Journal of digestive diseases · 2024
Comparison of the diagnostic efficacy between virtual portal pressure gradient and hepatic venous pressure gradient in patients with cirrhotic portal hypertension.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Song Wei Ping, Zhang Shuo, Li Jing, Shao Yu Yang, Xu Ji Chong, Yang Chang Qing
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the performance of virtual portal pressure gradient (vPPG) and its associated hemodynamic parameters of 3-dimensional (3D) model in patients with cirrhosis.
METHODS: Seventy cirrhotic patients who underwent both hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) measurement and vPPG calculation were prospectively collected. The ideal-state model (ISM; n = 44) was defined by sinusoidal PH without hepatic vein shunt or portal vein thrombosis, whereas those not conforming to the criteria were classified as non-ISM (n = 26). Correlation analyses were conducted to determine the relationship between vPPG or its associated 3D hemodynamic parameters and HVPG. The diagnostic and predictive performance of vPPG and HVPG for cirrhotic-related complications was evaluated using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and Kaplan-Meier analysis.
RESULTS: In the ISM group, vPPG-associated hemodynamic parameters including total branch cross-sectional area (S2), average branch cross-sectional area (S), and average portal vein model length (h) were correlated with HVPG (r = 0.592, 0.536, -0.497; all p < 0.001), whereas vPPG was strongly correlated with HVPG (r = 0.832, p < 0.001). In the non-ISM group, vPPG, S2, S, and h were not related to HVPG (all p > 0.05). In the ISM group, both vPPG and HVPG showed significant diagnostic and predictive capabilities for cirrhosis-related complications. While in the non-ISM group, the diagnostic accuracy and predictive efficacy of vPPG surpassed those of HVPG.
CONCLUSION: HVPG exhibited superior diagnostic and predictive efficacy for cirrhotic PH in the ISM, whereas vPPG showed enhanced performance in non-ISM.
METHODS: Seventy cirrhotic patients who underwent both hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) measurement and vPPG calculation were prospectively collected. The ideal-state model (ISM; n = 44) was defined by sinusoidal PH without hepatic vein shunt or portal vein thrombosis, whereas those not conforming to the criteria were classified as non-ISM (n = 26). Correlation analyses were conducted to determine the relationship between vPPG or its associated 3D hemodynamic parameters and HVPG. The diagnostic and predictive performance of vPPG and HVPG for cirrhotic-related complications was evaluated using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and Kaplan-Meier analysis.
RESULTS: In the ISM group, vPPG-associated hemodynamic parameters including total branch cross-sectional area (S2), average branch cross-sectional area (S), and average portal vein model length (h) were correlated with HVPG (r = 0.592, 0.536, -0.497; all p < 0.001), whereas vPPG was strongly correlated with HVPG (r = 0.832, p < 0.001). In the non-ISM group, vPPG, S2, S, and h were not related to HVPG (all p > 0.05). In the ISM group, both vPPG and HVPG showed significant diagnostic and predictive capabilities for cirrhosis-related complications. While in the non-ISM group, the diagnostic accuracy and predictive efficacy of vPPG surpassed those of HVPG.
CONCLUSION: HVPG exhibited superior diagnostic and predictive efficacy for cirrhotic PH in the ISM, whereas vPPG showed enhanced performance in non-ISM.