Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2020
EUS-guided portal pressure gradient measurement in patients with acute or subacute portal hypertension.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zhang Wei, Peng Chunyan, Zhang Song, Huang Shuling, Shen Shanshan, Xu Guifang, Zhang Feng, Xiao Jiangqiang, Zhang Ming, Zhuge Yuzheng, Wang Lei, Zou Xiaoping, Lv Ying
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: EUS-guided portal pressure gradient (EUS-PPG) measurement is a novel method to evaluate portal hypertension severity. In this study, we determined the consistency between EUS-PPG and hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) measurements in patients with acute or subacute portal hypertension.
METHODS: Twelve patients were prospectively enrolled. EUS-PPG measurements were performed using a 22-gauge FNA needle and a central venous pressure measurement monitor. The HVPG measurements were performed using the transjugular approach. If an HVPG measurement was not attainable and the patient underwent transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) treatment, a PPG was recorded as a reference standard during the procedure. We assessed the feasibility and safety of EUS-PPG and calculated the correlation between the 2 measurements.
RESULTS: EUS-PPG measurements were successful in 11 patients (91.7%). Subsequent HVPG measurements failed in 2 patients with Budd-Chiari syndrome (hepatic vein occlusion subtype), 1 of whom underwent TIPS treatment to obtain transjugular PPG data. A small shunt was found during 1 HVPG measurement that introduced inaccuracy. Nine patients were included in the statistical analysis. Mean EUS-PPG and HVPG/PPG (transjugular) were 18.07 ± 4.32 mm Hg and 18.82 ± 3.43 mm Hg, respectively. Pearson's correlation coefficient between the 2 methods was .923 (P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: EUS-PPG measurement using a 22-gauge FNA needle was a safe and accurate method to evaluate portal hypertension and has the potential to supplement the measurement of HVPG in liver diseases. (Clinical trial registration number: ChiCTR1800017317.).
METHODS: Twelve patients were prospectively enrolled. EUS-PPG measurements were performed using a 22-gauge FNA needle and a central venous pressure measurement monitor. The HVPG measurements were performed using the transjugular approach. If an HVPG measurement was not attainable and the patient underwent transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) treatment, a PPG was recorded as a reference standard during the procedure. We assessed the feasibility and safety of EUS-PPG and calculated the correlation between the 2 measurements.
RESULTS: EUS-PPG measurements were successful in 11 patients (91.7%). Subsequent HVPG measurements failed in 2 patients with Budd-Chiari syndrome (hepatic vein occlusion subtype), 1 of whom underwent TIPS treatment to obtain transjugular PPG data. A small shunt was found during 1 HVPG measurement that introduced inaccuracy. Nine patients were included in the statistical analysis. Mean EUS-PPG and HVPG/PPG (transjugular) were 18.07 ± 4.32 mm Hg and 18.82 ± 3.43 mm Hg, respectively. Pearson's correlation coefficient between the 2 methods was .923 (P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: EUS-PPG measurement using a 22-gauge FNA needle was a safe and accurate method to evaluate portal hypertension and has the potential to supplement the measurement of HVPG in liver diseases. (Clinical trial registration number: ChiCTR1800017317.).