Skip to main content
Chinese Journal of Hepatology logoLink to Chinese Journal of Hepatology
. 2026 Mar 20;34(3):271–277. [Article in Chinese] doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501113-20250621-00249

结合Baveno Ⅶ共识定义后的门静脉高压无创检测新进展

Novel advances following the integration of Baveno VII consensus definitions for the non-invasive testing of portal hypertension

Chen Junlin 1, Yang Changqing 1,通信作者:
Editor: 许 芯
PMCID: PMC13076381  PMID: 41956790

Abstract

Portal hypertension (PH) is a common and severe complication, which significantly affects patients with liver cirrhosis' quality of life and prognosis. In recent years, the assessment and management of PH have gradually gained attention, especially with the Baveno VII consensus, which proposed definitions for key events as well as the latest advances in its diagnosis and treatment method, emphasizing the diagnostic value of non-invasive tests (NITs) and providing novel perspectives for research in this field. This article reviews the existing literature to explore the application of novel NITs in the diagnosis of PH so as to provide prospects for their future development.

Keywords: Liver cirrhosis, Portal hypertension, Non-invasive testing, Diagnosis


门静脉高压(portal hypertension,PH)为多种慢性肝病的常见并发症,可导致食道静脉曲张、腹水及肝性脑病等严重后果,也是肝硬化患者死亡的主要原因,故其早期识别与管理必不可少1。现有的PH诊断工具包括了有创检查,如门静脉压力直接检测、经颈静脉检测肝静脉压力梯度和内镜检查等2-3。尽管目前评估诊断门静脉压力梯度(portal pressure gradient,PPG)及食管静脉曲张仍以这些方法为主,但由于其侵入性和潜在的并发症,许多患者因各种原因而无法接受,因此亟须开发新型、非侵入性的诊断方法来弥补这一空缺4-6

源于对PH相关并发症的日益关注,2021年的Baveno Ⅶ研讨会旨在更新整合现有的临床指南,提高PH的识别率和治疗效果7。会议强调使用非侵入性检查(noninvasive tests,NITs)评估PH的重要性,建议采用NITs进行初步筛查以及借助NITs的预后价值来重新定义代偿期进展期慢性肝病(compensated advanced chronic liver disease,cACLD),以进行准确的风险分层7-8。事实上,NITs技术早已逐渐兴起,这些技术不仅提高了PH的检测率,还能在患者的管理中发挥重要作用9。例如超声弹性成像、牵线磁控胶囊胃镜、基于CT血管造影和多普勒超声的虚拟PPG等新型无创技术,均显示出良好的应用前景10-13。本文通过结合Baveno Ⅶ共识,综述了近年来国内外对PH相关的新型无创检测技术的研究进展,旨在为临床患者的诊断与评估提供多元化的视角。

一、. 实验室指标

生物标志物的选择依据主要基于其在临床实践中的有效性、可靠性和可重复性。Baveno Ⅶ共识为肝病患者的生物标志物推荐提供了重要的指导7,指出肝硬度值(liver stiffness measurement,LSM)≤15 kPa及血小板计数(plate‑let count,PLT)≥150×109/L可排除cACLD患者的PH(灵敏度和阴性预测值>90%),而当PLT下降(≤150×109/L)时,患者应接受内镜检查7。肝纤维化标志物(Ⅲ型前胶原肽、透明质酸)、炎症标志物、肝功能指标、凝血功能指标等也都在NITs中显示出良好的临床应用潜力14-17。研究表明,血清游离轻链可以作为代谢功能障碍相关脂肪肝病患者的可靠生物标志物,帮助临床医师对患者更好地进行风险分层18。同时,血管性血友病因子(von willebrand factor,vWF)也被纳入评估体系,以辅助判断肝脏功能的损害程度19。Zou等20构建了基于多个非侵入性参数的预测评分模型,用于评估儿童PH患者中临床显著食管静脉曲张的风险,该模型参数包含了vWF抗原、vWF糖蛋白Ib结合活性、PLT、LSM和脾硬度值(spleen stiffness measurement,SSM),并可分别预测慢性肝病患儿及门静脉血栓患儿人群。在慢性肝病亚组中,该模型用于预测临床显著食管静脉曲张的受试者操作特征曲线下面积(area under the curve,AUC)为0.76。该模型通过结合不同的生物标志物和硬度测量值,有助于减少PH患者中不必要的侵入性检查,同时为临床决策提供支持。血清标志物的动态监测不仅有助于理解肝脏疾病的病理生理机制,也为个体化治疗提供了可能的生物学基础,但由于实验室检查结果更易受到肝外慢性疾病的影响,目前多与其他检测技术联合应用于PH的诊断21

