Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse (ARFI) Elastography for non-invasive evaluation of hepatic fibrosis in chronic hepatitis B and C patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

69Citations
Citations of this article
61Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Aim: The purpose of the study was to assess the effect of Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse (ARFI) elastography in the diagnosis of liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis B and C patients through Meta-analysis. Material and methods: Four databases (PubMed, the Cochrane Library, WanFang data, and CNKI) were searched. The key words were: ("ARFI" or "acoustic radiation force impulse") combined with "liver fibrosis" and ("chronic hepatitis" or "HBV HCV"). Heterogeneity (I2) was assessed, and its source was analyzed through meta-regression. Results: 21 articles with 2,691 patients were included. The composite Se=0.79 (95% CI: 0.76-0.83) and Sp=0.86 (95% CI: 0.85-0.88). ARFI elastography showed a better ability to evaluate higherstage liver fibrosis and liver cirrhosis (F=3 and F=4, respectively). For F≥3, Se=0.84 (95% CI: 0.80-0.88, I2=61.37), Sp=0.90 (95% CI: 0.86-0.92, I2=65.10), and AUROC=0.94 (95% CI: 0.91-0.95). Se and Sp and AUROC of F=4 were 0.86 (95% CI: 0.80-0.91, I2=70.67), 0.84 (95% CI: 0.80-0.88, I2=78.94) and 0.91 (95% CI: 0.89-0.94), respectively. Besides, the combined ARFI values indicate that CHC patients had higher ARFI values especially in the F3 stage (1.87 [95% CI: 1.67-2.06] and 2.31 [95% CI: 2.09-2.52] for CHB and CHC, respectively). Conclusion: ARFI elastography is accurate and reliable in the diagnosis of CHB- and CHC-induced liver fibrosis and is especially suitable for the evaluation of stages F=3 and F=4. CHC patients manifest higher ARFI values than CHB patients especially in the F3 stage.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Hu, X., Qiu, L., Liu, D., & Qian, L. (2017). Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse (ARFI) Elastography for non-invasive evaluation of hepatic fibrosis in chronic hepatitis B and C patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medical Ultrasonography, 19(1), 23–31. https://doi.org/10.11152/mu-942

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free