized as it was a single-center study with a small sample size. An international study with a larger sample size is warranted to validate our prediction score. A larger sample size will also allow the comparison of all the prediction tools with the current Baveno VII.

5. Conclusion

In conclusion, this study demonstrated that SSM alone or in combination with spleen size and platelets count (SSPS) had the highest diagnostic precision in predicting the presence of EVs in patients with compensated cirrhosis. We therefore recommend SSM and SSPS in institutions with transient elastography equipped with the software necessary to measure SS (FibroScan 630 Expert). We introduce and propose LS3PS as a novel composite score for predicting the presence of EVs in patients with compensated cirrhosis. Large-sample-size studies are needed to validate these prediction scores and to allow direct comparison with Baveno VII. These prediction tools can help clinicians avoid unnecessary endoscopic procedures in patients with compensated cirrhosis, especially in developing countries with limited resources.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to extend their special thanks to Gastro Foundation for travel funding.

Data Availability Statement

Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Ethics Statement

Ethical approval and permission were obtained from the Health Research Ethics Committee at Stellenbosch University, South Africa.

Consent

Participation in the study was voluntary. Written informed consent was obtained from all study participants.

Disclosure

The abstract of this manuscript was presented as a poster presentation in May 2024 at the Digestive Disease Week (DDW) international meeting in Washington, DC.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Author Contributions

All authors contributed to the study design, data collection, data analysis, and interpretation of results. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript. Lefika Bathobakae was added after the initial submission. The author was instrumental in revising this manuscript and thus warranted inclusion in the author list.

Funding

The authors would like to extend their special thanks to Gastro Foundation for travel funding.

Figure 1 A pie chart demonstrates the various causes of cirrhosis in our studied population.

Figure 2 (a) ROC curve analysis was used to evaluate the performance of significant noninvasive markers. The AUC was estimated and reported with a 95% confidence interval. (b) ROC curve analysis was used to evaluate the performance of significant noninvasive scores. The AUC was estimated and reported with a 95% confidence interval.

Figure 3 An illustration showing the application of PSR to predict EVs and need for endoscopy.

Figure 4 An illustration showing the application of new LS3PS to predict EVs and need for endoscopy.

Table 1 Demographic details.

Variables	Total	(%)	With EVs	(%)	Without EVs	(%)	
50	34	68	16	32	
Gender: M:F	20:30	(40:60)	17:17	(50:50)	3:13	(18.7:81.3)	
Age (years) [mean, SD]	46.6 ± 15.0	44.2 ± 14.5	51.8 ± 15.1	
BMI (kg/m2) [mean, SD]	25.1 ± 4.0	24.6 ± 3.5	26.1 ± 4.9	
Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; EVs, esophageal varices; SD, standard deviation.

Table 2 Patient characteristics and univariate analysis.

Variables	Total	Patients with EVs	Patients without EVs	Differences	
n  = 50	n  = 34	n  = 16	p values	
Laboratory					
 Platelet count (PC) (×109/L) [median (IQR)]	123.0 (83.3–189.3)	92.0 (59.7–123.0)	218.0 (169.0–285.3)	< 0.001	
Ultrasound					
 Portal vein diameter (PVD) (mm) [mean, SD]	11.5 ± 2.6	12.6	9.1	< 0.001	
 Bipolar spleen diameter (SBD) (mm) [mean, SD]	125.3 ± 28.2	139.6	94.9	< 0.001	
Transient elastography					
 Liver stiffness (LSM) (kPa) [median (IQR)]	23.2 (18.8–38.8)	31.0 (22.8–48.4)	18.7 (16.1–20.0)	< 0.001	
 Spleen stiffness (SSM) (kPa) [mean, SD]	47.1 ± 21.3	57.3	25.3	< 0.001	
Scores					
 APRI [median (IQR)]	1.2 (0.6–2.3)	1.6 (1.1–2.8)	0.5 (0.3–0.9)	< 0.001	
 FIB-4 [median (IQR)]	3.0 (1.8–5.9)	4.5 (2.7–6.5)	1.4 (1.2–2.0)	< 0001	
 PSR [median (IQR)]	969.0 (540.6–1823.6)	615.0 (470.2–978.5)	2368.1 (1823.6–2543.9)	< 0.001	
 LSPS [median (IQR)]	0.4 (0.1–0.7)	0.6 (0.4–0.1)	0.1 (0.1–0.1)	< 0.001	
 LS3PS [median (IQR)]	14.6 (2.7–37.4)	25.9 (14.2–48.3)	1.9 (1.2–2.6)	< 0.001	
 SSPS [median (IQR)]	5 (1–9)	10 (5–10)	1 (1–1)	< 0.001	
Abbreviations: APRI, AST-to-platelet ratio index; FIB-4, fibrosis-4 index; LSPS, liver stiffness-spleen size-platelet ratio; LS3PS, liver stiffness-spleen stiffness-platelet ratio score; PSR, platelet/bipolar spleen diameter ratio; SSPS, spleen stiffness-spleen size-platelet ratio score.

