Search tips
Search criteria 


Logo of nihpaAbout Author manuscriptsSubmit a manuscriptHHS Public Access; Author Manuscript; Accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal;
Ann Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 June 13.
Published in final edited form as:
PMCID: PMC4904298



Portal hypertension is a severe syndrome that may derive from pre-sinusoidal, sinusoidal and post-sinusoidal causes. As a consequence, several complications (i.e., ascites, oesophageal varices) may develop. In sinusoidal portal hypertension, hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) is a reliable method for defining the grade of portal pressure, establishing the effectiveness of the treatment and predicting the occurrence of complications; however, some questions exist regarding its ability to discriminate bleeding from nonbleeding varices in cirrhotic patients. Other imaging techniques (transient elastography, endoscopy, endosonography and duplex Doppler sonography) for assessing causes and complications of portal hypertensive syndrome are available and may be valuable for the management of these patients.

In this review, we evaluate invasive and non-invasive techniques currently employed to obtain a clinical prediction of deadly complications, such as variceal bleeding in patients affected by sinusoidal portal hypertension, in order to create a diagnostic algorithm to manage them.

Again, HVPG appears to be the reference standard to evaluate portal hypertension and monitor the response to treatment, but its ability to predict several complications and support management decisions might be further improved through the diagnostic combination with other imaging techniques.

Keywords: liver cirrhosis, noninvasive assessment, portal hypertension, radiology, ultrasound


Portal hypertension is due to enhanced portal vein pressure caused by prehepatic, intrahepatic or posthepatic resistance (1). In liver cirrhosis, portal hypertension begins when there is fibrotic disruption of the sinusoidal liver architecture and dynamic changes in the contractility of hepatic stellate cells (2). An impairment of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (3), and an imbalanced production of a number of vasoactive mediators, may cause the development of intrahepatic vascular shunts, contributing to the severity of portal hypertension and its complications, and favouring the development of a hyperdynamic circulation (46).

Despite an absolute increase in blood volume, there is a state of functional hypovolemia and then to compensate for it, the sympathetic nervous system is strongly activated, leading to sodium and water retention that worsens portal hypertension and favours ascites production (79). At the same time, kidney imbalances and hepatorenal syndrome may develop (9), as well as, portosystemic shunts; the development of varices is strongly favoured when increased reversal inflow involves the gastric veins. Because the prevalence of varices is high in cirrhotics (10,11), knowing the grade of portal hypertension is important.

Today, the measurement of hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) is considered a safe procedure to indirectly individuate the portal pressure and monitor the portal hypertension. An HVPG value above 5 mmHg is suggestive of portal hypertension (12). HVPG accurately reflects the portal pressure, but some variables may influence its reliability in predicting variceal bleeding. HVPG, in some circumstances, does not reach clinical utility, at which point employing other methods might add helpful information.

We aim to review available data regarding the ability of HVPG to assess portal hypertension and the risk of variceal bleeding by comparing this invasive method to other non-invasive and invasive methods that are also available for this purpose.

Hepatic Venous Pressure Gradient

Wedged hepatic venous pressure (WHVP), a measurement of the sinusoidal pressure obtained by inflating a balloon tipped catheter in a hepatic vein and stopping blood flow, was correlated to portal pressure (13). Now, it has been elucidated that WHVP underestimates portal pressure when the portal hypertension is due to pre-sinusoidal causes (14,15); indeed, in pre-sinusoidal portal hypertension, the free hepatic venous pressure (measured with the deflated catheter tip lying freely in the hepatic vein) and WHVP are both normal. On the contrary, they are both increased in post-sinusoidal portal hypertension, whereas in sinusoidal ones, only WHVP is increased (14,15).

Ability to predict portal pressure

Several years ago, it was questioned whether measurement of WHVP might be incorporated into clinical practice (16). Some authors now debate that in sinusoidal portal hypertension, the intravariceal pressure is similar to the WHVP, and consequently, the wall tension will be directly proportional to it and not to HVPG (17); therefore, in their opinion, the measurement of WHVP is the correct method to evaluate the risk of variceal rupture and should be reported in the diagnosis together with HVPG when a haemodynamic portal hypertension study is performed (17).

On the other hand, HVPG (i.e., the difference between the wedged hepatic venous pressure and free hepatic venous pressure) (1317), gives an idea of the amount of blood flow that may travel through varices. Indeed, HVPG is the gradient between portal vein and intra-abdominal vena cava pressure. Therefore, HVPG gives the exact degree of portal hypertension in the portal venous system in sinusoidal portal hypertension and provides important information in other cases (pre- and post-sinusoidal). HVPG is normal in pre-sinusoidal portal hypertension, whereas it is mildly to moderately and severely increased when portal hypertension is due to post-sinusoidal and sinusoidal causes, respectively (14). When the HVPG is above 10–12 mmHg (9), it has a valuable prognostic role in predicting variceal haemorrhage or ascites formation and death in cirrhotic patients with bleeding varices (18,19).


Follow up with HVPG is important to monitor the efficacy of medical treatment. Some meta-analyses have demonstrated that a reduction of HVPG to <12 mmHg or more than 20% of baseline significantly reduces the risk of bleeding (1922), whereas HVPG values equal to or below 8 mmHg are expected to control refractory ascites (23). More than 95% of transplanted liver patients with an HVPG below 6 mmHg do not face a risk of decompensation in the next three years (24).

The worsening of HVPG in good responders to medical treatment was related to worsening in hepatic function (25).

To assess the response to treatment, two HVPG measurements at an interval of at least a few weeks are necessary; however, diffusion and feasibility of the HVPG in routine clinical practice is limited due to several factors: invasiveness of the procedure, bad compliance of the patients, low availability in general hospitals and excessive costs (26).

