In the enrolled patients, the χ2-test illustrated that the selleck products SV was the predominant originating vein of the LGV (P < 0.001). In the 98 patients included, the mean LGV, PV and SV diameters were 6.0 ± 3.2 mm (range, 2.0–17.6), 12.9 ± 2.6 mm (range, 6.2–24.2) and 9.3 ± 2.2 mm (range, 4.7–14.9), respectively, for the first measurements. For the repeated measurements, the mean LGV, PV and SV diameters were 5.9 ± 3.1 mm (range, 2.1–17.4), 12.8 ± 2.9 mm (range, 6.4–24.9) and 9.3 ± 2.1 mm
(range, 4.5–15.2), respectively. The intraobserver concordance of LGV, PV and SV diameter measurements on MR portography was good because the rc values were 0.90, 0.92 and 0.98, respectively; and the first measurements were used as the final diameter values. The median value of LGV, SV and PV diameters were 6.0 mm, 9.3 mm and 12.9 mm, respectively. Univariate analysis showed Aloxistatin datasheet the correlations of the diameters with the presence of esophageal varices (Table 2). Patients with an LGV diameter of 6.0 mm or more and an SV diameter of 9.3 mm or more were more likely to have esophageal
varices than with an LGV diameter of less than 6.0 mm (P = 0.001) and SV diameter of less than 9.3 mm (P = 0.002), respectively; but PV diameter was not associated with the presence of the varices (P = 0.417). Before multivariate analysis, the diameters of LGV and SV were chosen as independent risk factors for the presence of the varices, which were identified by multivariate stepwise regression analysis. The diameters of LGV (P = 0.023, odds ratio [OR] = 1.583 and 95% confidence interval [CI] for OR of 0.748–3.351] and SV (P = 0.012, OR = 2.126 and 95% CI for OR of 1.818–5.523) were associated with the varices. The relationship of the LGV or SV diameters with endoscopic grades of esophageal varices is summarized in Table 3. LGV or SV diameters could discriminate patients between grades 0 and 1 (P < 0.001 or 0.007, respectively),
between grades 0 and 2 (both P < 0.001), between grades 0 and 3 (both P < 0.001), between grades 1 and 3 (P < 0.001 or P = 0.001, respectively), and between grades 2 and 3 (P = 0.002 or 0.022, respectively). However, the diameter of LGV or SV could not differentiate check details grade 1 from 2 (P = 0.182 or 0.139, respectively). Additionally, the differences in LGV or SV diameter between patients with esophageal varices grades 0–1 and 2–3, which were defined as low-risk and high-risk varices, respectively, were of statistical significance (all P < 0.001). By ROC analysis in all of the 98 patients enrolled, we found that the cut-off diameters of LGV of 5.1 mm, 5.9 mm, 6.6 mm, 7.1 mm, 7.8 mm and 5.8 mm, or the cut-off diameters of SV of 7.3 mm, 7.9 mm, 8.4 mm, 9.5 mm, 10.7 mm and 8.3 mm, could discriminate endoscopic grades 0 from 1, grades 0 from 2, grades 0 from 3, grades 1 from 3, grades 2 from 3, and grades 0–1 from 2–3 (Fig. 2), respectively.