Skip to main content
. 2019 Oct;7(20):583. doi: 10.21037/atm.2019.09.22

Table 5. Comparison of diagnostic abilities of studies used transit time to assess portal hypertension.

Study Patients UCAs Parameters Reference standard Cut-off Correlation Grade of PH AUROC Se/Sp/PPV/NPV/Ac/PLR/NLR Ref.
Zhang et al. 31 SonoVue HVHAT FPP NR r=−0.90, P<0.001 NR NR NR (82)
PVHAT FPP NR r=0.81, P<0.001 NR NR NR
Kim et al. 71 SonoVue HVAT HVPG 14 s r2=0.55, P<0.001 CSPH 0.973 93/87/91/90/NR/6.95/0.08 (83)
Shimada et al. 91 Sonazoid PET HVPG 13.5 s r=0.46, P=0.001 CSPH 0.76 71/68/69/70/NR/NR/NR (87)
PET HVPG 14.5 s r=0.46, P=0.001 SPH 0.76 60/80/75/67/NR/NR/NR
Jeong et al. 53 SonoVue HVAT HVPG 19 s r=−0.34 SPH 0.72 56/89/95/35/63/NR/NR (84)
ITT HVPG 6 s r=−0.61 SPH 0.94 91/89/97/73/91/NR/NR

The four studies show the diagnostic abilities of transit time based on microbubble ultrasound contrast agents (UCAs). HVHAT, hepatic-vein-hepatic-artery interval time; PVHAT, portal-vein-hepatic-artery interval time; HVAT, hepatic vein arrival time; PET, peak enhancement time; ITT, intrahepatic transit time; FPP, free portal pressure; HVPG, hepatic venous pressure gradient; Se, sensitivity; Sp, specificity; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value; Ac, accuracy; PLR, positive likelihood ratio; NLR, negative likelihood ratio; CSPH, clinically significant portal hypertension; SPH, severe portal hypertension; AUROC, area under the receiver operating curve; NR, no report.