Some controversies exist about the role of HVPG in discriminating bleeding and non-bleeding varices in cirrhotic patients (27). Comparing HVPG values in patients with only large varices with or without bleeding demonstrated statistically significant differences; however, the reliance of HVPG as a predictor of variceal bleeding remains debatable because both patients with non-bleeding and bleeding large varices had similar high values of portal pressures (27). Therefore, the most important predictors of increased values of HVPG were Child-Pugh score, bleeding status, and size of varices (27).

Elastographic techniques

The principles, interpretation of the results, limitations and reproducibility of elastographic techniques are reviewed in the cited references (28,29).

1. Transient elastography

Transient elastography (TE) is a novel, non-invasive, safe and easy to perform technique that gives information on the level of fibrosis by measuring liver stiffness through the transmission of mechanical waves into the liver tissue and after analysis of the wave propagation and liver tissue deformation (2833). Obesity, presence of ascites and increase of the ALT value, are all limiting factors that may impede a precise measurement of liver stiffness. In some cases, discordance was found between the results of TE and those of liver biopsy in diagnosing cirrhosis; large disagreement also exists in establishing a cut-off value of liver stiffness that is able to provide a proven diagnosis of cirrhosis (2833). However, in a large retrospective study, liver stiffness values significantly correlated with Child-Pugh score and clinical and biochemical parameters of liver disease severity (31).

Ability to predict portal pressure and varices

Liver stiffness reveals the grade of portal hypertension and thus predicts the presence of varices, but unfortunately, the cut-off value overlaps with that for detecting cirrhosis (34). A strong correlation comparing liver stiffness and HVPG in diagnosing portal hypertension was found when HVPG was below 10 mmHg and not when HVPG was above 12 mmHg (35).

However, a recent meta-analysis from 18 studies, showed the utility of TE for detecting significant portal hypertension (≥ 10mmHg) (36).

2. Acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) elastography

Acoustic radiation force impulse quantification (ARFI) may complete any B-mode liver ultrasound scan and give information on the severity of liver fibrosis, using short-duration acoustic pulses (push-pulses) emitted at approximately 2.6 MHz (29).

The lack of a direct comparison with HVPG does not permit any conclusion on the role of ARFI in predicting the presence of portal hypertension.

The mean shear wave velocity measured in the spleen demonstrated a good correlation with the portal vein pressure measured with HVPG, in 10 patients with cirrhosis who underwent TIPS placement for the treatment of portal hypertension (37). However, spleen elastography is inferior to liver elastography for the detection of portal hypertension (38).

An interesting algorithm, which includes the liver and/or spleen stiffness, was assessed using ARFI for predicting significant varices (at least grade 2) (39). The ability to predict the presence of large varices was good but not sufficiently high to replace gastroscopy for the screening of varices.

More recently, a cutoff spleen stiffness of 3.18m/s has been indicated to predict the presence of varices; according to the authors ARFI imaging may be an initial noninvasive screening test for predicting varices (40).

3. Two dimensional shear wave elastography (2D-SWE)

Two dimensional shear wave elastography (2D-SWE) detects shear waves in the liver tissue generated by the acoustic radiation force obtained with focalized ultrasound pulses (29).

A potential advantage of this technique is to provide information on shear wave speed in a two-dimensional area of few centimeters with better accuracy in comparison to TE in demonstrating presence of liver fibrosis (29).

No studies exist on the utility of 2D-SWE for detecting the presence of portal hypertension and varices.

4. Strain elastography (SE)

Strain elastography (SE) measures the tissue deformation induced by a stress providing qualitative information (color-coded mapping) on stiffness.

The utility of SE for detecting portal hypertension was reported in a study showing a correlation beetween spleen elasticity and portal pressure measured as HVPG (41).


Despite a good sensitivity in predicting varices, liver stiffness measurements of elastographic techniques are lacking in specificity and positive predictive value and thus are not enough reliable in clinical practice (34).

The Baveno IV consensus conferences recommended the development of non-invasive tools for diagnosing clinically relevant portal hypertension and monitoring the response to treatment (42,43). In light of this recommendation, the measurement of liver stiffness might be one of these methods; unfortunately, its reliability in giving information helpful to manage patients with portal hypertension is still low. The recent validation of a new non-invasive scoring system for detecting high-risk varices based on the measurement of liver stiffness and spleen diameter to platelet ratio might lead to the direction indicated by Baveno IV consensus conference (44).

Duplex Doppler Sonography

Duplex Doppler sonography evaluates the vascular system of cirrhotics, the presence of portal hypertension and its complications, but experience and practice are required and some issues are raised about this procedure (45).

Ability to predict portal pressure

The simultaneous presence of a vascular enlargement in the spleno-mesenteric and portal axis indicated the presence of varices with high sensitivity and specificity (46). Unfortunately, most cirrhotics with varices have not a significantly enlarged spleno-mesenteric portal axis.

An increased portal vein diameter (more than 13 mm) was proposed as an independent predictor of varices by some authors but not by others (4750).

A decreased portal flow volume is associated with portal hypertension and poor liver function in cirrhotics (it might predict variceal bleeding) (51,52), although there is disagreement (53,54). Splenic venous flow exceeding portal venous flow was implicated in the formation of varices and their bleeding (55).

The presence of monophasic waveforms in hepatic veins, correlates with higher Child–Pugh scores and decreased survival rates (54,56). Portosystemic shunts are also considered important complications of portal hypertension (57).

The reverse flow in the left gastric vein, a finding frequently associated with large varices, or the presence of splenorenal or combined shunts, which have been associated with severe and intermediate disease phases of cirrhosis (50,58), might be an indication to shorten intervals between endoscopic screening (59).