在传统实验室指标检测体系不断完善的同时,围绕内皮机械感知、血管舒张与免疫炎症通路的新型生物标志物亦快速涌现,为PH的无创分层与临床决策提供了新的抓手。在肝窦内皮细胞中,模拟压力负荷的芯片模型显示关键转录因子染色质盒同源蛋白7下调,其下游上皮钙黏蛋白和丝氨酸蛋白酶抑制因子Kazal型1在PH中具备较高的预测价值,提示“压力-内皮-血标志物”轴的可行性22。在代偿期肝硬化人群,高尔基体蛋白73(Golgi protein 73,GP73)与肝静脉压力梯度呈正相关,基于GP73、PLT、国际标准化比值的IP73评分模型就展现出了良好的PH识别能力(AUC约为0.85)23,为基层或大样本筛查提供了简便路径。血浆环磷酸鸟苷(cyclic guanosine monophosphate,cGMP)作为血管舒张的介质,其水平在患有临床显著门静脉高压(clinically significant portal hypertension,CSPH)的肝硬化患者中明显升高,且能独立预测CSPH,提示cGMP是反映全身及脾系血管舒张状态的有力生物标志物24。在免疫炎症层面,转化生长因子β通过调控胰岛素样生长因子结合蛋白3(insulin-like growth factor binding protein-3,IGFBP-3)促进肝星状细胞迁移及PH的形成。IGFBP-3水平升高,在肝硬化患者血清中是潜在的致病因子和生物标志物25。基于新型生物标志物和先进检测技术的无创PH检测,可作为未来PH管理的重要发展方向。

二、. 超声弹性成像技术

传统超声波检查作为慢性肝病患者诊断和治疗中的主要检测方法,能够有效地监测患者病情的变化。然而,其在诊断PH方面的效果并不理想。根据现有文献的报道,超声在诊断CSPH时,其特异性可达到80%,但灵敏度仅介于40%至70%之间26-27。超声也几乎不能提供门静脉压的定量指标,无法准确判断病情的严重程度,这容易使医生低估出血风险,延误治疗时机28。相比之下,超声弹性成像不仅能够提供定量数据,还能实时监测肝脏的变化,具有无创、快速和重复性好的优点,在临床实践中越来越受到重视29

1.瞬时弹性成像(transient elastography,TE):TE利用超声波的传播特性,通过测量肝脏组织在外部压力下的变形程度,来推断组织的机械特性,从而提供更为直观的组织硬度值30-31。LSM是评估肝脏健康状况的重要指标,尤其在肝纤维化和肝硬化的诊断过程中32,LSM的增加通常与肝脏疾病的进展有关33-34。Baveno Ⅶ共识指出,LSM<10 kPa可排除cACLD,10~15 kPa提示cACLD,>15 kPa则高度提示cACLD。该共识还对LSM进行了分层管理,依次设定为10、15、20、25 kPa,代表逐渐增加的死亡风险7。大量研究已经证明TE检测的LSM与CSPH具有较强的相关性。Kumar等35研究显示,TE诊断CSPH的灵敏度为76%,特异度为88%,最佳临界值的加权平均值为22.8 kPa。Colecchia等36纳入了100例丙型肝炎相关肝硬化患者,通过TE测量的LSM和SSM建立了一个线性模型预测肝静脉压力梯度(hepatic venous pressure gradient,HVPG)。为了验证模型的性能,研究者采用了自助法(一种重采样技术,用于评估模型的稳定性和预测能力)。经过1 000次自助重采样后,校正的R2值为0.82,表明模型具有良好的内部一致性。尽管TE也存在一些禁忌证,如严重的肝功能衰竭、腹水明显的患者可能会影响测量结果的准确性37。但不可否认,作为经过验证的成熟弹性成像技术,TE在慢性肝病患者中的应用已经得到广泛认可。

由于肥胖、腹水和肝功能恶化都是可能阻碍LSM精确测量的限制因素,在某些病例中,TE检测结果与肝活组织检查结果不一致38。因此也有研究建议通过检测SSM来预测PH的程度39-40。相比于Baveno Ⅵ共识,Baveno Ⅶ共识新增加了脾脏的弹性测量值对PH及预后的评估,提出经TE测量的SSM可用于cACLD患者CSPH的诊断或排除741。在10例接受经颈静脉肝内门体静脉分流术(transjugular intr‑ahepatic portosystemic shunt,TIPS)治疗的肝硬化患者中,SSM的平均剪切波速度与门静脉压力(portal vein pressure,PVP)有良好的相关性42。而另一项纳入114例患者的荟萃分析中,研究者结合了Baveno Ⅶ共识和SSM的诊断算法43,用于非侵入性诊断CSPH。该算法可显著减少处于需侵入性手段诊断的患者数量。但由于脾脏的血供主要依赖于脾动脉,因此在检测PH方面,脾脏弹性成像的效果不及肝脏弹性成像,有研究发现在PPG≥20 mmHg(1 mmHg=0.133 kPa)时,SSM与HVPG并没有显著相关性44。Baveno Ⅶ共识目前建议使用100 Hz的特定TE探头测量SSM,联合点剪切波弹性成像和二维剪切波弹性成像来验证最佳截断值,同时提出可以根据SSM<21 kPa和SSM>50 kPa来排除和诊断某些病毒性肝炎患者的CSPH。然而,目前临床实践中仍缺乏可广泛使用的测量设备45-46

