Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR · 2020
Impact of Intrahepatic Venovenous Shunt on Hepatic Venous Pressure Gradient Measurement.
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.
Ma Jingqin, Gong Ximing, Luo Jianjun, Gu Junying, Yan Zhiping, Zhang Wen, Li Changyu, Zhang Zihan, Yang Minjie
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To quantitatively analyze the impact of intrahepatic venovenous shunt (IHVS) on hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) measurement.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 2015 to 2019, 222 HVPG measurements performed during transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt creation were eligible for this study. Digital subtraction angiography (DSA) software color-coded each pixel of a two-dimensional DSA series by time-intensity curve to classify IHVS. Different degrees of IHVS were found in 36.5% of patients (81/222). Mild IHVS was found in 10.8% of patients (24/222), moderate IHVS was found in 10.8% of patients (24/222), and severe IVHS was found in 14.9% of patients (33/222).
RESULTS: Mean wedged hepatic vein pressure (WHVP) and HVPG were significantly lower in patients with IHVS compared with patients without IHVS (WHVP: 17.78 mm Hg ± 7.00 vs 24.89 mm Hg ± 8.69, P = .001; HVPG: 11.93 mm Hg ± 5.76 vs 18.6 mm Hg ± 6.85, P < .001). Mild IHVS had little effect on WHVP and HVPG. Mean WHVP and HVPG were 11 mm Hg lower in patients with moderate IHVS (WHVP: 20.38 mm Hg ± 8.38 vs 31.5 mm Hg ± 9.39, P = .026; HVPG: 13.88 mm Hg ± 6.33 vs 25.00 mm Hg ± 9.81, P < .001) and 15 mm Hg lower in patients with severe IHVS (WHVP: 13.45 mm Hg ± 5.28 vs 28.64 mm Hg ± 6.38, P = .017; HVPG: 8.27 mm Hg ± 3.85 vs 23.45 mm Hg ± 6.95, P < .001) than mean portal vein pressure and portal vein gradient.
CONCLUSIONS: For patients with moderate or severe IHVS, HVPG might greatly underestimate the actual value of portal vein pressure, and the portal vein should be catheterized to measure portal pressure.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 2015 to 2019, 222 HVPG measurements performed during transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt creation were eligible for this study. Digital subtraction angiography (DSA) software color-coded each pixel of a two-dimensional DSA series by time-intensity curve to classify IHVS. Different degrees of IHVS were found in 36.5% of patients (81/222). Mild IHVS was found in 10.8% of patients (24/222), moderate IHVS was found in 10.8% of patients (24/222), and severe IVHS was found in 14.9% of patients (33/222).
RESULTS: Mean wedged hepatic vein pressure (WHVP) and HVPG were significantly lower in patients with IHVS compared with patients without IHVS (WHVP: 17.78 mm Hg ± 7.00 vs 24.89 mm Hg ± 8.69, P = .001; HVPG: 11.93 mm Hg ± 5.76 vs 18.6 mm Hg ± 6.85, P < .001). Mild IHVS had little effect on WHVP and HVPG. Mean WHVP and HVPG were 11 mm Hg lower in patients with moderate IHVS (WHVP: 20.38 mm Hg ± 8.38 vs 31.5 mm Hg ± 9.39, P = .026; HVPG: 13.88 mm Hg ± 6.33 vs 25.00 mm Hg ± 9.81, P < .001) and 15 mm Hg lower in patients with severe IHVS (WHVP: 13.45 mm Hg ± 5.28 vs 28.64 mm Hg ± 6.38, P = .017; HVPG: 8.27 mm Hg ± 3.85 vs 23.45 mm Hg ± 6.95, P < .001) than mean portal vein pressure and portal vein gradient.
CONCLUSIONS: For patients with moderate or severe IHVS, HVPG might greatly underestimate the actual value of portal vein pressure, and the portal vein should be catheterized to measure portal pressure.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AdultAgedAngiography, Digital SubtractionComputed Tomography AngiographyEsophageal and Gastric VaricesFemaleGastrointestinal HemorrhageHepatic VeinsHumansHypertension, PortalMaleMiddle AgedMultidetector Computed TomographyPhlebographyPortasystemic Shunt, Transjugular IntrahepaticRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeVenous Pressure