A large diversion of the portal flow into the left gastric vein favours varices and the occurrence of bleeding (60,61). Indeed, a close relation between the diameter of the left gastric vein and the size of varices as well as between the hepatofugal flow velocity in the left gastric vein and the risk of variceal bleeding has been demonstrated (56). Conversely, the absence of portosystemic shunts or the presence of only the umbilical vein is probably associated with a low risk of the occurrence of varices (50,60,62,63).

In compensated cirrhotics, both a portal hypertensive index of >2.08 and spleen size of >15.05 cm independently predicted the presence of varices (64).

Other haemodynamic indices by duplex Doppler sonography were increased in cirrhosis, but no correlation was found with HVPG values of ≥10–12 mmHg (6567).

On the other hand, the highest accuracy in predicting portal hypertension, the presence of varices and the risk of bleeding might be provided by the measurement of combined indices such as splenoportal and portal hypertension indices (Table 1) (6871).

Table 1
Sonographic Doppler indices for predicting portal hypertension, varices and bleeding

Assuming that portal pressure derives from mean portal flow volume multiplied by the resistance to the flow, a non-invasive estimate of portal pressure was proposed by means of the Doppler sonographic measurement of splenic impedance indices and portal flow volume (Table 1) (72).

The hepatic vein arrival time (HVAT) is the time (in seconds) taken for the microbubble contrast agent to arrive at the hepatic vein after injection. Interestingly, it was reported that HVAT value, achieved by microbubble contrast enhanced sonography, well correlate with the degree of portal pressure and varices (73).


  • -
    Monophasic waveforms correlates with an HVPG of ≥15 mmHg and predicts the presence of severe portal hypertension with 74% sensitivity and 95% specificity (56).
  • -
    Enlarged diameter and increased flow velocity and volume in the short gastric vein predict gastric variceal bleeding (61).
  • -
    The contemporary presence of a decreased portal flow and increased portal and splenic congestion indices is related to a poor liver function predicting variceal bleeding (52).
  • -
    HVAT predicts the degree of portal pressure and the presence of varices (73)

Endoscopy and Endosonography

The onset of varices and the consequent bleeding risk are important complications of portal hypertension. Variceal wall tension, is the crucial mechanism underlying their rupture (74).

The severity of liver dysfunction, large size of varices and endoscopic red colour signs are important risk factors for the beginning of variceal bleeding, but unfortunately, they are only present in 1/3 of bleeding varices (75).

Varices affect approximately 60–85% of decompensated and 30–40% of compensated cirrhotics (10,76), and the prevalence of large varices in the latter is approximately 35% (77).

Small varices with endoscopic red colour signs also need treatment because of the risk of bleeding (42,78).

Strategies aimed at identifying non-invasive tools to recognise bleeding risk were attempted; unfortunately, in well-compensated cirrhotics, the non-invasive prediction of varices and bleeding risk lacks accuracy, and as a result, endoscopic surveillance cannot be avoided in the majority of cirrhotics (48).

Ability to predict variceal pressure

A method for the measurement of intravariceal pressure to predict variceal bleeding was developed (79). Subsequently, thanks to the availability of endosonography (EUS), the study of varices improved. Variceal wall thickness and radius were measured through high-resolution EUS (80,81). Variceal wall tension was obtained by combining data acquired by intravariceal needle puncture with those given by high-resolution EUS (82). Although variceal wall tension was very useful for predicting initial or recurrent variceal bleeding, the risk of bleeding with variceal needle puncture was too high. To avoid this risk, multiple minimally invasive techniques for the measurement of intravariceal pressure were developed (83,84); unfortunately, each one required specialised equipment as well as standard endoscopy and manometry, making their large scale utilisation in endoscopic units difficult.

A simpler means to predict future variceal bleeding was the measurement of the total cross-sectional surface area of varices using EUS (85).

Since variceal rupture occurs when outwardly expanding forces in the variceal lumen exceed the maximal wall tension of the variceal wall, a new minimally invasive method to measure intravariceal pressure was proposed, requiring only an endoscope and a pressure transducer (84) Because intravariceal pressure equals the extravariceal pressure at variceal flattening, quantifying the flattening pressure by measuring esophageal lumen pressure at the start of variceal flattening, may give the intravariceal pressure (85). Variceal wall tension was also calculated by measuring variceal radius and wall thickness with high-resolution EUS; a strong correlation was found between wall tension and variceal radius but not with wall thickness, thus confirming the inability to accurately estimate variceal wall tension by combined EUS and intravariceal pressure measurements (86).


High-resolution EUS clearly examinates the variceal wall and may demonstrate the haematocystic spots that are saccular aneurysms protruding on the variceal surface; they were assumed to be focal weaknesses of the variceal wall that favour the variceal rupture (87).

Magnetic resonance studies demonstrated that azygos blood flow correlated with the presence of and the risk of bleeding from oesophageal varices (88). EUS showed the vascular anatomy of varices surrounding the oesophagus and proximal stomach [ascertaining that large paraoesophageal and paragastric varices (5 mm or greater) are risk factors for variceal haemorrhage] and revealed presence of collaterals and diameter of the azygos vein (89,90).

A colour Doppler EUS investigation demonstrated that in cases of bleeding varices, the blood flow velocities in gastric varices were significantly higher than those in nonbleeding varices (91).

Magnetic resonance elastography (MRE)

Magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) is an MRI-based technique for quantitatively assessing the tissue elasticity, using propagating mechanical shear waves (92).

Principles, interpretation of the results, limitations and reproducibility of MRE is extensively reviewed in the cited reference (92).

MRE studies in animal models of fibrosis and in patients with cirrhosis (9295) demonstrated that

  • -
    the detection of stiffness is not influenced by the presence of steatosis
  • -
    this method has an excellent diagnostic accuracy for assessing liver fibrosis (sensitivity and specificity of 98% and 99% for detecting all grades of liver fibrosis, respectively).

Ability to predict portal pressure

By using MRE, a higher spleen stiffness and strong correlation between hepatic and splenic stiffness were demonstrated in patients with cirrhosis (95).

In a canine model of portal hypertension the MRE-assessed stiffness of the spleen was in correlation with the magnitude of the HVPG (96).

Furthermore, a significant increase of MRE-assessed liver stiffness was showed following a test meal in patients with advanced liver fibrosis (97).

These results suggest a role for MRE in detecting portal hypertension; however, further studies are needed to confirm these data.

Laboratory tests

The combination of laboratory tests represents another noninvasive, low cost and independent of expertise method that shows correlation with HVPG and may detect the presence of varices (98).

Ability to predict portal pressure and varices

In compensated cirrhosis, a model combining albumin, ALT and INR showed a good ability to clinically predict significant portal hypertension (48).

Fibrotest (Biopredictive, Paris, France), a panel of five biochemical markers of hepatic fibrosis, combined with age and gender, is a good predictor of liver fibrosis. Fibrotest has demonstrated to have a moderate diagnostic value in estimating severe portal hypertension in cirrhotics (99).

A HOMA score > 4 has a good ability to predict the presence of varices (100). A positive correlation is present between HOMA-IR and HVPG (100).

A low platelet count is the most useful test to predict the presence of varices (101).

Combination tests

By combining three simple measurements (liver stiffnes, spleen size and platelet count) so that a single score is obtained, a good accuracy for diagnosing and ruling out varices and portal hypertension in patients with cirrhosis was achieved (44,102).


HVPG and endoscopy are again considered the best systems to determine the exact degree of sinusoidal portal hypertension and to detect the presence of varices (Table 24).

Table 2
Performance of different methods in predicting portal hypertension (≥ 10mmHg), in comparison to HVPG.
Table 4
Summarization of advantages and disadvantages of different methods used in clinical practice and research for portal hypertension and varices determination.

The Baveno V consensus conference recommended no satisfactory non-invasive tools on portal hypertension because of insufficient data (43); endoscopic screening and HVPG are still considered the best practice to detect the presence of varices and to predict variceal development and should be routinely used for prognostic and therapeutic indications (34,41,43).

Cirrhotics should receive screening endoscopy within 6 months of their initial visit to a liver centre (20,103). Cirrhotics also should be treated with a noncardio-selective beta-blocker or have variceal ligations when needed; follow-up upper intestinal endoscopy should be performed at appropriate intervals post-oesophageal variceal ligation and for routine surveillance (103).

Beta-blockers should be administered to the maximum tolerated dose (103).

Patients with cirrhosis and gastrointestinal bleeding should have upper endoscopy as soon as possible after admission (within 12 h) (43).

Management in accordance to practice guidelines is associated with a lower bleeding rate than that expected in untreated patients (103,104).

A possible diagnostic algorithm for new cirrhosis diagnosis is showed (Figure 1).

From this algorithm it emerges that noninvasive methods have a restricted field of applicability in clinical practice. Therefore, progress in non-invasive methods are desirable to prevent from performing frequently upper endoscopy and HVPG measurements.

To date, guidelines (Baveno V) and advantages and disadvantages of different available tools (see Table 4) recommend the use of endoscopy and HVPG to detect varices and portal hypertension.

Additional research/data are needed to ameliorate noninvasive diagnosis of varices and portal hypertension. It is necessary to develop noninvasive methods able to accurately predict portal hypertension <12 mmHg and to detect presence of varices; at the same time, these methods should also have good accuracy in predicting portal hypertension >12mmHg and presence of varices that are at a high risk for bleeding. Since portal hypertension is the major cause of development of varices and their bleeding, new pharmacological therapeutic strategies aimed to reduce portal pressure would be also needed.

Table 3
Performance of different methods in predicting esophageal varices compared to Endoscopy.

Key Messages

  • Endoscopic screening is the best practice to detect the presence of varices and should be routinely used for prognostic and therapeutic indications.
  • HVPG is an important tool to predict variceal development, haemorrhage or ascites formation and death in cirrhotics and should be routinely used for prognostic and therapeutic indications.
  • Until now, no satisfactory non-invasive tools for diagnosing clinically relevant portal hypertension and presence of varices; additional research to ameliorate noninvasive diagnosis of varices and portal hypertension are desirable.


1. Wongcharatrawee S, Groszmann RJ. Diagnosing portal hypertension. Baillieres Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2000;14:881–894. [PubMed]
2. Zardi EM, Dobrina A, Ambrosino G, Margiotta D, Polistina F, Afeltra A. New therapeutic approaches to liver fibrosis: a practicable route? Curr Med Chem. 2008;15:1628–1644. [PubMed]
3. Zardi EM, Navarini L, Sambataro G, Piccinni P, Sambataro FM, Spina C, et al. Hepatic PPARs: Their Role in Liver Physiology, Fibrosis and Treatment. Curr Med Chem. 2013;20:3370–3396. [PubMed]
4. Shah V, Toruner M, Haddad F, Cadelina G, Papapetropoulos A, Choo K, et al. Impaired endothelial nitric oxide synthase activity associated with enhanced caveolin binding in experimental cirrhosis in the rat. Gastroenterology. 1999;117:1222–1228. [PubMed]
5. Sanyal AJ, Bosch J, Blei A, Arroyo V. Portal hypertension and its complications. Gastroenterology. 2008;134:1715–1728. [PubMed]
6. Bosch J, Pizcueta P, Feu F, Fernandez M, Garcia-Pagan JC. Pathophysiology of portal hypertension. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 1992;21:1–13. [PubMed]
7. Schrier RW. Pathogenesis of sodium and water retention in high-output and low-output cardiac failure, nephrotic syndrome, cirrhosis, and pregnancy. First of two part. N Engl J Med. 1988;19:1065–1072. [PubMed]
8. Schrier RW. Pathogenesis of sodium and water retention in high-output and low-output cardiac failure, nephrotic syndrome, cirrhosis, and pregnancy. Second of two part. N Engl J Med. 1988;19:1127–1134. [PubMed]
9. Møller S, Henriksen JH, Bendtsen F. Ascites: Pathogenesis and therapeutic principles. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2009;44:902–911. [PubMed]
10. D’Amico G, Pagliaro L, Bosch J. The treatment of portal hypertension: a meta-analytic review. Hepatology. 1995;22:332–354. [PubMed]
11. D’Amico G, Luca A. Natural history. Clinical-haemodynamic correlations. Prediction of the risk of bleeding. Baillieres Clin Gastroenterol. 1997;11:243–256. [PubMed]
12. De Franchis R. Proceedings of the Third Baveno International Consensus Workshop on Definitions, Methodology, and Therapeutic Strategies. Oxford (UK): Blackwell Science; 2001. Portal hypertension; pp. 36–64.
13. Ripoll C. Hepatic Venous Pressure Gradient and Outcomes in Cirrhosis. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2007;41:S330–S335. [PubMed]
14. Parikh S. Hepatic Venous Pressure Gradient: Worth Another Look? Dig Dis Sci. 2009;54:1178–1183. [PubMed]
15. Bosch J, Abraldes JG, Berzigotti A, Garcia-Pagan JC. The clinical use of HVPG measurements in chronic liver disease. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;6:573–582. [PubMed]
16. Groszmann RJ, Wongcharatrawee S. The Hepatic Venous Pressure Gradient: anything worth doing should be done right. Hepatology. 2004;39:280–290. [PubMed]
17. Kumar A, Sharma P, Sarin SK. Hepatic venous pressure gradient measurement: time to learn. Indian J Gastroenterol. 2008;27:74–80. [PubMed]
18. Moitinho E, Escorsell A, Bandi JC, Salmerón JM, García-Pagán JC, Rodés J, et al. Prognostic value of early measurements of portal pressure in acute variceal bleeding. Gastroenterology. 1999;117:626–631. [PubMed]
19. Ripoll C, Bañares R, Rincón D, Catalina MV, Lo Iacono O, Salcedo M, et al. Influence of hepatic venous pressure gradient on the prediction of survival of patients with cirrhosis in the MELD Era. Hepatology. 2005;42:793–801. [PubMed]
20. Feu F, García-Pagán JC, Bosch J, Luca A, Terés J, Escorsell A, et al. Relation between portal pressure response to pharmacotherapy and risk of recurrent variceal haemorrhage in patients with cirrhosis. Lancet. 1995;346:1056–1059. [PubMed]
21. Merkel C, Bolognesi M, Sacerdoti D, Bombonato G, Bellini B, Bighin R, et al. The hemodynamic response to medical treatment of portal hypertension as a predictor of clinical effectiveness in the primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in cirrhosis. Hepatology. 2000;32:930–934. [PubMed]
22. Bureau C, Péron JM, Alric L, Morales J, Sanchez J, Barange K, et al. A la carte treatment of portal hypertension: adapting medical therapy to hemodynamic response for the prevention of bleeding. Hepatology. 2002;36:1361–1366. [PubMed]
23. Sanyal AJ, Genning C, Reddy KR, Wong F, Kowdley KV, Benner K, et al. The North American Study for the Treatment of Refractory Ascites. Gastroenterology. 2003;124:634–641. [PubMed]
24. Blasco A, Forns X, Carrión JA, García-Pagán JC, Gilabert R, Rimola A, et al. Hepatic venous pressure gradient identifies patients at risk of severe hepatitis C recurrence after liver transplantation. Hepatology. 2006;43:492–499. [PubMed]
25. Merkel C, Bolognesi M, Berzigotti A, Amodio P, Cavasin L, Casarotto IM, et al. Clinical significance of worsening portal hypertension during long-term medical treatment in patients with cirrhosis who had been classified as early good-responders on haemodynamic criteria. J Hepatol. 2010;52:45–53. [PubMed]
26. Merkel C, Montagnese S. Should we routinely measure portal pressure in patients with cirrhosis, using hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) as guidance for prophylaxis and treatment of bleeding and re-bleeding? Yes! Eur J Intern Med. 2011;22:1–4. [PubMed]
27. Wadhawan M, Dubey S, Sharma BC, Sarin SK. Hepatic venous pressure gradient in cirrhosis: correlation with the size of varices, bleeding, ascites, and child’s status. Dig Dis Sci. 2006;51:2264–2269. [PubMed]
28. Castéra L, Forns X, Alberti A. Non-invasive evaluation of liver fibrosis using transient elastography. J Hepatol. 2008;48:835–847. [PubMed]
