Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Indian J Radiol Imaging
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1782163
Original Article

Distribution of Normative Percentiles of Liver Stiffness Measurement Using Ultrasound Shear Wave Elastography in an Adult Asian Indian Population

Rijo M. Choorakuttil
1   Department of Preventive Radiology and Integrated Diagnostics, AMMA Center for Diagnosis and Preventive Medicine Pvt Ltd, Kochi, Kerala, India
,
Rajas N. Chaubal
2   Department of Clinical Radiology, Thane Ultrasound Center, Thane, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
,
Thara Pratap 
3   Department of Clinical Radiology, VPS Lakeshore Hospital & Research Center, Kochi, Kerala
,
Amarnath Chelladurai
4   Department of Radiodiagnosis Stanley Medical College, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
,
Praveen K. Nirmalan 
5   Department of Research, AMMA Center for Diagnosis and Preventive Medicine Pvt Ltd, Kochi, Kerala, India
› Author Affiliations Funding The work was supported in part by a research grant provided by M/s Mindray Medical India Pvt Ltd to the Indian Radiological and Imaging Association. The grant agency did not have any inputs into data collection, analysis, or preparation of the manuscript.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective The aim of this study was to determine the normative percentiles for liver stiffness measurement (LSM) using shear wave elastography in an adult Asian Indian population as part of the preventive radiology initiative of the Indian Radiological and Imaging Association (IRIA).

Methods LSMs were ascertained by two-dimensional (2D) shear wave elastography using the Mindray Resona series of ultrasound machines. The image quality was assessed using the motion stability index (M-STB) and reliability (RLB) map. Ten acquisitions were documented, and an interquartile range-to-median (IQR/M) ratio ≤30% kilopascal (kPa) units was considered a good-quality measurement. A subgroup of the study population without comorbidities was chosen to derive the normative percentile distribution of LSM using a generalized least squares multivariable fractional polynomial regression model that adjusted for sex and body mass index (BMI). The effectiveness of the estimated percentiles was assessed on the entire study population using the greater than 90th percentile value of the LSM as the cutoff for abnormality.

Results The study included 852 people who underwent shear wave elastography from June 2022 to July 2023. The magnitude of compensated advanced chronic liver disease (cACLD) and clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH) was 6.81% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.30–8.7) and 4.91% (95% CI: 3.67–6.60), respectively. The normative percentiles were estimated from 282 persons without associated comorbidity and risk factors. The mean age (standard deviation [SD]) of the normal individuals was 40.90 ± 12.92 years, and 210 (71.47%) were males. The mean age (SD) of the 570 persons excluded from the normative percentiles analysis was 47.94 (12.49) years and 72.11% were males. The sex- and BMI-adjusted age-specific 90th percentiles of LSM were 8.76, 8.78, 8.96, 8.97, 9.25, and 9.45 kPa for 18 to 20, 21 to 30, 31 to 40, 41 to 50, 51 to 60, and 61 to 70 years, respectively.

Conclusion The sex- and BMI-adjusted age-specific 90th percentiles for LSM using shear wave elastography in Asian Indian adults are almost similar to the greater than 9 kPa cutoff proposed by the Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound Liver Elastography Consensus Statement guidelines to discriminate cACLD and CSPH from normal individuals.

Keywords

ultrasound elastography - shear wave elastography - liver stiffness - percentiles - chronic liver disease

Note

This work is attributed to Preventive Radiology Program of IRIA, Indian Radiological & Imaging Association, IRIA House, New Delhi, India.