Table 3 Diagnostic performance of noninvasive tools for predicting esophageal varices.

	AUC (95% CI)	Cutoff value	Sensitivity (%)	Specificity (%)	PPV (%)	NPV (%)	Diagnostic accuracy (%)	
Variables								
 PC (×109/L)	0.97 (0.93–1.0)	< 145.1	88	100	100	80	92	
Ultrasound								
 PVD (mm)	0.88 (0.78–0.98)	> 11.05	74	94	96	63	80	
 SBD (mm)	0.97 (0.94–1.0)	> 121.9	82	100	100	73	88	
Transient elastography								
 LSM (kPa)	0.89 (0.80–0.99)	> 22.04	79	100	100	69	86	
 SSM (kPa)	0.97 (0.94–1.0)	> 34.5	100	88	94	100	96	
Scores								
 APRI	0.88 (0.78–0.98)	> 0.91	85	75	87	71	82	
 FIB-4	0.87 (0.75–0.99)	> 2.34	79	88	93	67	82	
 PSR	0.98 (0.96–1.0)	< 1287.6	91	100	100	84	94	
 LSPS	0.98 (0.95–1.0)	> 0.2	91	100	100	84	94	
 LS3PS	0.98 (0.97–1.0)	> 4.96	91	100	100	84	94	
 SSPS	0.98 (0.95–1.0)	> 2	97	94	97	94	96
==== Refs
1 Schuppan D. Afdhal N. H. Liver cirrhosis The Lancet 2008 371 9615 838 851 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60383-9 2-s2.0-40049097359 18328931
2 Angeli P. Bernardi M. Villanueva C. EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of patients with decompensated cirrhosis Journal of Hepatology 2018 69 2 406 460 10.1016/j.jhep.2018.03.024 2-s2.0-85045100709 29653741
3 Bosch J. Abraldes J. G. Fernández M. García-Pagán J. C. Hepatic endothelial dysfunction and abnormal angiogenesis: new targets in the treatment of portal hypertension Journal of Hepatology 2010 53 3 558 567 10.1016/j.jhep.2010.03.021 2-s2.0-77955853856 20561700
4 Nagula S. Jain D. Groszmann R. J. Garcia-Tsao G. Histological-hemodynamic correlation in cirrhosis—a histological classification of the severity of cirrhosis Journal of Hepatology 2006 44 1 111 117 10.1016/j.jhep.2005.07.036 2-s2.0-28844504265 16274836
5 Kumar A. Sharma P. Sarin S. K. Hepatic venous pressure gradient measurement: time to learn Indian Journal of Gastroenterology 2008 27 2 74 80 18695309
6 D’Amico G. Garcia-Pagan J. C. Luca A. Bosch J. Hepatic vein pressure gradient reduction and prevention of variceal bleeding in cirrhosis: a systematic review Gastroenterology 2006 131 5 1611 1624 10.1053/j.gastro.2006.09.013 2-s2.0-33750705626 17101332
7 Duah A. Nkrumah K. N. Tachi K. Oesophageal varices in patients with liver cirrhosis attending a major tertiary hospital in Ghana Pan African Medical Journal 2018 31 1 p. 230 10.11604/pamj.2018.31.230.16657 2-s2.0-85061998910 31447987
8 Wang S. F. Huang Y. T. Huang C. H. Chang S. H. Lin C. Y. Fibrosis index predicts variceal bleeding and reduces need for nonselective beta-blocker in compensated cirrhosis with initial small esophageal varices without red-color sign Annals of Translational Medicine 2020 8 19 p. 1223 10.21037/atm-20-2444
9 Zipprich A. Garcia-Tsao G. Rogowski S. Fleig W. E. Seufferlein T. Dollinger M. M. Prognostic indicators of survival in patients with compensated and decompensated cirrhosis Liver International 2012 32 9 1407 1414 10.1111/j.1478-3231.2012.02830.x 2-s2.0-84865724154 22679906
10 Thomopoulos K. Theocharis G. Mimidis K. Lampropouloukaratza C. Alexandridis E. Nikolopoulou V. Improved survival of patients presenting with acute variceal bleeding: prognostic indicators of short- and long-term mortality Digestive and Liver Disease 2006 38 12 899 904 10.1016/j.dld.2006.08.002 2-s2.0-33750975606 17005458
