1. Impact of Intrahepatic Venovenous Shunt on Hepatic Venous Pressure Gradient Measurement
- Author
-
Zihan Zhang, Zhiping Yan, Jingqin Ma, Minjie Yang, Wen Zhang, Jianjun Luo, Ximing Gong, Junying Gu, and Changyu Li
- Subjects
Adult ,Male ,Computed Tomography Angiography ,Portal venous pressure ,medicine.medical_treatment ,Hepatic Veins ,Esophageal and Gastric Varices ,030218 nuclear medicine & medical imaging ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Venovenous shunt ,Hypertension, Portal ,Multidetector Computed Tomography ,medicine ,Humans ,Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging ,In patient ,Vein ,Aged ,Retrospective Studies ,Computed tomography angiography ,medicine.diagnostic_test ,business.industry ,Angiography, Digital Subtraction ,Phlebography ,Digital subtraction angiography ,Middle Aged ,Treatment Outcome ,medicine.anatomical_structure ,030220 oncology & carcinogenesis ,Angiography ,Female ,Portasystemic Shunt, Transjugular Intrahepatic ,Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage ,Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine ,Nuclear medicine ,business ,Venous Pressure ,Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt - Abstract
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.
- Published
- 2020