29. Piscaglia F, Marinelli S, Bota S, Serra C, Venerandi L, Leoni S, et al. The role of ultrasound elastographic techniques in chronic liver disease: Current status and future perspectives. Eur J Radiol. 2013 Jul 23; doi:pii: S0720-048X. [PubMed]
30. Sandrin L, Fourquet B, Hasquenoph JM, Yon S, Fournier C, Mal F, et al. Transient elastography: a new noninvasive method for assessment of hepatic fibrosis. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2003;29:1705–1713. [PubMed]
31. Foucher J, Chanteloup E, Vergniol J, Castéra L, Le Bail B, Adhoute X, et al. Diagnosis of cirrhosis by transient elastography (FibroScan): a prospective study. Gut. 2006;55:403–408. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
32. Castéra L, Vergniol J, Foucher J, Le Bail B, Chanteloup E, Haaser M, et al. Prospective comparison of transient elastography, Fibrotest, APRI, and liver biopsy for the assessment of fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C. Gastroenterology. 2005;128:343–350. [PubMed]
33. Masuzaki R, Tateishi R, Yoshida H, Goto E, Sato T, Ohki T, et al. Comparison of liver biopsy and transient elastography based on clinical relevance. Can J Gastroenterol. 2008;22:753–757. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
34. Bosch J. Predictions from a hard liver. J Hepatol. 2006;45:174–177. [PubMed]
35. Vizzutti F, Arena U, Rega L, Pinzani M. Non invasive diagnosis of portal hypertension in cirrhotic patients. Gastroenterol Clin Biol. 2008;32(6 Suppl 1):80–87. [PubMed]
36. Shi KQ, Fan YC, Pan ZZ, Lin XF, Liu WY, Chen YP, et al. Transient elastography: a meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy in evaluation of portal hypertension in chronic liver disease. Liver Int. 2013;33:62–71. [PubMed]
37. Gao J, Ran HT, Ye XP, Zheng YY, Zhang DZ, Wang ZG. The stiffness of the liver and spleen on ARFI Imaging pre and post TIPS placement: a preliminary observation. Clin Imaging. 2012;36:135–141. [PubMed]
38. Rifai K, Cornberg J, Bahr M, Mederacke I, Potthoff A, Wedemeyer H, et al. ARFI elastography of the spleen is inferior to liver elastography for the detection of portal hypertension. Ultraschall Med. 2011;32(Suppl 2):E24–E30. [PubMed]
39. Bota S, Sporea I, Sirli R, Focsa M, Popescu A, Danila M, et al. Can ARFI elastography predict the presence of significant esophageal varices in newly diagnosed cirrhotic patients? Ann Hepatol. 2012;11:519–525. [PubMed]
40. Takuma Y, Nouso K, Morimoto Y, Tomokuni J, Sahara A, Toshikuni N, et al. Measurement of spleen stiffness by acoustic radiation force impulse imaging identifies cirrhotic patients with esophageal varices. Gastroenterology. 2013;144:92–101. [PubMed]
41. Hirooka M, Ochi H, Koizumi Y, Kisaka Y, Abe M, Ikeda Y, et al. Splenic elasticity measured with real time tissue elastography is a marker of portal hypertension. Radiology. 2011;261:960–968. [PubMed]
42. de Franchis R. Evolving Consensus in Portal Hypertension: Report of the Baveno IV consensus workshop on methodology of diagnosis and therapy in portal hypertension. J Hepatol. 2005;43:167–176. [PubMed]
43. de Franchis R. Revising consensus in portal hypertension: Report of the Baveno V consensus workshop on methodology of diagnosis and therapy in portal hypertension. J Hepatol. 2010;53:762–768. [PubMed]
44. Kim BK, Han KH, Park JY, Ahn SH, Kim JK, Paik YH, et al. A Liver Stiffness Measurement-Based, Noninvasive Prediction Model for High-Risk Esophageal Varices in B-Viral Liver Cirrhosis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:1382–1390. [PubMed]
45. Singal AK, Ahmad M, Soloway RD. Duplex Doppler ultrasound examination of the portal venous system: an emerging novel technique for the estimation of portal vein pressure. Dig Dis Sci. 2009;55:1230–1240. [PubMed]
46. Cottone M, Sciarrino E, Marceno M, et al. Ultrasound for the screening of patients with cirrhosis with large varices. Br Med J. 1983;287:533. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
47. Schepis F, Cammà C, Niceforo D, Magnano A, Pallio S, Cinquegrani M, et al. Which patients with cirrhosis should undergo endoscopic screening for esophageal varices detection? Hepatology. 2001;33:333–338. [PubMed]
48. Berzigotti A, Gilabert R, Abraldes JG, Nicolau C, Bru C, Bosch J, et al. Noninvasive prediction of clinically significant portal hypertension and esophageal varices in patients with compensated liver cirrhosis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103:1159–1167. [PubMed]
49. Zardi EM, Uwechie V, Gentilucci UV, Dobrina A, Petitti T, Laghi V, et al. Portal diameter in the diagnosis of esophageal varices in 266 cirrhotic patients: which role? Ultrasound Med Biol. 2007;33:506–511. [PubMed]
50. Zardi EM, Uwechie V, Caccavo D, Pellegrino NM, Cacciapaglia F, Di Matteo F, et al. Portosystemic shunts in a large cohort of patients with liver cirrhosis: detection rate and clinical relevance. J Gastroenterol. 2009;44:76–83. [PubMed]
51. Zironi G, Gaiani S, Fenyves D, Rigamonti A, Bolondi L, Barbara L. Value of measurement of mean portal flow velocity by Doppler flowmetry in the diagnosis of portal hypertension. J Hepatol. 1992;16:298–303. [PubMed]
52. Kayacetin E, Efe D, Doğan C. Portal and splenic hemodynamics in cirrhotic patients: relationship between esophageal variceal bleeding and the severity of hepatic failure. J Gastroenterol. 2004;39:661–667. [PubMed]
53. Li FH, Hao J, Xia JG, Li H-L, Fang H. Hemodynamic analysis of esophageal varices in patients with liver cirrhosis using color Doppler ultrasound. World J Gastroenterol. 2005;11:4560–4565. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
54. Baik SK. Haemodynamic evaluation by Doppler ultrasonography in patients with portal hypertension: a review. Liver International. 2010;30:1403–1413. [PubMed]
