Abdominal Radiology

, Volume 44, Issue 3, pp 1127–1134 | Cite as

Shear wave elastography prior to transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt may predict the decrease in hepatic vein pressure gradient

  • Dina AttiaEmail author
  • Thomas Rodt
  • Steffen Marquardt
  • Jan Hinrichs
  • Bernhard C. Meyer
  • Michael Gebel
  • Frank Wacker
  • Michael P. Manns
  • Andrej Potthoff



Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is a procedure used to treat portal hypertension complications. Our aim was to evaluate liver and spleen stiffness measurement (LSM and SSM, respectively) changes using acoustic radiation force impulse imaging (ARFI) in comparison to Child–Pugh scores for predicting hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) decreases after TIPS implantation.


This prospective study included 31 consecutive clinically significant portal hypertension patients with TIPS indication. All patients received LSM and SSM before TIPS, at baseline, 2 days (follow-up 1) and 6 weeks (follow-up 2) post-implantation. HVPG was performed during the TIPS procedure.


The mean decrease in HVPG after TIPS was 63%. LSM and SSM decreased significantly between baseline and follow-up 2 (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). At baseline, follow-up 1 and follow-up 2, significant correlations were detected between mean SSM and mean HVPG (p = 0.026; p = 0.018; p = 0.002, respectively). HVPG decreased to ≤ 10 mmHg in 61% of patients for which LSM, SSM, and Child–Pugh score were predictors (p = 0.033, p = 0.002 and p = 0.030, respectively). The area under the curve (AUC) for LSM, SSM, and Child–Pugh was 0.88, 0.90, and 0.84, respectively, with close sensitivity and specificity. SSM had the highest diagnostic accuracy for predicting an HVPG decrease to ≤ 10 mmHg in comparison to LSM and Child–Pugh score.


Spleen stiffness is superior to liver stiffness and Child–Pugh score as a non-invasive surveillance tool for evaluating patients with clinically significant portal hypertension (HVPG ≥ 10 mmHg) prior to TIPS.


ARFI Acoustic radiation force impulse imaging elastography TIPS Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt Spleen stiffness Liver stiffness 



Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt


Liver stiffness measurement


Spleen stiffness measurement


Acoustic radiation force impulse imaging


Hepatic venous pressure gradient


Area under the curve


Transient elastography


Clinical significant portal hypertension




Portal vein velocity


Maximal flow velocity


Deutsche Gesellschaft für Ultraschall in der Medizin (German Association for ultrasound in medicine


Region of interest


Model of end-stage liver disease


Author contributions

Dina Attia, Andrej Potthoff, Thomas Rodt, and Michael Gebel designed the concept of the study. Dina Attia and Andrej Potthoff wrote the manuscript, analyzed, and interpreted the data. All other authors collected the data. All authors reviewed the manuscript and approved the final version to be published.

Compliance with ethical standards


No funding.

Competing interests

Andrej Potthoff and Michael Gebel received lecture fees supported by Siemens Healthineers AG (Erlangen, Germany).


  1. 1.
    D’Amico G, et al. (2006) Hepatic vein pressure gradient reduction and prevention of variceal bleeding in cirrhosis: a systematic review. Gastroenterology 131(5):1611–1624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rossle M (2013) TIPS: 25 years later. J Hepatol 59(5):1081–1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Testino G, et al. (2003) Type-2 hepatorenal syndrome and refractory ascites: role of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent-shunt in eighteen patients with advanced cirrhosis awaiting orthotopic liver transplantation. Hepatogastroenterology 50(54):1753–1755Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ochs A (2005) Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt. Dig Dis 23(1):56–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    de Franchis R, Baveno VIF (2015) Expanding consensus in portal hypertension: Report of the Baveno VI Consensus Workshop: Stratifying risk and individualizing care for portal hypertension. J Hepatol 63(3):743–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pateria P, et al. (2017) Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt: Indications, complications, survival and its use as a bridging therapy to liver transplant in Western Australia. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 61(4):441–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Thabut D, et al. (2010) Diagnostic performance of Baveno IV criteria in cirrhotic patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: analysis of the F7 liver-1288 study population. J Hepatol 53(6):1029–1034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cholongitas E, et al. (2005) Systematic review: The model for end-stage liver disease–should it replace Child-Pugh’s classification for assessing prognosis in cirrhosis? Aliment Pharmacol Ther 22(11–12):1079–1089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Durand F, Valla D (2005) Assessment of the prognosis of cirrhosis: Child-Pugh versus MELD. J Hepatol 42:S100–S107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gaba RC, et al. (2013) Prognostic capability of different liver disease scoring systems for prediction of early mortality after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt creation. J Vasc Interv Radiol 24(3):411–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhou C, et al. (2015) Predictive accuracy comparison of MELD and Child-Turcotte-Pugh scores for survival in patients underwent TIPS placement: a systematic meta-analytic review. Int J Clin Exp Med 8(8):13464–13472Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Trotter JF, Suhocki PV, Rockey DC (1998) Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) in patients with refractory ascites: effect on body weight and Child-Pugh score. Am J Gastroenterol 93(10):1891–1894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Montgomery A, et al. (2005) MELD score as a predictor of early death in patients undergoing elective transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) procedures. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 28(3):307–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mandorfer M, et al. (2016) Sustained virologic response to interferon-free therapies ameliorates HCV-induced portal hypertension. J Hepatol 65(4):692–699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Berzigotti A (2017) Non-invasive evaluation of portal hypertension using ultrasound elastography. J Hepatol 67(2):399–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Attia D, et al. (2015) Evaluation of liver and spleen stiffness with acoustic radiation force impulse quantification elastography for diagnosing clinically significant portal hypertension. Ultraschall Med 36(6):603–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jansen C, et al. (2017) Increase in liver stiffness after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt is associated with inflammation and predicts mortality. Hepatology 67:1472–1484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Buechter M, et al. (2018) Spleen stiffness is positively correlated with HVPG and decreases significantly after TIPS implantation. Dig Liver Dis 50(1):54–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    De Santis A, et al. (2018) Modification of splenic stiffness on acoustic radiation force impulse parallels the variation of portal pressure induced by transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 33(3):704–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gao J, et al. (2016) Shear wave elastography of the spleen for monitoring transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt function: a pilot study. J Ultrasound Med 35(5):951–958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Berzigotti A, et al. (2012) Ultrasound in portal hypertension–part 2–and EFSUMB recommendations for the performance and reporting of ultrasound examinations in portal hypertension. Ultraschall Med 33(1):8–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Feldstein VA, Patel MD, LaBerge JM (1996) Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts: accuracy of Doppler US in determination of patency and detection of stenoses. Radiology 201(1):141–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kanterman RY, et al. (1997) Doppler sonography findings associated with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt malfunction. AJR Am J Roentgenol 168(2):467–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Foshager MC, et al. (1994) Color Doppler sonography of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPS). AJR Am J Roentgenol 163(1):105–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Murphy TP, et al. (1998) Long-term follow-up after TIPS: use of Doppler velocity criteria for detecting elevation of the portosystemic gradient. J Vasc Interv Radiol 9(2):275–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Haskal ZJ, et al. (1997) Sonography of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts: detection of elevated portosystemic gradients and loss of shunt function. J Vasc Interv Radiol 8(4):549–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bamber J, et al. (2013) EFSUMB guidelines and recommendations on the clinical use of ultrasound elastography. Part 1: Basic principles and technology. Ultraschall Med 34(2):169–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nightingale K, et al. (2002) Acoustic radiation force impulse imaging: in vivo demonstration of clinical feasibility. Ultrasound Med Biol 28(2):227–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Potthoff A, et al. (2013) Influence of different frequencies and insertion depths on the diagnostic accuracy of liver elastography by acoustic radiation force impulse imaging (ARFI). Eur J Radiol 82(8):1207–1212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Karlas T, et al. (2014) Assessment of spleen stiffness using acoustic radiation force impulse imaging (ARFI): definition of examination standards and impact of breathing maneuvers. Ultraschall Med 35(1):38–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lemoine M, et al. (2008) Liver stiffness measurement as a predictive tool of clinically significant portal hypertension in patients with compensated hepatitis C virus or alcohol-related cirrhosis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 28(9):1102–1110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tzschatzsch H, et al. (2017) Time-harmonic elastography of the liver is sensitive to intrahepatic pressure gradient and liver decompression after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) implantation. Ultrasound Med Biol 43(3):595–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Procopet B, Berzigotti A (2017) Diagnosis of cirrhosis and portal hypertension: imaging, non-invasive markers of fibrosis and liver biopsy. Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf) 5(2):79–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lindner F, et al. (2018) Predictive value of liver and spleen stiffness in advanced alcoholic cirrhosis with refractory ascites. Z Gastroenterol 56(6):561–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Yang C, et al. (2017) Static and dynamic liver stiffness: An ex vivo porcine liver study using MR elastography. Magn Reson Imaging 44:92–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Guturu P, Shah V (2009) New insights into the pathobiology of portal hypertension. Hepatol Res 39(10):1016–1019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yin M, et al. (2007) Quantitative assessment of hepatic fibrosis in an animal model with magnetic resonance elastography. Magn Reson Med 58(2):346–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Huwart L, et al. (2008) Magnetic resonance elastography for the noninvasive staging of liver fibrosis. Gastroenterology 135(1):32–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and EndocrinologyHannover Medical SchoolHannoverGermany
  2. 2.Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Endemic Medicine, Faculty of MedicineBeni-Suef UniversityBeni-SuefEgypt
  3. 3.Department of Diagnostic and Interventional RadiologyHannover Medical SchoolHannoverGermany

Personalised recommendations