11 Augustin S. Muntaner L. Altamirano J. T. Predicting early mortality after acute variceal hemorrhage based on classification and regression tree analysis Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2009 7 12 1347 1354 10.1016/j.cgh.2009.08.011 2-s2.0-70350193318 19699816
12 Sharma V. K. Nguyen C. C. Crowell M. D. Lieberman D. A. de Garmo P. Fleischer D. E. A national study of cardiopulmonary unplanned events after GI endoscopy Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2007 66 1 27 34 10.1016/j.gie.2006.12.040 2-s2.0-34250693437 17591470
13 Cotton P. B. Eisen G. M. Aabakken L. A lexicon for endoscopic adverse events: report of an ASGE workshop Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2010 71 3 446 454 10.1016/j.gie.2009.10.027 2-s2.0-77449102863 20189503
14 Kim H. I. Yoon J. Y. Kwak M. S. Cha J. M. Gastrointestinal and nongastrointestinal complications of esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy in the real world: a nationwide standard cohort using the common data model database Gut and Liver 2021 15 4 569 578 10.5009/gnl20222 33402543
15 Soresi M. Giannitrapani L. Cervello M. Licata A. Montalto G. Non invasive tools for the diagnosis of liver cirrhosis World Journal of Gastroenterology: WJG 2014 20 48 18131 18150 10.3748/wjg.v20.i48.18131 2-s2.0-84920118982 25561782
16 Sterling R. K. Lissen E. Clumeck N. Development of a simple noninvasive index to predict significant fibrosis in patients with HIV/HCV coinfection Hepatology 2006 43 6 1317 1325 10.1002/hep.21178 2-s2.0-33745547388 16729309
17 González-Ojeda A. Cervantes-Guevara G. Chávez-Sánchez M. Platelet count/spleen diameter ratio to predict esophageal varices in Mexican patients with hepatic cirrhosis World Journal of Gastroenterology: WJG 2014 20 8 2079 2084 10.3748/wjg.v20.i8.2079 2-s2.0-84894598111 24616574
18 Hong W. D. Zhu Q. H. Huang Z. M. Predictors of esophageal varices in patients with HBV-related cirrhosis: a retrospective study BMC Gastroenterology 2009 9 1 p. 11 10.1186/1471-230X-9-11 2-s2.0-63549147842 19196464
19 Agha A. Anwar E. Bashir K. Savarino V. Giannini E. G. External validation of the platelet count/spleen diameter ratio for the diagnosis of esophageal varices in hepatitis C virus-related cirrhosis Digestive Diseases and Sciences 2009 54 3 654 660 10.1007/s10620-008-0367-y 2-s2.0-59449087035 18594972
20 Kothari H. G. Gupta S. J. Gaikwad N. R. Sankalecha T. H. Samarth A. R. Role of non-invasive markers in prediction of esophageal varices and variceal bleeding in patients of alcoholic liver cirrhosis from Central India The Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology 2019 30 12 1036 1043 10.5152/tjg.2019.18334 31854309
21 Pu K. Shi J.-H. Wang X. Diagnostic accuracy of transient elastography (FibroScan) in detection of esophageal varices in patients with cirrhosis: a meta-analysis World Journal of Gastroenterology 2017 23 2 345 356 10.3748/wjg.v23.i2.345 2-s2.0-85009186267 28127208
22 Malek M. Hoque M. Azam M. Prediction of esophageal varices in chronic liver disease by liver stiffness-spleen size-to-plalelet ratio risk score Mymensingh Medical Journal: MMJ 2021 30 1 115 122 33397861
23 Sousa M. Fernandes S. Proença L. The Baveno VI criteria for predicting esophageal varices: validation in real life practice Revista Española de Enfermedades Digestivas 2017 109 10 704 707 10.17235/reed.2017.5052/2017 2-s2.0-85041943267 28776387
