If the concordance between the two measurements was well, the first measurements were used as the final diameter values of these veins. In instances of poor concordance, the underlying reasons were analyzed. Statistical analysis was performed by using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 13.0 (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA). A P-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significantly different. All the measured results were given as the mean ± standard deviation. Precision of measurements of the LGV, PV and SV were tested by the concordance correlation coefficient (rc). rc of more than 0.85, 0.50–0.85 and less than 0.50 indicated very good, moderate and poor concordance, respectively.
The χ2-test was used to compare the incidence of LGV originating from SV with that from PV in patients with find more esophageal varices. The univariate associations of the LGV, SV and PV diameters with the presence of the varices were assessed using χ2-tests. Based on this analysis, potentially significant parameters were tested
for possible interrelationship by multiple logistic regression analysis to identify the diameters of the LGV or its originating vein as a variable for discriminating the presence and endoscopic grades PLX-4720 research buy of esophageal varices. Hence, anova was used to compare the diameters among different endoscopic grades of the varices. If significant difference was proved, receiver–operator curve (ROC) analysis was then carried out to determine if the cut-off values of the diameters could discriminate the endoscopic grades of esophageal varices. The diagnostic performance of the cut-off values in classifying endoscopic grades were assessed with the area under the ROC (AUC). OF ALL PATIENTS, as shown on endoscopy, 56 patients had grade 0 esophageal varices, 18 patients grade 1, 30 patients grade 2 and 14 patients grade 3. In patients with esophageal varices of grades 1–3, 20 patients had the varices without other collaterals, 15 cases had the varices with gastric fundic varices, eight with gastrorenal shunt, six with splenorenal shunt, three with venae parumbilicales varices, two with paravertebral varices,
and eight with two or more of the above-mentioned shunts on MR imaging. The selleck inflowing vessel of the varices was LGV which originated from the PV in 29.03% patients (18/62) and from the SV (Fig. 1) in 70.97% (44/62). Patients with esophageal varices of grade 0 had no collateral, and PV and SV were displayed well on MR imaging and LGV was visible in 64.29% (36/56) of patients, composed of 30.56% patients (11/36) with the originating vein of PV and 69.44% (25/36) with the originating vein of SV. In the remaining 35.71% of patients (20/56) without esophageal varices, LGV was invisible on MR imaging, and these patients were excluded from this study because the diameter of this vein could not be measured for further performance of this study.