Copyright
©The Author(s) 2023.
World J Gastroenterol. Jun 14, 2023; 29(22): 3548-3560
Published online Jun 14, 2023. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v29.i22.3548
Published online Jun 14, 2023. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v29.i22.3548
Characteristics of the 105 patients | |
Demographic and anthropometric data | |
Sex (male) | 51 (49) |
Age (yr) | 56 ± 14 |
BMI (kg/m2) | 31 ± 6 |
Overweight | 94 (90) |
Obesity | 50 (48) |
Waist circumference (cm)1 | 107 ± 15 |
Diabetes | 38 (36) |
Hypertension | 42 (40) |
Metabolic syndrome | 73 (70) |
Biological data | |
Platelets count (G/L)1 | 231 ± 72 |
AST (U/L)1 | 35 ± 28 |
ALT (U/L)1 | 65 ± 49 |
GGT (U/L)1 | 120 ± 125 |
Triglycerides (g/L)1 | 1.7 ± 0.93 |
HDL cholesterol (g/L)1 | 1.3 ± 0.4 |
Ferritin (ng/mL)1 | 232 ± 283 |
Steatosis assessment | |
PDFF (%)1 | 15 ± 10 |
Steatosis on MRI | 85 (81) |
Fibroscan® | |
Technical success | 104 (99) |
cCAP (dB/m) | 283 ± 58 |
Liver stiffness (KPa)1 | 8 ± 7 |
Liver stiffness > 10 KPa | 21 (20) |
Use of M probe | 83 (80) |
Use of XL probe | 21 (20) |
Aixplorer MACH 30® | |
Technical success | 105 (100) |
SSE (m/s)1 | 1519 ± 22 |
AC (dB/cm/MHz)1 | 0.48 ± 0.1 |
HRI1 | 1.43 ± 0.28 |
Technical success | 104 (99) |
Patients with steatosis (n = 85) | Patients without steatosis (n = 20) | P value | |
Demographic and anthropometric data | |||
Sex (male) | 40 (47) | 11 (55) | 0.62 |
Age (yr) | 56 ± 14 | 53 ± 14 | 0.5 |
BMI (kg/m2) | 31 ± 5 | 28 ± 6 | 0.0004 |
Normal BMI | 7 (8) | 4 (20) | |
Overweight | 31 (37) | 13 (65) | |
Obesity | 47 (55) | 3 (15) | |
Waist circumference (cm)1 | 108 ± 14 | 99 ± 15 | 0.004 |
Diabetes | 33 (39) | 5 (25) | 0.3 |
Hypertension | 37 (44) | 5 (25) | 0.2 |
Metabolic syndrome | 65 (76) | 8 (40) | 0.0026 |
Biological data | |||
Platelets count (G/L)1 | 236 ± 71 | 213 ± 78 | 0.2 |
AST (U/L)1 | 37 ± 30 | 27 ± 10 | 0.13 |
ALT (U/L)1 | 37 ± 30 | 49 ± 29 | 0.044 |
GGT (U/L)1 | 68 ± 53 | 116 ± 85 | 0.68 |
Triglycerides (g/L)1 | 1.8 ± 0.9 | 1.3 ± 0.9 | 0.0058 |
HDL cholesterol (g/L)1 | 1.3 ± 0.4 | 1.3 ± 0.3 | 0.1 |
Ferritin (ng/mL)1 | 121 ± 134 | 172 ± 127 | 0.45 |
Steatosis assessment | |||
PDFF (%)1 | 18 ± 9 | 2 ± 3 | < 0.0001 |
Fibroscan® | |||
Technical success | 84 (99) | 20 (100) | |
cCAP (dB/m) | 296 ± 42 | 246 ± 67 | < 0.0001 |
Liver stiffness (KPa)1 | 8 ± 8 | 7 ± 5 | NS |
Liver stiffness > 10 KPa | 19 (22) | 2 (10) | |
Use of M probe | 65 (76) | 18 (90) | |
Use of XL probe | 20 (24) | 2 (10) | |
Aixplorer MACH 30® | |||
Technical success | 85 (100) | 20 (100) | |
SSE (m/s)1 | 1515 ± 22 | 1533 ± 19 | 0.0009 |
AC (dB/cm/MHz)1 | 0.5 ± 0.1 | 0.39 ± 0.1 | < 0.0001 |
HRI | 1.52 ± 0.24 | 1.1 ± 0.18 | < 0.0001 |
Technical success | 84 (99) | 20 (100) |
- Citation: Collin R, Magnin B, Gaillard C, Nicolas C, Abergel A, Buchard B. Prospective study comparing hepatic steatosis assessment by magnetic resonance imaging and four ultrasound methods in 105 successive patients. World J Gastroenterol 2023; 29(22): 3548-3560
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v29/i22/3548.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v29.i22.3548