24 Rodrigues S. G. Baveno VII criteria to predict decompensation in compensated advanced chronic liver disease: still some shades of grey Clinical and Molecular Hepatology 2023 29 1 110 112 10.3350/cmh.2022.0414 36503206
25 Tripathi D. Stanley A. J. Hayes P. C. UK guidelines on the management of variceal haemorrhage in cirrhotic patients Gut 2015 64 11 1680 1704 10.1136/gutjnl-2015-309262 2-s2.0-84947290291 25887380
26 Dong T. S. Kalani A. Aby E. S. Machine learning-based development and validation of a scoring system for screening high-risk esophageal varices Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2019 17 9 1894 1901.e1 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.01.025 2-s2.0-85063339677 30708109
27 Mahassadi A. K. Bathaix F. Y. Assi C. Usefulness of noninvasive predictors of oesophageal varices in Black African cirrhotic patients in Côte d’Ivoire (West Africa) Gastroenterology Research and Practice 2012 2012 10 216390 10.1155/2012/216390 2-s2.0-84864922021
28 Ayele T. Gebremickael A. Alemu Gebremichael M. Ultrasonographic determination of portal vein diameter among adults with and without chronic liver disease at selected referral hospitals in southern Ethiopia International Journal of General Medicine 2022 15 45 52 10.2147/IJGM.S342087 35046700
29 Deng H. Qi X. Peng Y. Diagnostic accuracy of APRI, AAR, FIB-4, FI, and king scores for diagnosis of esophageal varices in liver cirrhosis: a retrospective study Medical Science Monitor 2015 21 3961 3977 10.12659/MSM.895005 2-s2.0-84952313258 26687574
30 Wai C. T. Greenson J. K. Fontana R. J. A simple noninvasive index can predict both significant fibrosis and cirrhosis in patients with chronic hepatitis C Hepatology 2003 38 2 518 526 10.1053/jhep.2003.50346 2-s2.0-0042265556 12883497
31 Giannini E. Botta F. Borro P. Platelet count/spleen diameter ratio: proposal and validation of a non-invasive parameter to predict the presence of oesophageal varices in patients with liver cirrhosis Gut 2003 52 8 1200 1205 10.1136/gut.52.8.1200 2-s2.0-20244368450 12865282
32 Shibata S. Joshita S. Umemura T. Liver stiffness-spleen size-to-platelet ratio risk score detects esophageal varices in chronic liver disease Springerplus 2016 5 1 1 6 10.1186/s40064-016-2708-1 2-s2.0-84978153320 26759740
33 Cho Y. S. Lim S. Kim Y. Lee M. H. Choi S.-Y. Lee J. E. Spleen stiffness-spleen size-to-platelet ratio risk score as noninvasive predictors of esophageal varices in patients with hepatitis B virus-related cirrhosis Medicine 2022 101 21, article e29389 10.1097/MD.0000000000029389 35623071
34 Abd-Elsalam S. Habba E. Elkhalawany W. Correlation of platelets count with endoscopic findings in a cohort of Egyptian patients with liver cirrhosis Medicine 2016 95 23, article e3853 10.1097/MD.0000000000003853 2-s2.0-84975450210 27281094
35 Apica B. S. Ocama P. Seremba E. Opio K. Kagimu M. Decompensated cirrhosis-related admissions in a large urban hospital in Uganda: prevalence, clinical and laboratory features and implications for planning patient management African Health Sciences 2013 13 4 927 932 10.4314/ahs.v13i4.10 2-s2.0-84893959086 24940314
36 Ng F. H. Wong S. Y. Loo C. K. Lam K. M. Lai C. W. Cheng C. S. Prediction of oesophagogastric varices in patients with liver cirrhosis Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology 1999 14 8 785 790 10.1046/j.1440-1746.1999.01949.x 2-s2.0-0032837877 10482429
37 Chalasani N. Imperiale T. F. Ismail A. Predictors of large esophageal varices in patients with cirrhosis American College of Gastroenterology 1999 94 11 3285 3291 10.1111/j.1572-0241.1999.1539_a.x
38 Pilette C. Oberti F. Aubé C. Non-invasive diagnosis of esophageal varices in chronic liver diseases Journal of Hepatology 1999 31 5 867 873 10.1016/S0168-8278(99)80288-8 2-s2.0-0032747851 10580584
39 Zaman A. Hapke R. Flora K. Rosen H. R. Benner K. Factors predicting the presence of esophageal or gastric varices in patients with advanced liver disease The American Journal of Gastroenterology 1999 94 11 3292 3296 10.1016/S0002-9270(99)00599-7 2-s2.0-0032706888 10566732
40 Madhotra R. Mulcahy H. E. Willner I. Reuben A. Prediction of esophageal varices in patients with cirrhosis Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology 2002 34 1 81 85 10.1097/00004836-200201000-00016 2-s2.0-0036138540 11743252
41 Schepis F. Cammà C. Niceforo D. Which patients with cirrhosis should undergo endoscopic screening for esophageal varices detection? Hepatology 2001 33 2 333 338 10.1053/jhep.2001.21410 2-s2.0-17744368477 11172334
42 Thomopoulos K. C. Labropoulou-Karatza C. Mimidis K. Katsakoulis E. Iconomou G. Nikolopoulou V. Non-invasive predictors of the presence of large oesophageal varices in patients with cirrhosis Digestive and Liver Disease 2003 35 7 473 478 10.1016/S1590-8658(03)00219-6 2-s2.0-0242368098 12870732
43 Zein C. O. Lindor K. D. Angulo P. Prevalence and predictors of esophageal varices in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis Hepatology 2004 39 1 204 210 10.1002/hep.20029 2-s2.0-1442330986 14752839
44 Castéra L. Le Bail B. Roudot-Thoraval F. Early detection in routine clinical practice of cirrhosis and oesophageal varices in chronic hepatitis C: comparison of transient elastography (FibroScan) with standard laboratory tests and non-invasive scores Journal of Hepatology 2009 50 1 59 68 10.1016/j.jhep.2008.08.018 2-s2.0-56949092205 19013661
45 D'Amico G. Morabito A. Noninvasive markers of esophageal varices: another round, not the last Hepatology 2004 39 1 30 34 10.1002/hep.20018 2-s2.0-1442282026 14752818
46 Lim H. I. Cuker A. Thrombocytopenia and liver disease: pathophysiology and periprocedural management Hematology 2022 2022 1 296 302 10.1182/hematology.2022000408 36485111
47 Sarwar S. Khan A. A. Alam A. Non-endoscopic prediction of presence of esophageal varices in cirrhosis Journal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons--Pakistan: JCPSP 2005 15 9 528 531 16181569
48 Peñaloza-Posada M. A. Pérez-Torres E. Pérez-Hernández J. L. Higuera-de la Tijera F. Non-invasive parameters as predictors of high risk of variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients Revista Médica Del Hospital General De México 2014 77 4 179 184 10.1016/j.hgmx.2014.09.002
49 Bhattarai S. Gyawali M. Dewan K. R. Shrestha G. Patowary B. S. Sharma P. Study of portal vein diameter and spleen size by ultrasonography and their association with gastro-esophageal varices Nepalese Journal of Radiology 2017 4 2 6 14 10.3126/njr.v4i2.18482
50 Ying L. Lin X. Xie Z.-L. Hu Y.-P. Shi K.-Q. Performance of platelet count/spleen diameter ratio for diagnosis of esophageal varices in cirrhosis: a meta-analysis Digestive Diseases and Sciences 2012 57 6 1672 1681 10.1007/s10620-012-2058-y 2-s2.0-84864281124 22367112
51 Cheng F. Cao H. Liu J. Meta-analysis of the accuracy of transient elastography in measuring liver stiffness to diagnose esophageal varices in cirrhosis Medicine 2018 97 28, article e11368 10.1097/MD.0000000000011368 2-s2.0-85050189553 29995773
52 Paternostro R. Reiberger T. Bucsics T. Elastography-based screening for esophageal varices in patients with advanced chronic liver disease World Journal of Gastroenterology 2019 25 3 308 329 10.3748/wjg.v25.i3.308 2-s2.0-85060626781 30686900
53 Lunova M. Frankova S. Gottfriedova H. Portal hypertension is the main driver of liver stiffness in advanced liver cirrhosis Physiological Research 2021 70 4 563 577 10.33549/physiolres.934626 34062072
54 Buechter M. Manka P. Theysohn J. M. Reinboldt M. Canbay A. Kahraman A. Spleen stiffness is positively correlated with HVPG and decreases significantly after TIPS implantation Digestive and Liver Disease 2018 50 1 54 60 10.1016/j.dld.2017.09.138 2-s2.0-85033483213 29102174
55 Colecchia A. Montrone L. Scaioli E. Measurement of spleen stiffness to evaluate portal hypertension and the presence of esophageal varices in patients with HCV-related cirrhosis Gastroenterology 2012 143 3 646 654 10.1053/j.gastro.2012.05.035 2-s2.0-84865466262 22643348
56 Stefanescu H. Grigorescu M. Lupsor M. Procopet B. Maniu A. Badea R. Spleen stiffness measurement using Fibroscan for the noninvasive assessment of esophageal varices in liver cirrhosis patients Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2011 26 1 164 170 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2010.06325.x 2-s2.0-78650377222 21175810
57 Jansen C. Bogs C. Verlinden W. Algorithm to rule out clinically significant portal hypertension combining shear-wave elastography of liver and spleen: a prospective multicentre study Gut 2016 65 6 1057 1058 10.1136/gutjnl-2016-311536 2-s2.0-84960172280 26896458
58 Singh S. Eaton J. E. Murad M. H. Tanaka H. Iijima H. Talwalkar J. A. Accuracy of spleen stiffness measurement in detection of esophageal varices in patients with chronic liver disease: systematic review and meta-analysis Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2014 12 6 935 945.e4 10.1016/j.cgh.2013.09.013 2-s2.0-84901192850 24055985
59 Dujunco M. M. Cua I. H. Gopez-Cervantes J. The accuracy of liver stiffness, spleen diameter and platelet count ratio score (LSPS) versus gastroscopy to predict the presence of esophageal varices in adult patients with liver cirrhosis: a meta-analysis Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2017 15 1, article e26 10.1016/j.cgh.2016.09.067
60 de Mattos Â. Z. de Mattos A. A. Daros L. F. Musskopf M. I. Aspartate aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index (APRI) for the non-invasive prediction of esophageal varices Annals of Hepatology 2013 12 5 810 814 10.1016/S1665-2681(19)31324-9 24018500
61 Lin Z. H. Xin Y. N. Dong Q. J. Performance of the aspartate aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index for the staging of hepatitis C-related fibrosis: an updated meta-analysis Hepatology 2011 53 3 726 736 10.1002/hep.24105 2-s2.0-79952223130 21319189
62 Ebada H. E. Ebrahim A. Elbareedy A. Novel score for prediction of esophageal varices in HCV- Related Chronic liver disease Patients Afro-Egyptian Journal of Infectious and Endemic Diseases 2021 11 4 343 353 10.21608/aeji.2021.83096.1156
