医学
门静脉压
经颈静脉肝内门体分流术
门脉高压
分流(医疗)
数字减影血管造影
核医学
胃肠病学
接收机工作特性
内科学
血管造影
肝硬化
作者
Jingqin Ma,Xi-ming Gong,Jianjun Luo,Jingjing Gu,Yan Zhang,Wen Zhang,Changyu Li,Zihan Zhang,Mei Yang
标识
DOI:10.1016/j.jvir.2020.08.027
摘要
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.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI