Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2015
Use of Accessory Hepatic Vein Intervention in the Treatment of Budd-Chiari Syndrome.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Fu Yu-Fei, Wei Ning, Wu Qian, Zhang Qing-Qiao, Cui Yan-Feng, Xu Hao
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical value of accessory hepatic vein (AHV) intervention in the treatment of Budd-Chiari syndrome (BCS).
PATIENTS AND METHODS: From August 2008 to July 2014, consecutive patients with BCS caused by obstruction of three hepatic veins (HVs) with or without obstruction of inferior vena cava (IVC) were treated by recanalization or transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in our center. Patients who had the compensatory AHV and successfully underwent recanalization of AHV outflow were enrolled in this retrospective study. The clinical response to AHV drainage was analyzed.
RESULTS: Compensatory AHV was found in 69 of 97 (71.1%) patients, and 66 patients successfully underwent recanalization of AHV outflow (IVC recanalization, n = 49; AHV recanalization, n = 15; both, n = 2). In total, 78 AHVs were used instead of HV as the hepatic drainage vein after treatment. Fifty-five patients had one AHV, 10 patients had two AHVs, and 1 patient had three AHVs. The average diameter of all AHV stems was 8.0 ± 2.6 mm (range 5-21 mm). Clinical response to AHV drainage was positive in all patients. Patients' symptoms and liver function improved progressively after treatment. During the follow-up of 3-74 months (average 39.4 ± 11.0 months), 11 patients experienced reobstruction at 6 to 36 months (average 16.8 ± 9.8 months) after treatment.
CONCLUSION: Compensatory AHV can be effectively used instead of HV for drainage of hepatic blood in patients with BCS. AHV intervention can help to simplify the BCS treatment procedure.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: From August 2008 to July 2014, consecutive patients with BCS caused by obstruction of three hepatic veins (HVs) with or without obstruction of inferior vena cava (IVC) were treated by recanalization or transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in our center. Patients who had the compensatory AHV and successfully underwent recanalization of AHV outflow were enrolled in this retrospective study. The clinical response to AHV drainage was analyzed.
RESULTS: Compensatory AHV was found in 69 of 97 (71.1%) patients, and 66 patients successfully underwent recanalization of AHV outflow (IVC recanalization, n = 49; AHV recanalization, n = 15; both, n = 2). In total, 78 AHVs were used instead of HV as the hepatic drainage vein after treatment. Fifty-five patients had one AHV, 10 patients had two AHVs, and 1 patient had three AHVs. The average diameter of all AHV stems was 8.0 ± 2.6 mm (range 5-21 mm). Clinical response to AHV drainage was positive in all patients. Patients' symptoms and liver function improved progressively after treatment. During the follow-up of 3-74 months (average 39.4 ± 11.0 months), 11 patients experienced reobstruction at 6 to 36 months (average 16.8 ± 9.8 months) after treatment.
CONCLUSION: Compensatory AHV can be effectively used instead of HV for drainage of hepatic blood in patients with BCS. AHV intervention can help to simplify the BCS treatment procedure.