55. Nelson RC, Sherbourne GM, Spencer HB, Chezmar J. Splenic venous flow exceeding portal venous flow at Doppler sonography: relationship to portosystemic varices. Am J Roentgenol. 1993;161:563–567. [PubMed]
56. Baik SK, Kim JW, Kim HS, Kwon SO, Kim YJ, Park JW, et al. Recent variceal bleeding: Doppler US hepatic vein waveform in assessment of severity of portal hypertension and vasoactive drug response. Radiology. 2006;240:574–580. [PubMed]
57. Dökmeci AK, Kimura K, Matsutani S, Ohto M, Ono T, Tsuchiya Y, et al. Collateral veins in portal hypertension: demonstration by sonography. Am J Roentgenol. 1981;137:1173–1177. [PubMed]
58. Matsutani S, Furuse J, Ishii H, Mizumoto H, Kimura K, Ohto M. Hemodynamics of the left gastric vein in portal hypertension. Gastroenterology. 1993;105:513–518. [PubMed]
59. Berzigotti A, Merkel C, Magalotti D, Tiani C, Gaiani S, Sacerdoti D, et al. New abdominal collaterals at ultrasound: a clue of progression of portal hypertension. Dig Liver Dis. 2008;40:62–67. [PubMed]
60. Nakano R, Iwao T, Oho K, Toyonaga A, Tanikawa K. Splanchnic hemodynamic pattern and liver function in patients with cirrhosis and esophageal or gastric varices. Am J Gastroenterol. 1997;92:2085–2089. [PubMed]
61. Maruyama H, Ishihara T, Ishii H, Tsuyuguchi T, Yoshikawa M, Matsutani S, et al. Blood flow parameters in the short gastric vein and splenic vein on Doppler ultrasound reflect gastric variceal bleeding. Eur J Radiol. 2010;75:e41–e45. [PubMed]
62. Gupta D, Chawla YK, Dhiman RK, Suri S, Dilawari JB. Clinical significance of patent paraumbilical vein in patients with liver cirrhosis. Dig Dis Sci. 2000;45:1861–1864. [PubMed]
63. Morin C, Lafortune M, Pomier G, Robin M, Breton G. Patent paraumbilical vein: anatomic and hemodynamic variants and their clinical importance. Radiology. 1992;185:253–256. [PubMed]
64. Tarzamni MK, Somi MH, Farhang S, Jalivand M. Portal haemodynamics as predictors of high risk esophageal varices in cirrhotic patients. World J Gastroenterol. 2008;14:1898–1902. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
65. Moriyasu F, Nishida O, Ban N, Nakamura T, Sakai M, Miyake T, et al. "Congestion index" of the portal vein. AJR. 1986;146:735–739. [PubMed]
66. Merkel C, Sacerdoti D, Bolognesi M, Bombonato G, Gatta M. Doppler sonography and hepatic vein catheterization in portal hypertension: assessment of agreement in evaluating severity and response to treatment. J Hepatol. 1998;28:622–630. [PubMed]
67. Vizzutti F, Arena U, Rega L, Romanelli RG, Colagrande S, Cuofano S, et al. Performance of Doppler ultrasound in the prediction of sever portal hypertension in hepatitis C virus-related chronic liver disease. Liver Int. 2007;27:1379–1388. [PubMed]
68. Liu CH, Hsu SJ, Liang CC, Tsai FC, Lin JW, Liu CJ, et al. Esophageal varices: noninvasive diagnosis with duplex Doppler US in patients with compensated cirrhosis. Radiology. 2008;248:132–139. [PubMed]
69. Yin XY, Lu MD, Huang JF, Xie XY, Liang LJ. Color Doppler velocity profile assessment of portal hemodynamics in cirrhotic patients with portal hypertension: correlation with esophageal variceal bleeding. J Clin Ultrasound. 2001;29:7–13. [PubMed]
70. Iwao T, Toyonaga A, Oho K, Tayama C, Masumoto H, Sakai T, et al. Value of Doppler ultrasound parameters of portal vein and hepatic artery in the diagnosis of cirrhosis and portal hypertension. Am J Gastroenterol. 1997;92:1012–1017. [PubMed]
71. Piscaglia F, Donati G, Serra C, Muratori R, Solmi L, Gaiani S, et al. Value of splanchnic Doppler ultrasound in the diagnosis of portal hypertension. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2001;27:893–899. [PubMed]
72. Bolognesi M, Sacerdoti D, Merkel C, Bombonato G, Gatta A. Non-invasive grading of the severity of portal hypertension in cirrhotic patients by echo color Doppler. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2001;27:901–907. [PubMed]
73. Kim MY, Suk KT, Baik SK, Kim HA, Kim YJ, Cha SH, et al. Hepatic vein arrival time as assessed by contrast-enhanced ultrasonography is useful for the assessment of portal hypertension in compensated cirrhosis. Hepatology. 2012;56:1053–1062. [PubMed]
74. Garcia-Tsao G. Portal hypertension. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2003;19:250–258. [PubMed]
75. Grace ND, Groszmann RJ, Garcia-Tsao G, Burroughs AK, Pagliaro L, Makuch RW, et al. Portal hypertension and variceal bleeding: an AASLD single topic symposium. Hepatology. 1998;28:868–880. [PubMed]
76. Dagher L, Burroughs A. Variceal bleeding and portal hypertensive gastropathy. Eur J Gastroenterol. 2001;13:81–88. [PubMed]
77. Jensen DM. Endoscopic screening for varices in cirrhosis: findings, implications, and outcomes. Gastroenterology. 2002;122:1620–1630. [PubMed]
78. Merkel C, Zoli M, Siringo S, van Buuren H, Magalotti D, Angeli P, et al. Prognostic indicators of risk for first variceal bleeding in cirrhosis: a multicenter study in 711 patients to validate and improve the North Italian Endoscopic Club (NIEC) index. Am J Gastroenterol. 2000;95:2915–2920. [PubMed]
79. Arndorfer RC, Stef JJ, Dodds WJ, Linchan JH, Hogan WJ. Improved infusion system for intraluminal esophageal manometry. Gastroenterology. 1977;73:23–27. [PubMed]
80. Schiano TD, Adrian AL, Cassidy MJ, McCray W, Liu JB, Baranowski RJ, et al. Use of high resolution endoluminal sonography to measure the radius and wall thickness of esophageal varices. Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;44:425–428. [PubMed]
81. Lee YT, Chan FK, Ching JY, Lai CW, Leung VK, Chung SC, et al. Diagnosis of gastroesophageal varices and portal collateral venous abnormalities by endosonography in cirrhotic patients. Endoscopy. 2002;34:391–398. [PubMed]
