Literature DB >> 22209265

Hepatic venous pressure measurements: comparison of end-hole and balloon catheter methods.

Tony P Smith1, Charles Y Kim, Alastair D Smith, Gemini Janas, Michael J Miller, David R Sopko, Paul V Suhocki.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine the difference in hepatic venous pressures measured with the use of an end-hole diagnostic catheter versus a balloon catheter.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 92 patients underwent transjugular hepatic venous pressure measurements with a 5-F diagnostic end-hole catheter and a balloon catheter, with the catheter type used initially determined randomly. With both catheters, free and wedged systolic, diastolic, and mean pressures were collected. Hepatic venous pressure gradients were calculated from each pressure set. Eighty-five patients (92%) also underwent concurrent transjugular biopsy after pressures were recorded. Demographic, histologic, and specific procedural information were also collected.
RESULTS: The study included 47 men and 45 women, with a mean age of 52.7 years (range, 19-84 y). For the entire population, there were statistically significant differences in mean measurements between the two catheters in wedged systolic (P = .004), diastolic (P = .021), and mean (P = .036) pressures. However, the differences between the means were only 0.783, 0.609, and 0.207 mm Hg, respectively. A subanalysis based on histologic stage revealed no difference between catheter types for normal or cirrhotic livers, but a significant (P = .017) difference in systolic wedged pressure (absolute difference of 0.67 mm Hg) in patients with mild to moderate fibrosis (stages 1-3). In all differences, the balloon catheter had the greater pressure reading.
CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant difference in wedged pressure measurements between the two catheter systems in the overall population and among patients with a histologic grade indicating fibrosis. However, the absolute value differences between the two systems were comparatively small (< 1 mm Hg).
Copyright © 2012 SIR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22209265     DOI: 10.1016/j.jvir.2011.09.025

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Vasc Interv Radiol        ISSN: 1051-0443            Impact factor:   3.464


  3 in total

1.  Chronic liver disease: noninvasive subharmonic aided pressure estimation of hepatic venous pressure gradient.

Authors:  John R Eisenbrey; Jaydev K Dave; Valgerdur G Halldorsdottir; Daniel A Merton; Cynthia Miller; José M Gonzalez; Priscilla Machado; Suhyun Park; Scott Dianis; Carl L Chalek; Christopher E Kim; Jeffrey P Baliff; Kai E Thomenius; Daniel B Brown; Victor Navarro; Flemming Forsberg
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2013-03-22       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Comparison of hepatic venous pressure gradient and endoscopic grading of esophageal varices.

Authors:  EunJi Lee; Yong Jae Kim; Dong Erk Goo; Seung Boo Yang; Hyun-Joo Kim; Jae Young Jang; Soung Won Jeong
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-03-21       Impact factor: 5.742

3.  Transjugular Liver Biopsy with Hemodynamic Evaluation: Correlation between Hepatic Venous Pressure Gradient and Histologic Diagnosis of Cirrhosis.

Authors:  Hector Ferral; Claus J Fimmel; Amnon Sonnenberg; Marc J Alonzo; Thomas M Aquisto
Journal:  J Clin Imaging Sci       Date:  2021-04-26
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.