Publication History

Article published online:
25 April 2024

© 2024. Indian Radiological Association. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Sarin SK, Kumar M, Eslam M. et al. Liver diseases in the Asia-Pacific region: a Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology Commission. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020; 5 (02) 167-228
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Younossi ZM, Koenig AB, Abdelatif D, Fazel Y, Henry L, Wymer M. Global epidemiology of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease –Meta-analytic assessment of prevalence, incidence, and outcomes. Hepatology 2016; 64 (01) 73-84
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Mukherjee PS, Vishnubhatla S, Amarapurkar DN. et al. Etiology and mode of presentation of chronic liver diseases in India: a multi centric study. PLoS One 2017; 12 (10) e0187033
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Duseja A, Singh SP, Saraswat VA. et al. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and metabolic syndrome: position paper of the Indian National Association for the Study of the Liver, Endocrine Society of India, Indian College of Cardiology and Indian Society of Gastroenterology. J Clin Exp Hepatol 2015; 5 (01) 51-68
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Duseja A, Singh SP, Mehta M. et al. Clinicopathological profile and outcome of a large cohort of patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease from South Asia: interim results of the Indian Consortium on Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease. Metab Syndr Relat Disord 2022; 20 (03) 166-173
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Chalmers J, Ban L, Leena KB. et al. Cohort profile: the Trivandrum non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) cohort. BMJ Open 2019; 9 (05) e027244
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Sarin SK, Prasad M, Ramalingam A, Kapil U. Integration of public health measures for NAFLD into India's national programme for NCDs. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021; 6 (10) 777-778
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Garra BS. Elastography: history, principles, and technique comparison. Abdom Imaging 2015; 40 (04) 680-697
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Low G, Kruse SA, Lomas DJ. General review of magnetic resonance elastography. World J Radiol 2016; 8 (01) 59-72
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Kennedy P, Wagner M, Castéra L. et al. Quantitative elastography methods in liver disease: current evidence and future directions. Radiology 2018; 286 (03) 738-763
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Hines CDG, Lindstrom MJ, Varma AK, Reeder SB. Effects of postprandial state and mesenteric blood flow on the repeatability of MR elastography in asymptomatic subjects. J Magn Reson Imaging 2011; 33 (01) 239-244
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Choorakuttil RM, Chaubal RN, Arunachalam VK. et al. Practical steps of shear wave elastography for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in an adult population. Indographics 2022; 01 (02) 171-183
    Article in Thieme ConnectGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Ferraioli G, Wong VW, Castera L. et al. Liver ultrasound elastography: an update to the World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology guidelines and recommendations. Ultrasound Med Biol 2018; 44 (12) 2419-2440
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Fang C, Jaffer OS, Yusuf GT. et al. Reducing the number of measurements in liver point shear-wave elastography: factors that influence the number and reliability of measurements in assessment of liver fibrosis in clinical practice. Radiology 2018; 287 (03) 844-852
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Barr RG, Wilson SR, Rubens D, Garcia-Tsao G, Ferraioli G. Update to the Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound Liver Elastography Consensus Statement. Radiology 2020; 296 (02) 263-274
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Maheswari S, Kumar S, Nakshiwala VB. et al. Fatty liver disease: pathophysiology and imaging features. Indographics 2022; 1: 57-77
    Article in Thieme ConnectGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Saadeh S, Younossi ZM, Remer EM. et al. The utility of radiological imaging in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Gastroenterology 2002; 123 (03) 745-750
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Strauss S, Gavish E, Gottlieb P, Katsnelson L. Interobserver and intraobserver variability in the sonographic assessment of fatty liver. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007; 189 (06) W320-3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Hamer OW, Aguirre DA, Casola G, Lavine JE, Woenckhaus M, Sirlin CB. Fatty liver: imaging patterns and pitfalls. Radiographics 2006; 26 (06) 1637-1653
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Roulot D, Czernichow S, Le Clésiau H, Costes JL, Vergnaud AC, Beaugrand M. Liver stiffness values in apparently healthy subjects: influence of gender and metabolic syndrome. J Hepatol 2008; 48 (04) 606-613
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Corpechot C, El Naggar A, Poupon R. Gender and liver: is the liver stiffness weaker in weaker sex?. Hepatology 2006; 44 (02) 513-514
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Das K, Das K, Mukherjee PS. et al. Nonobese population in a developing country has a high prevalence of nonalcoholic fatty liver and significant liver disease. Hepatology 2010; 51 (05) 1593-1602
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 WHO Expert Consultation. Appropriate body-mass index for Asian populations and its implications for policy and intervention strategies. Lancet 2004; 363 (9403): 157-163
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Misra A, Khurana L. Obesity and the metabolic syndrome in developing countries. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2008; 93 (11, Suppl 1): S9-S30
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Das K, Sarkar R, Ahmed SM. et al. “Normal” liver stiffness measure (LSM) values are higher in both lean and obese individuals: a population-based study from a developing country. Hepatology 2012; 55 (02) 584-593
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar