Scholarlink

Purpose <p>Non-invasive laboratory-based models have been proposed to estimate portal hypertension severity in patients with compensated advanced chronic liver disease (cACLD), but external validation in diverse populations remains limited. We aimed to externally validate two such models, originally developed in European cohorts, for predicting clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH; hepatic venous pressure gradient [HVPG] ≥ 10&#xa0;mmHg) and severe portal hypertension (HVPG ≥ 16&#xa0;mmHg) in a U.S.-based cACLD cohort.</p> Methods <p>We conducted a retrospective single-center study of adults with cACLD who underwent HVPG measurement between 2014 and 2024. Patients with active hepatic decompensation, hepatocellular carcinoma, or prior transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt were excluded. Model performance of the Vienna laboratory-based model and the FIB-4 plus albumin (FIB4 +) model was evaluated using discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC]) and calibration metrics, including calibration intercepts, slopes, and Brier scores.</p> Results <p>The cohort included 143 patients (median age 56&#xa0;years; 54% female), predominantly with metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease or alcohol-related liver disease. Median HVPG was 7&#xa0;mmHg, with CSPH present in 33% and HVPG ≥ 16&#xa0;mmHg in 11%. Discrimination was modest for both models. The Vienna model achieved AUROCs of 0.71 for HVPG ≥ 10&#xa0;mmHg and 0.77 for HVPG ≥ 16&#xa0;mmHg, while the FIB4 + model achieved AUROCs of 0.69 and 0.71, respectively. Both models systematically overestimated risk, demonstrating poor calibration across thresholds. Negative predictive values for HVPG ≥ 16&#xa0;mmHg exceeded 95% for both models. Predictive performance was weaker in non-viral etiologies.</p> Conclusion <p>In this U.S.-based external validation, laboratory-based models for portal hypertension showed modest discrimination and poor calibration, with systematic risk overestimation. While high negative predictive values suggest potential utility as rule-out tools for severe portal hypertension, recalibration and prospective validation are required before clinical implementation.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

External Validation of Laboratory-Based Models to Assess Portal Hypertension Severity in Patients with Compensated Chronic Liver Disease

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月19日

查看全文
  • Fahad S. Mohammed,
  • Minzhi Xing,
  • Michael Mohnasky,
  • Andrew Caddell,
  • Jack Felkner,
  • Thomas Turner,
  • Arjun Juneja,
  • Nima Kokabi,
  • Hyeon Yu,
  • Chelsea Anderson,
  • A. Sidney Barritt,
  • Andrew M. Moon

摘要

Purpose

Non-invasive laboratory-based models have been proposed to estimate portal hypertension severity in patients with compensated advanced chronic liver disease (cACLD), but external validation in diverse populations remains limited. We aimed to externally validate two such models, originally developed in European cohorts, for predicting clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH; hepatic venous pressure gradient [HVPG] ≥ 10 mmHg) and severe portal hypertension (HVPG ≥ 16 mmHg) in a U.S.-based cACLD cohort.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective single-center study of adults with cACLD who underwent HVPG measurement between 2014 and 2024. Patients with active hepatic decompensation, hepatocellular carcinoma, or prior transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt were excluded. Model performance of the Vienna laboratory-based model and the FIB-4 plus albumin (FIB4 +) model was evaluated using discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC]) and calibration metrics, including calibration intercepts, slopes, and Brier scores.

Results

The cohort included 143 patients (median age 56 years; 54% female), predominantly with metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease or alcohol-related liver disease. Median HVPG was 7 mmHg, with CSPH present in 33% and HVPG ≥ 16 mmHg in 11%. Discrimination was modest for both models. The Vienna model achieved AUROCs of 0.71 for HVPG ≥ 10 mmHg and 0.77 for HVPG ≥ 16 mmHg, while the FIB4 + model achieved AUROCs of 0.69 and 0.71, respectively. Both models systematically overestimated risk, demonstrating poor calibration across thresholds. Negative predictive values for HVPG ≥ 16 mmHg exceeded 95% for both models. Predictive performance was weaker in non-viral etiologies.

Conclusion

In this U.S.-based external validation, laboratory-based models for portal hypertension showed modest discrimination and poor calibration, with systematic risk overestimation. While high negative predictive values suggest potential utility as rule-out tools for severe portal hypertension, recalibration and prospective validation are required before clinical implementation.