82. Jackson FW, Adrain AL, Black M, Miller LS. Calculation of esophageal variceal wall tension by direct sonographic and manometric measurements. Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;50:247–251. [PubMed]
83. Rigau J, Bosch J, Bordas JM, Navasa M, Mastai R, Kravetz D, et al. Endoscopic measurement of variceal pressure in cirrhosis: correlation with portal pressure and and variceal hemorrhage. Gastroenterology. 1989;96:873–880. [PubMed]
84. Miller LS, Dai Q, Thomas A, Chung CY, Park J, Irizarry S, et al. A new ultrasound-guided esophageal variceal pressure measuring device. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99:1267–1273. [PubMed]
85. Miller L, Banson FL, Bazir K, Korimilli A, Liu JB, Dewan R, et al. Risk of esophageal variceal bleeding based on endoscopic ultrasound evaluation of the sum of esophageal variceal cross-sectional surface area. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003;98:454–459. [PubMed]
86. Vegesna AK, Chung CY, Bajaj A, Tiwana MI, Rishikesh R, Hamid I, et al. Minimally invasive measurement of esophageal variceal pressure and wall tension. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;70:407–413. [PubMed]
87. Schiano TD, Adrain AL, Vega KJ, Liu JB, Black M, Miller LS. High-resolution endoluminal sonography assessment of the hematocystic spots of esophageal varices. Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;49:424–427. [PubMed]
88. Wu MT, Pan HB, Chen C, Chang JM, Lo GH, Wu SS, et al. Azygos blood flow in cirrhosis: measurement with MR imaging and correlation with variceal hemorrhage. Radiology. 1996;198:457–462. [PubMed]
89. Kassem AM, Salama ZA, Zakaria MS, Hassaballah M, Hunter MS. Endoscopic ultrasonographic study of the azygos vein before and after endoscopic obliteration of esophagogastric varices by injection sclerotherapy. Endoscopy. 2000;32:630–634. [PubMed]
90. Leung VK, Sung JJ, Ahuja AT, Tumala IE, Lee YT, Lau JY, et al. Large paraesophageal varices on endosonography predict recurrence of esophageal varices and rebleeding. Gastroenterology. 1997;112:1811–1816. [PubMed]
91. Sato T, Yamazaki K, Toyota J, Karino Y, Ohmura T, Akaike J. Observation of gastric variceal flow characteristics by endoscopic ultrasonography using color Doppler. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103:575–580. [PubMed]
92. Yin M, Chen J, Glaser KJ, Talwalkar JA, Ehman RL. Abdominal magnetic resonance elastography. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2009;20:79–87. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
93. Yin M, Talwalkar JA, Glaser KJ, Manduca A, Grimm RC, Rossman PJ, et al. Assessment of hepatic fibrosis with magnetic resonance elastography. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. 2007;5:1207–1213. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
94. Salameh N, Peeters F, Sinkus R, Abarca-Quinones J, Annet L, Ter Beek LC, et al. Hepatic viscoelastic parameters measured with MR elastography: correlations with quantitative analysis of liver fibrosis in the rat. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;26:956–962. [PubMed]
95. Talwalkar JA, Yin M, Venkatesh S, Rossman PJ, Grimm RC, Manduca A, et al. Feasibility of in vivo MR elastographic splenic stiffness measurements in the assessment of portal hypertension. Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193:122–127. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
96. Nedredal GI, Yin M, McKenzie T, Lillegard J, Luebke-Wheeler J, Talwalkar J, et al. Portal hypertension correlates with splenic stiffness as measured with MR elastography. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2011;34:79–87. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
97. Yin M, Talwalkar JA, Glaser KJ, Venkatesh SK, Chen J, Manduca A, et al. Dynamic postprandial hepatic stiffness augmentation assessed with MR elastography in patients with chronic liver disease. Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197:64–70. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
98. Berzigotti A, Seijo S, Reverter E, Bosch J. Assessing portal hypertension in liver diseases. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;7:141–155. [PubMed]
99. Thabut D, Imbert-Bismut F, Cazals-Hatem D, Messous D, Muntenau M, Valla DC, et al. Relationship between the Fibrotest and portal hypertension in patients with liver disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2007;26:359–368. [PubMed]
100. Eslam M, Ampuero J, Jover M, Abd-Elhalim H, Rincon D, Shatat M, et al. Predicting portal hypertension and variceal bleeding using non-invasive measurements of metabolic variables. Ann Hepatol. 2013;12:588–598. [PubMed]
101. Zaman A, Hapke R, Flora K, Rosen HR, Benner K. Factors predicting the presence of esophageal or gastric varices in patients with advanced liver disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;94:3292–3296. [PubMed]
102. Berzigotti A, Seijo S, Arena U, Abraldes JG, Vizzutti F, García-Pagán JC, et al. Elastography, spleen size, and platelet count identify portal hypertension in patients with compensated cirrhosis. Gastroenterology. 2013;144:102–111. [PubMed]
103. Moodley J, Lopez R, Carey W. Compliance with practice guidelines and risk of a first esophageal variceal hemorrhage in patients with cirrhosis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;8:703–708. [PubMed]
104. Schlansky B, Lee B, Hartwell L, Urquhart J, Willis B, Zaman A. Guideline adherence and outcomes in esophageal variceal hemorrhage: comparison of tertiary care and non-tertiary care settings. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2012;46:235–242. [PubMed]