Transient elastography: should XL probe be used in all overweight patients?

Cátia Arieira, Sara Monteiro, Sofıa Xavier, Francisca Dias de Castro, Joana Magalhães, Carla Marinho, Rui Pinto, Washington Luiz Batista da Costa, José Correia, José Cotter

Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology · 2019 · 13 citations · 22 references

Concepts

Abstract

Background: Obesity is one of the main factors of transient elastography (TE) failure, considering body mass index (BMI) ≥28 kg/m2 as a limiting factor. The XL probe was designed to overcome this limitation.Aim: To compare the feasibility of the M and XL probes in patients with BMI ≥ 28 kg/m2, to evaluate differences in mean values of controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) and liver stiffness measurement (LSM) between the two probes and find predictive factors of TE failure.Material and methods: Prospective study, including all patients with BMI ≥ 28 kg/m2 consecutively admitted for TE.Results: Included 161 patients. Measurements with M probe were reliable in 69.6% of the patients, with 68.2% of valid measurements in obese population and 58.9% in patients with skin-capsule distance (SCD) >25 mm. In 40 patients (81.6%) with an invalid M probe measurement, a reliable result was obtained with XL probe. We found that SCD >25 mm was the only predictor of M probe failure (OR: 4.9, CI: 1.64–14.63, p = .004). In those patients in which TE was possible with both probes (n = 112), mean CAP was 304 ± 49 dB/m2 with M probe and 301 ± 50 dB/m2 with XL probe (p = .59). Regarding liver stiffness, a mean value of 7.58 ± 3.47 kpas was obtained with the M probe and 6.21 ± 3.44 kpas with the XL probe (p < .001).Conclusion: There is a reliable applicability of the M probe in a high number (68.2%) of patients with a BMI ≥30 kg/m2. A SCD >25 mm was the only predictive factor of M probe failure. Mean values of LSM with XL probe were lower than those obtained with M probe.

References

22