1983Liver InternationalRequires access

Comparison of the diagnosis of oesophageal varices by oesophagoscopy and transhepatic portography

Thorkild I. A. Sørensen, F Burcharth, Jan Aagaard, Lise Ingemann Jensen, Ulla Christensen

Open publisher page 7 citations

Abstract

We compared the diagnosis of oesophageal varices obtained by oesophagoscopy and percutaneous transhepatic portography in 78 patients with hepatic cirrhosis who were suspected of having oesophageal varices because of ascites and/or preceding upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage. Portograms were evaluated independently of the clinical and endoscopical findings. Endoscopy showed varices in 59 patients and portography in 54 patients. The two methods agreed on the presence of varices only in 46 patients (59%), on the absence of varices in 11 patients (14%), and disagreed in 21 patients (27%). Among the patients showing varices by endoscopy, portography agreed on the diagnosis in 78%, and among patients without endoscopical varices, portography agreed in 58%. The corresponding rates of agreement expected by chance alone are 69% and 31%, respectively. The free portal pressure was lowest in patients with no varices according to both techniques, highest in patients with varices by both techniques and intermediate in patients in whom there was disagreement on the diagnosis. Modification of the criteria for endoscopical and portographical diagnosis of varices and distinction between patients with and without ascites and preceding haemorrhage had no appreciable effect on the agreement. We conclude that endoscopy and portography show only moderate agreement in the diagnosis of oesophageal varices.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

We compared the diagnosis of oesophageal varices obtained by oesophagoscopy and percutaneous transhepatic portography in 78 patients with hepatic cirrhosis who were suspected of having oesophageal varices because of ascites and/or preceding upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage. Portograms were evaluated independently of the clinical and endoscopical findings. Endoscopy showed varices in 59 patients and portography in 54 patients. The two methods agreed on the presence of varices only in 46 patients (59%), on the absence of varices in 11 patients (14%), and disagreed in 21 patients (27%). Among the patients showing varices by endoscopy, portography agreed on the diagnosis in 78%, and among patients without endoscopical varices, portography agreed in 58%. The corresponding rates of agreement expected by chance alone are 69% and 31%, respectively. The free portal pressure was lowest in patients with no varices according to both techniques, highest in patients with varices by both techniques and intermediate in patients in whom there was disagreement on the diagnosis. Modification of the criteria for endoscopical and portographical diagnosis of varices and distinction between patients with and without ascites and preceding haemorrhage had no appreciable effect on the agreement. We conclude that endoscopy and portography show only moderate agreement in the diagnosis of oesophageal varices.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 7 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

We compared the diagnosis of oesophageal varices obtained by oesophagoscopy and percutaneous transhepatic portography in 78 patients with hepatic cirrhosis who were suspected of having oesophageal varices because of ascites and/or preceding upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage. Portograms were evaluated independently of the clinical and endoscopical findings. Endoscopy showed varices in 59 patients and portography in 54 patients. The two methods agreed on the presence of varices only in 46 patients (59%), on the absence of varices in 11 patients (14%), and disagreed in 21 patients (27%). Among the patients showing varices by endoscopy, portography agreed on the diagnosis in 78%, and among patients without endoscopical varices, portography agreed in 58%. The corresponding rates of agreement expected by chance alone are 69% and 31%, respectively. The free portal pressure was lowest in patients with no varices according to both techniques, highest in patients with varices by both techniques and intermediate in patients in whom there was disagreement on the diagnosis. Modification of the criteria for endoscopical and portographical diagnosis of varices and distinction between patients with and without ascites and preceding haemorrhage had no appreciable effect on the agreement. We conclude that endoscopy and portography show only moderate agreement in the diagnosis of oesophageal varices.

Key concepts: Varices, Portography, Medicine, Portal hypertension, Ascites, Endoscopy, Cirrhosis, Varix

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Comparison of the diagnosis of oesophageal varices by oesophagoscopy and transhepatic portography — Research Paper | ScholarLens