A Zipprich1, M Winkler, T Seufferlein, M M Dollinger. 1. Department of Internal Medicine I, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle/Saale, SA, Germany. alexander.zipprich@medizin.uni-halle.de
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) is used as an estimation of portal pressure (PP) in the management of patients with cirrhosis. Two methods are available using either a straight or a balloon catheter, but have never been compared head-to-head. AIM: To compare the two methods of determining HVPG, straight and balloon catheter, regarding reproducibility and reliability. METHODS: In 47 patients with liver cirrhosis, HVPG was assessed using both catheters in sequence. In another 29 patients, the wedged hepatic venous pressure (WHVP) determined either with straight or balloon catheter was correlated with a direct measurement of PP. Variation coefficient and intraclass correlation coefficient were calculated. RESULTS: Variation coefficients for balloon catheter were 0.07 (HVPG), 0.02 (WHVP) and 0.06 [free hepatic venous pressure (FHVP)]. Variation coefficients for straight catheter were 0.17 (HVPG), 0.06 (WHVP) and 0.07 (FHVP), demonstrating a significantly wider variation of the HVPG and WHVP measurements (P < 0.001). Comparison of WHVP with PP revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.72 (P = 0.004) using balloon catheter and 0.58 (P = 0.011) using straight catheter. CONCLUSIONS: Measurements with the balloon catheter currently represent the most reliable and reproducible method to assess HVPG. The results are of particular clinical relevance if repeated measurements are required for therapeutic adjustments.
BACKGROUND: The hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) is used as an estimation of portal pressure (PP) in the management of patients with cirrhosis. Two methods are available using either a straight or a balloon catheter, but have never been compared head-to-head. AIM: To compare the two methods of determining HVPG, straight and balloon catheter, regarding reproducibility and reliability. METHODS: In 47 patients with liver cirrhosis, HVPG was assessed using both catheters in sequence. In another 29 patients, the wedged hepatic venous pressure (WHVP) determined either with straight or balloon catheter was correlated with a direct measurement of PP. Variation coefficient and intraclass correlation coefficient were calculated. RESULTS: Variation coefficients for balloon catheter were 0.07 (HVPG), 0.02 (WHVP) and 0.06 [free hepatic venous pressure (FHVP)]. Variation coefficients for straight catheter were 0.17 (HVPG), 0.06 (WHVP) and 0.07 (FHVP), demonstrating a significantly wider variation of the HVPG and WHVP measurements (P < 0.001). Comparison of WHVP with PP revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.72 (P = 0.004) using balloon catheter and 0.58 (P = 0.011) using straight catheter. CONCLUSIONS: Measurements with the balloon catheter currently represent the most reliable and reproducible method to assess HVPG. The results are of particular clinical relevance if repeated measurements are required for therapeutic adjustments.
Authors: Jonathan Chung-Fai Leung; Thomson Chi-Wang Loong; James Pang; Jeremy Lok Wei; Vincent Wai-Sun Wong Journal: Hepatol Int Date: 2017-03-30 Impact factor: 6.047
Authors: T Heller; Y Rotman; C Koh; S Clark; V Haynes-Williams; R Chang; R McBurney; P Schmid; J Albrecht; D E Kleiner; M G Ghany; T J Liang; J H Hoofnagle Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2014-05-11 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: Thomas Reiberger; Andreas Püspök; Maria Schoder; Franziska Baumann-Durchschein; Theresa Bucsics; Christian Datz; Werner Dolak; Arnulf Ferlitsch; Armin Finkenstedt; Ivo Graziadei; Stephanie Hametner; Franz Karnel; Elisabeth Krones; Andreas Maieron; Mattias Mandorfer; Markus Peck-Radosavljevic; Florian Rainer; Philipp Schwabl; Vanessa Stadlbauer; Rudolf Stauber; Herbert Tilg; Michael Trauner; Heinz Zoller; Rainer Schöfl; Peter Fickert Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2017-10-23 Impact factor: 1.704