2.二维剪切波弹性成像:二维剪切波弹性成像能够利用超声波在组织中的传播来生成剪切波,通过分析这些波的传播速度来计算组织的弹性模量47-48。Hari等49研究显示,二维剪切波弹性成像在连续新发腹水患者中的应用表现出较高的灵敏度和特异度,不仅能够准确反映PVP的变化,还有助于评估PH患者腹水的病因。该技术的另一潜力在于其可以提供几厘米二维区域的剪切波速度信息,从而更好地反映肝脏纤维化程度29。然而患者的体型,脂肪层厚度,病变的类型(如深部肿瘤或囊肿)都可能导致声波衰减和成像困难,对诊断效果产生显著影响,这也使得二维剪切波弹性成像没有作为常规推荐纳入临床实践指南50-51

三、. CT扫描

CT扫描能够清晰显示门静脉及其分支的解剖结构,因此对PH有一定诊断性52。在临床实践中,CT不仅能够快速提供肝脏及其血管的高分辨率图像,及时完成急性情况的病情评估,还可以作为监测和跟踪治疗效果的重要工具,帮助医生制定个体化的治疗方案53-54。在一项纳入169例患者的研究中,实验者建立了基于CT提取的放射组学特征的门静脉压力无创预测模型(同时包含肝脏和脾脏特征)。经过队列验证,该模型与患者对内镜治疗的反应显著相关(最佳截断值为29.102 mmHg,AUC为0.866),在预测静脉曲张复发方面有良好表现55。Zhang等56构建了一种简化的三维虚拟门静脉树,通过CT增强图像进行三维有限元建模和流体动力学分析。该模型测得的虚拟门静脉压力梯度(virtual portal pressure gradientv,vPPG)与实际PPG之间存在显著的相关性。尤其当诊断PPG≥10 mmHg时,vPPG展现出极高的准确性(AUC为0.98)。此模型验证结果提示,vPPG对肝硬化患者的首次静脉曲张出血同样具有优异的诊断效能(AUC为0.875)。近年来,基于双能量CT技术定量的肝细胞外体积分数(hepatic extracellular volume fractions,fECVs)与PLT相结合的预测模型在PH的评估中也展现出良好的临床应用前景57。通过应用这些标准,可以安全地避免更多的侵入性检查,极大地改善了患者的临床管理58-59

四、. MRI

MRI作为一种广泛应用于临床诊断的非侵入性影像学检查,在评估PH方面展现了显著的潜力60。Zhang等61构建了基于脾静脉直径、脾脏体积、身体质量指数、天冬氨酸转氨酶与血小板计数比值指数等指标的PVP预测模型,并验证了该模型在评估PH症方面的准确性(AUC为0.935)。在另一项纳入了30例患者的前瞻性试验中,Palaniyappan等62通过肝脏的纵向弛豫时间(longitudinal relaxation time,T1)和脾动脉血流速度(splenic artery blood flow velocity,SAV)两个非侵入性参数来预测HVPG,该模型在CSPH患者中的相关系数为0.85,有较强的相关性。如今,MRI可以通过多种技术手段实现对PH的定量和定性分析,为临床决策提供重要依据。

1.磁共振血流动力学评估:磁共振血流动力学评估通过动态成像技术,能够直观地展示门静脉及其分支的血流情况63。Dillman等64研究表明,四维相位对比流动MRI可以定量评估门静脉的血流速度和血流量,从而推测门静脉压力的变化。研究结果表明,在儿童及年轻患者的PH预测中表现出良好的诊断性能,且尤其适用于自身免疫性肝病患者。另外,MRI血流动力学评估还能够揭示肝脏血流的动态变化,为评估PH的严重程度及其对肝脏功能的影响提供重要信息65。通过这种技术,医生能够更好地理解患者的病理生理状态,从而制定个性化的治疗方案。

2.磁共振弹性成像(magnetic resonance elastography,MRE):MRE是一种新兴的技术,能够利用声波的传播特性,通过测量肝脏组织的弹性模量来反映肝脏纤维化和PH的程度。Park等66在纳入104例非酒精性脂肪性肝病的研究中,以肝活组织检查结果为参照,MRE诊断任何纤维化程度的AUC为0.82,高于TE的AUC(0.67)。MRE还能够有效区分不同类型的PH患者,在非肝硬化性PH的诊断中显示出良好的应用前景67。未来,结合MRI的多模态成像技术的发展,有希望进一步提升MRE对PH的诊断准确性和临床应用价值68-69

五、. 磁控胶囊胃镜技术

磁控胶囊胃镜近年来被探索作为食管胃静脉曲张筛查的无创替代方法,具有多项技术优势。首先,整个检查过程无需镇静剂,极大提升了患者的舒适感和检查可接受性,特别适合对传统胃镜耐受性较差的人群70。其次,磁控系统使胶囊运动灵活可控,可以实现胃部的全方位观察,克服了传统胶囊内镜运动被动和视野受限的缺陷,能够更全面地检测病灶,尤其是胃底、胃角等部位71。Jiang等11开展的一项多中心前瞻性研究显示,可脱线磁控胶囊内镜(ds-MCE)在检测食管胃静脉曲张的灵敏度和特异度分别达到97.5%和97.8%,在识别高危食管静脉曲张时亦具备较高准确性(敏感度95.8%,特异度94.7%)。该方法亦能同时评估胃及小肠病变,患者依从性与满意度优于常规胃镜,且未出现严重不良事件。这些结果提示,ds-MCE有望在肝硬化患者的筛查和随访中成为传统胃镜的有效补充甚至替代方案。

六、. 人工智能与机器学习的应用

近年来,人工智能在PH检测领域展现出巨大潜力,成为非侵入性检测技术的重要推动力量。具体而言,AI能整合临床参数、影像学数据、血液生物标志物等多源异构信息,实现对PH的精准识别。例如,基于CT的人工智能模型能够非侵入性地量化HVPG指标,精准分级PH的严重程度,相关模型的AUC均超过0.8072,优于传统的血清学和影像学指标。AI技术在PH相关并发症,如食管胃静脉曲张的诊断和风险预测中也得到了广泛应用,通过分析内镜图像和临床数据,即可实现对静脉曲张出血风险的精准分层73

基于机器学习算法构建的高效预测模型可以从大规模临床及影像数据中自动提取特征,增强PH及其并发症的识别和风险评估能力。例如,Reiniš等74采用多变量机器学习模型(包括随机森林、支持向量机、极端梯度提升等)结合常规实验室指标(如PLT、胆红素、凝血功能等),构建了多参数预测工具。该模型能够准确预测CSPH和严重PH,模型的AUC超过0.8,并在多中心外部验证中表现稳定。同时,引入可解释人工智能的方法为机器学习模型提供了透明度和可解释性,增强了临床医生对模型的信任和应用意愿75

七、. 无创评估与临床决策路径

NITs在PH患者的临床治疗决策中扮演着越来越重要的角色,特别是在优化患者管理和个体化治疗策略方面。例如,LSM通过振动控制瞬时弹性成像技术已被证实可有效预测患者发展为肝硬化伴PH及肝细胞癌的风险,其高判别力(C指数>0.80)使得临床医师能够基于非侵入性指标进行风险分层,动态调整治疗和监测计划76

在具体治疗决策方面,NITs能够辅助选择和调整药物治疗方案,如非选择性β受体阻滞剂(non-selective β-blockers,NSBBs)在预防食管胃静脉曲张破裂中发挥重要作用。通过非侵入性评估肝脏血流动力学和肝功能,临床医师能够根据个体风险精准制定NSBBs的使用策略,从而降低出血风险,提高生存率77。此外,拟行或已行TIPS的患者可采用纤维化4因子、天冬氨酸转氨酶与血小板比率指数进行无创风险评估,据此判断术后生存概率与并发症风险,从而指导TIPS决策与围术期管理78

面对PH的急性并发症(如急性曲张静脉出血),NITs仍可作为分层与治疗取舍的重要参考。通过风险分层,结合非侵入性指标,临床团队能够早期识别高危患者,及时进行内镜下治疗或TIPS置入,显著降低再出血率和短期病死率79

综上所述,NITs作为PH管理的关键工具,以非侵入、多维信息支撑早期诊断、风险分层、治疗选择与疗效监测,推动个体化精准医疗。未来,随着技术进步与大规模验证,NITs将进一步纳入标准化决策路径,提升患者管理的科学性与效率。

八、. 总结与展望

PH是肝硬化失代偿期严重的并发症,可能导致患者发生出血、腹水、肝性脑病、肝肾综合征等,进而导致患者死亡。因此,准确评估PH的严重程度并进行风险分层,对于判断患者的预后及制定个体化的治疗策略具有重要意义。目前,经颈静脉检测HVPG被视为临床评估的金标准。但该检测方法因有创性,所以尚未被广泛应用于肝硬化患者的常规检查中。近年来,PH的无创检测技术在提高诊断准确性和患者舒适度方面取得了显著发展。而Baveno Ⅶ共识的发布,意味着NITs得到了进一步的认可和推广。这一共识不仅强调了无创检测在临床应用中的重要性,还提示了未来的研究方向,成为了PH管理领域的重要指南。在当前的研究中,各种无创检测方法,如弹性成像、血清标志物和影像学技术,均显示出了良好的应用潜力。然而,鉴于每种技术均存在一定的局限性,将多种诊断方法联合使用,从而提高诊断方案的临床使用性可能是今后研究的趋势。跨学科合作以及数据共享也有望为无创检测技术的发展提供新的机遇。

利益冲突

所有作者声明不存在利益冲突

引用本文:

陈俊霖, 杨长青. 结合Baveno Ⅶ共识定义后的门静脉高压无创检测新进展[J]. 中华肝脏病杂志, 2026, 34(3):271-277. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501113-20250621-00249.

Funding Statement

国家自然科学基金(22A20275);上海市临床重点专科建设项目(SHSLCZDZK06801)

National Natural Science Foundation of China (22A20275); Shanghai Clinical Key Specialty Construction Program (SHSLCZDZK06801)

参考文献

  • 1.Mukund A, Rana S, Mohan C, et al. Indian college of radiology and imaging evidence-based guidelines for interventions in portal hypertension and its complications[J]. Indian J Radiol Imaging, 2021, 31(4):917-932. DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1740235. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.直江秀昭, 田中基彦, 佐々木裕. 門脈圧亢進症の診断[J]. 日本消化器病学会雑誌, 2019, 116(5):374-385. DOI: 10.11405/nisshoshi.116.374. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Lu Q, Leong S, Lee KA, et al. Hepatic venous-portal gradient (HVPG) measurement:pearls and pitfalls[J]. Br J Radiol, 2021, 94(1124):20210061. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20210061. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.李小梅, 雒博晗, 王钲钰, et al. BAVENO Ⅶ门静脉高压共识更新:门静脉高压的个体化治疗[J]. 中华肝脏病杂志, 2022, 30(1):21-29. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501113-20220109-00010. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Simonetto DA, Liu M, Kamath PS. Portal hypertension and related complications:diagnosis and management[J]. Mayo Clin Proc, 2019, 94(4):714-726. DOI: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2018.12.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Bochnakova T. Hepatic venous pressure gradient[J]. Clin Liver Dis, 2021, 17(3):144-148. DOI: 10.1002/cld.1031. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.De Franchis R, Bosch J, Garcia-Tsao G, et al. Baveno Ⅶ - renewing consensus in portal hypertension[J]. J Hepatol, 2022, 76(4):959-974. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2021.12.022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Téllez L, Guerrero A, Albillos A. Update on the diagnosis and management of portal hypertension in cirrhosis according to the Baveno VII Consensus Conference recommendations[J]. Rev Esp Enferm Dig, 2022, 114(9):534-542. DOI: 10.17235/reed.2022.8868/2022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Hu X, Huang X, Hou J, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of spleen stiffness to evaluate portal hypertension and esophageal varices in chronic liver disease:a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Eur Radiol, 2021, 31(4):2392-2404. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-020-07223-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Sandrin L, Fourquet B, Hasquenoph JM, et al. Transient elastography:a new noninvasive method for assessment of hepatic fibrosis[J]. Ultrasound Med Biol, 2003, 29(12):1705-1713. DOI: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2003.07.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Jiang X, Pan J, Xu Q, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of magnetically guided capsule endoscopy with a detachable string for detecting oesophagogastric varices in adults with cirrhosis:prospective multicentre study[J]. BMJ, 2024, 384:e078581. DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2023-078581. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Qi X, Li Z, Huang J, et al. Virtual portal pressure gradient from anatomic CT angiography[J]. Gut, 2015, 64(6):1004-1005. DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2014-308543. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Kennedy P, Bane O, Hectors SJ, et al. Noninvasive imaging assessment of portal hypertension[J]. Abdom Radiol (NY), 2020, 45(11):3473-3495. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-020-02729-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Buck M, Garcia-Tsao G, Groszmann RJ, et al. Novel inflamma‑tory biomarkers of portal pressure in compensated cirrhosis patients[J]. Hepatology, 2014, 59(3):1052-1059. DOI: 10.1002/hep.26755. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Wang L, Feng Y, Ma X, et al. Diagnostic efficacy of noninvasive liver fibrosis indexes in predicting portal hypertension in patients with cirrhosis[J]. PLoS One, 2017, 12(8):e0182969. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0182969. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Leeming DJ, Karsdal MA, Byrjalsen I, et al. Novel serological neo-epitope markers of extracellular matrix proteins for the detection of portal hypertension[J]. Aliment Pharmacol Ther, 2013, 38(9):1086-1096. DOI: 10.1111/apt.12484. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Berzigotti A, Seijo S, Arena U, et al. Elastography, spleen size, and platelet count identify portal hypertension in patients with compensated cirrhosis[J]. Gastroenterology, 2013, 144(1):102-111.e101. DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2012.10.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Liguori A, D'ambrosio F, Napodano C, et al. Serum-free light chains as a dependable biomarker for stratifying patients with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease[J]. Liver Int, 2024, 44(10):2625-2638. DOI: 10.1111/liv.16036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Hametner S, Ferlitsch A, Ferlitsch M, et al. The VITRO score (von willebrand factor antigen/thrombocyte ratio) as a new marker for clinically significant portal hypertension in compari‑son to other non-invasive parameters of fibrosis including ELF test[J]. PLoS One, 2016, 11(2):e0149230. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0149230. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Zou Z, Yan X, Li C, et al. von Willebrand factor as a biomarker of clinically significant portal hypertension and severe portal hypertension:a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. BMJ Open, 2019, 9(8):e025656. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025656. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.European Association for the Study of the Liver . EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines on non-invasive tests for evaluation of liver disease severity and prognosis-2021 update[J]. J Hepatol, 2021, 75(3):659-689. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2021.05.025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Ortega-Ribera M, Gibert-Ramos A, Abad-Jordà L, et al. Increased sinusoidal pressure impairs liver endothelial mechan‑osensing, uncovering novel biomarkers of portal hypertension[J]. JHEP Rep, 2023, 5(6):100722. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhepr.2023.100722. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Liu S, Ma J, Chen P, et al. Novel serum biomarker of Golgi protein 73 for the diagnosis of clinically significant portal hypertension in patients with compensated cirrhosis[J]. J Med Virol, 2024, 96(1):e29380. DOI: 10.1002/jmv.29380. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Sturm L, Bettinger D, Roth L, et al. Plasma cyclic guanosine monophosphate is a promising biomarker of clinically significant portal hypertension in patients with liver cirrhosis[J]. Front Med (Lausanne), 2021, 8:803119. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2021.803119. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Yaqoob U, Luo F, Greuter T, et al. GIPC-regulated IGFBP-3 promotes HSC migration in vitro and portal hypertension in vivo through a β1-integrin pathway[J]. Cell Mol Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2020, 10(3):545-559. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcmgh.2020.05.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Berzigotti A, Piscaglia F. Ultrasound in portal hypertension-part 1[J]. Ultraschall Med, 2011, 32(6):548-568; quiz 569- 571. DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1281856. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Berzigotti A, Piscaglia F. Ultrasound in portal hypertension-part 2-and EFSUMB recommendations for the performance and reporting of ultrasound examinations in portal hypertension[J]. Ultraschall Med, 2012, 33(1):8-32; quiz 30- 31. DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1299145. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.王宏亮, 孙军辉. 肝静脉压力梯度在门静脉高压全病程管理中的作用[J]. 中华肝脏病杂志, 2020, 28(9):728-731. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501113-20200613-00313. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Ozturk A, Olson MC, Samir AE, et al. Liver fibrosis assessment: MR and US elastography[J]. Abdom Radiol (NY), 2022, 47(9):3037-3050. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-021-03269-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Li H, Bhatt M, Qu Z, et al. Deep learning in ultrasound elastography imaging:a review[J]. Med Phys, 2022, 49(9):5993-6018. DOI: 10.1002/mp.15856. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Tehrani AKZ, Amiri M, Rivaz H. Real-time and high quality ultrasound elastography using convolutional neural network by incorporating analytic signal[J]. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc, 2020, 2020:2075-2078. DOI: 10.1109/embc44-109.2020.9176025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Reiberger T. The value of liver and spleen stiffness for evaluation of portal hypertension in compensated cirrhosis[J]. Hepatol Commun, 2022, 6(5):950-964. DOI: 10.1002/hep4.1855. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Han K, Shen J, Tan K, et al. The association between blood manganese and liver stiffness in participants with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease:a cross-sectional study from NHANES 2017-2018[J]. Eur J Med Res, 2023, 28(1):14. DOI: 10.1186/s40001-022-00977-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Boeken T, Lucidarme O, Mbarki E, et al. Association of shear-wave elastography with clinical outcomes post-liver transplantation[J]. Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol, 2021, 45(5):101554. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinre.2020.09.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Kumar A, Maruyama H, Arora A, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of transient elastography in diagnosing clinically significant portal hypertension in patients with chronic liver disease:a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. J Med Ultrason (2001), 2022, 49(3):333-346. DOI: 10.1007/s10396-022-01239-x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Colecchia A, Montrone L, Scaioli E, et al. Measurement of spleen stiffness to evaluate portal hypertension and the presence of esophageal varices in patients with HCV-related cirrhosis[J]. Gastroenterology, 2012, 143(3):646-654. DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2012.05.035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Piscaglia F, Marinelli S, Bota S, et al. The role of ultrasound elastographic techniques in chronic liver disease:current status and future perspectives[J]. Eur J Radiol, 2014, 83(3):450-455. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.06.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Fraquelli M, Rigamonti C. Diagnosis of cirrhosis by transient elastography:what is hidden behind misleading results[J]. Hepatology, 2007, 46(1):282, author reply 282- 283. DOI: 10.1002/hep.21653. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Fang C, Lim A, Sidhu PS. Ultrasound-based liver elastography in the assessment of fibrosis[J]. Clin Radiol, 2020, 75(11):822-831. DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2020.01.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Odriozola A, Puente Á, Cuadrado A, et al. High accuracy of spleen stiffness measurement in diagnosing clinically significant portal hypertension in metabolic-associated fatty liver disease[J]. Liver Int, 2023, 43(7):1446-1457. DOI: 10.1111/liv.15561. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Dajti E, Ravaioli F, Zykus R, et al. Accuracy of spleen stiffness measurement for the diagnosis of clinically significant portal hypertension in patients with compensated advanced chronic liver disease:a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis[J]. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2023, 8(9):816-828. DOI: 10.1016/s2468-1253(23)00150-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Gao J, Ran HT, Ye XP, et al. The stiffness of the liver and spleen on ARFI Imaging pre and post TIPS placement:a preliminary observation[J]. Clin Imaging, 2012, 36(2):135-141. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2011.11.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Dajti E, Ravaioli F, Marasco G, et al. A combined Baveno VII and spleen stiffness algorithm to improve the noninvasive diagnosis of clinically significant portal hypertension in patients with compensated advanced chronic liver disease[J]. Am J Gastroenterol, 2022, 117(11):1825-1833. DOI: 10.14309/ajg.000-0000000001887. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Rifai K, Cornberg J, Bahr M, et al. ARFI elastography of the spleen is inferior to liver elastography for the detection of portal hypertension[J]. Ultraschall Med, 2011, 32 Suppl 2:E24-30. DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1281771. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.He R, Liu C, Grgurevic I, et al. Validation of Baveno VII criteria for clinically significant portal hypertension by two-dimensional shear wave elastography[J]. Hepatol Int, 2024, 18(3):1020-1028. DOI: 10.1007/s12072-024-10657-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Lantinga MA, Van Kleef LA, Den Hoed CM, et al. Spleen stiffness measurement across the spectrum of liver disease patients in real-world practice[J]. J Clin Exp Hepatol, 2023, 13(3):414-427. DOI: 10.1016/j.jceh.2022.12.015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Ranger BJ, Moerman KM, Feigin M, et al. 3D ultrasound shear wave elastography for musculoskeletal tissue assessment under compressive load:a feasibility study[J]. Ultrason Imaging, 2024, 46(4-5):251-262. DOI: 10.1177/01617346241253798. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Dong B, Chen Y, Chen Y, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of liver stiffness on two-dimensional shear wave elastography for detecti‑ng clinically significant portal hypertension:a meta-analysis[J]. Expert Rev Med Devices, 2023, 20(2):141-149. DOI: 10.1080/17434440.2022.2077642. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Hari A, Štabuc B. Possible use of 2D shear wave liver elastography in new-onset ascites evaluation[J]. BMC Gastroe‑nterol, 2024, 24(1):68. DOI: 10.1186/s12876-024-03159-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Ma Y, Wang G, Gao F, et al. Clinical utility of 3D magnetic resonance elastography in patients with biliary obstruction[J]. Eur Radiol, 2022, 32(3):2050-2059. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-021-08295-w. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Ozbalci AB, Piskin A. Clinical significance of shear wave ultrasound elastography in patients with idiopathic adhesive capsulitis:can it be used instead of magnetic resonance imaging as an early indicator?[J]. Ultrasound Q, 2022, 38(3):250-256. DOI: 10.1097/ruq.0000000000000603. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Hammer S, Schlitt HJ, Knoppke B, et al. Sequential CT arterioportography-arteriosplenography depicts individual haemodynamic changes in children with portal hypertension without cirrhosis[J]. Eur Radiol Exp, 2020, 4(1):65. DOI: 10.1186/s41747-020-00193-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Zafar F, Lubert AM, Trout AT, et al. Abdominal CT and MRI findings of portal hypertension in children and adults with fontan circulation[J]. Radiology, 2022, 303(3):557-565. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.211037. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Romero-Cristóbal M, Clemente-Sánchez A, Ramón E, et al. CT-derived liver and spleen volume accurately diagnose clinic‑ally significant portal hypertension in patients with hepatocell‑ular carcinoma[J]. JHEP Rep, 2023, 5(3):100645. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhepr.2022.100645. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Tseng Y, Ma L, Li S, et al. Application of CT-based radiomics in predicting portal pressure and patient outcome in portal hypertension[J]. Eur J Radiol, 2020, 126:108927. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2020.108927. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Zhang S, Song W, Yang B, et al. A non-invasive model based on the virtual portal pressure gradient to predict the first variceal hemorrhage in cirrhotic patients[J]. Hepatol Int, 2022, 16(4):926-935. DOI: 10.1007/s12072-022-10344-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Hong S, Kim JE, Cho JM, et al. Quantification of liver extracellular volume using dual-energy CT for ruling out high-risk varices in cirrhosis[J]. Eur J Radiol, 2022, 148:110151. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2022.110151. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Liu F, Ning Z, Liu Y, et al. Development and validation of a radiomics signature for clinically significant portal hypertension in cirrhosis (CHESS1701):a prospective multicenter study[J]. EBioMedicine, 2018, 36:151-158. DOI: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2018.09.023. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Qi X, An W, Liu F, et al. Virtual hepatic venous pressure gradient with CT angiography (CHESS 1601):a prospective multicenter study for the noninvasive diagnosis of portal hyperte‑nsion[J]. Radiology, 2019, 290(2):370-377. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2018180425. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Wang C, Huang Y, Liu C, et al. Diagnosis of clinically significant portal hypertension using CT-and MRI-based vascular model[J]. Radiology, 2023, 307(2):e221648. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.221648. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Zhang QW, Wang Y, Wang J, et al. A non-invasive magnetic resonance imaging-based model predicts portal venous pressure[J]. J Dig Dis, 2016, 17(3):175-185. DOI: 10.1111/1751-2980.12325. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Palaniyappan N, Cox E, Bradley C, et al. Non-invasive assessment of portal hypertension using quantitative magnetic resonance imaging[J]. J Hepatol, 2016, 65(6):1131-1139. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2016.07.021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Moon CM, Kim SK, Heo SH, et al. Hemodynamic changes in the portal vein with age:evaluation using four-dimensional flow MRI[J]. Sci Rep, 2023, 13(1):7397. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-34522-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Dillman JR, Serai SD, Trout AT, et al. Diagnostic performance of quantitative magnetic resonance imaging biomarkers for predicting portal hypertension in children and young adults with autoimmune liver disease[J]. Pediatr Radiol, 2019, 49(3):332-341. DOI: 10.1007/s00247-018-4319-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Mesropyan N, Isaak A, Faron A, et al. Magnetic resonance parametric mapping of the spleen for non-invasive assessment of portal hypertension[J]. Eur Radiol, 2021, 31(1):85-93. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-020-07080-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Park CC, Nguyen P, Hernandez C, et al. Magnetic resonance elastography vs transient elastography in detection of fibrosis and noninvasive measurement of steatosis in patients with biopsy-proven nonalcoholic fatty liver disease[J]. Gastroentero‑logy, 2017, 152(3):598-607.e592. DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2016.10.026. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Navin PJ, Gidener T, Allen AM, et al. The role of magnetic resonance elastography in the diagnosis of noncirrhotic portal hypertension[J]. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2020, 18(13):3051-3053.e3052. DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.10.018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Andoh F, Yue JL, Julea F, et al. Multifrequency magnetic resonance elastography for elasticity quantitation and optimal tissue discrimination:A two-platform liver fibrosis mimicking phantom study[J]. NMR Biomed, 2021, 34(8):e4543. DOI: 10.1002/nbm.4543. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Kennedy P, Stocker D, Carbonell G, et al. MR elastography outperforms shear wave elastography for the diagnosis of clinically significant portal hypertension[J]. Eur Radiol, 2022, 32(12):8339-8349. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-022-08935-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Li J, Li L, Li Y, et al. Magnetic-controlled capsule endoscopy performance in aging patients[J]. BMC Gastroenterol, 2023, 23(1):277. DOI: 10.1186/s12876-023-02914-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Hu J, Yunpeng H, Wang S, et al. The operation training for magnetically controlled capsule endoscopy[J]. Eur J Gastroent‑erol Hepatol, 2021, 33(1):46-49. DOI: 10.1097/meg.00000000-00001836. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Yu Q, Huang Y, Li X, et al. An imaging-based artificial intelligence model for non-invasive grading of hepatic venous pressure gradient in cirrhotic portal hypertension[J]. Cell Rep Med, 2022, 3(3):100563. DOI: 10.1016/j.xcrm.2022.100563. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Wang QC, Jiao J, Zhang CQ. Application of artificial intelligence in portal hypertension and esophagogastric varices[J]. World J Gastroenterol, 2025, 31(24):108508. DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v31.i24.108508. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Reiniš J, Petrenko O, Simbrunner B, et al. Assessment of portal hypertension severity using machine learning models in patients with compensated cirrhosis[J]. J Hepatol, 2023, 78(2):390-400. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2022.09.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Liu DJ, Jia LX, Zeng FX, et al. Machine learning prediction of hepatic encephalopathy for long-term survival after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in acute variceal bleeding[J]. World J Gastroenterol, 2025, 31(4):100401. DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v31.i4.100401. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Hegmar H, Wester A, Aleman S, et al. Liver stiffness predicts progression to liver-related events in patients with chronic liver disease-A cohort study of 14 414 patients[J]. Liver Int, 2024, 44(7):1689-1699. DOI: 10.1111/liv.15919. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Magaz M, Baiges A, Hernández-Gea V. Precision medicine in variceal bleeding:are we there yet?[J]. J Hepatol, 2020, 72(4):774-784. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2020.01.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Choudhary MM, Nazeri A, Aldine AS, et al. Predicting morbidity and mortality after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt placement:a review of existing models and future directions[J]. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol, 2025, 28(3):101062. DOI: 10.1016/j.tvir.2025.101062. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Higuera-De-La-Tijera F, Noble-Lugo A, Crespo J, et al. Mexican consensus on the approach to and treatment of acute variceal bleeding[J]. Rev Gastroenterol Mex (Engl Ed), 2025. DOI: 10.1016/j.rgmxen.2025.09.007. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Chinese Journal of Hepatology are provided here courtesy of Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University

RESOURCES