| Literature DB >> 32327911 |
Masanori Gonda1, Tatsuya Osuga2, Yoshihiro Ikura3, Kazunori Hasegawa1, Kentaro Kawasaki4, Takatoshi Nakashima1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hepatic portal venous gas (HPVG) generally indicates poor prognoses in patients with serious intestinal damage. Although surgical removal of the damaged portion is effective, some patients can recover with conservative treatments. AIM: To establish an optimal treatment strategy for HPVG, we attempted to generate computed tomography (CT)-based criteria for determining surgical indication, and explored reliable prognostic factors in non-surgical cases.Entities:
Keywords: Computed tomography; Conservative treatment; Hepatic portal venous gas; Intestinal necrosis; Prognostic factor; Surgical treatment
Year: 2020 PMID: 32327911 PMCID: PMC7167419 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v26.i14.1628
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Gastroenterol ISSN: 1007-9327 Impact factor: 5.742
Figure 1Computed tomography and pathologic findings of case 1. A: Abdominal computed tomography images on admission demonstrate hepatic portal venous gas, ascites; B: Intestinal pneumatosis (arrow); C: The resected small intestine shows hemorrhagic necrosis; D: Air-bubbles in the damaged intestinal wall (arrow).
Figure 2Abdominal computed tomography images of case 2. A: Extensive hepatic portal venous gas; B: Intestinal pneumatosis were found on the first hospital day; C: However, hepatic portal venous gas disappeared on the seventh hospital day.
Figure 3Abdominal computed tomography images of case 3 on admission. Left lobe hepatic portal venous gas and the moderate amount of ascites are seen.
Figure 4A treatment decision flowchart and outcomes. CT: Computed tomography; HPVG: Hepatic portal venous gas.
Preoperative findings, outcomes and final diagnosis of the surgical cases (n = 8)
| 1 | 72 | F | NOMI | Recovery | Abdominal pain, nausea | + | + | 2+ | - | + | - | 26000 | 1.57 | -4.9 | 18 |
| 2 | 74 | M | Clostridium enteritis | Recovery | Nausea, vomiting | - | + | 2+ | - | + | - | 15400 | 16 | 5.3 | 7 |
| 3 | 65 | F | NOMI | Recovery | Abdominal pain | - | - | - | - | + | + | 31500 | 7.39 | -7 | 13 |
| 4 | 86 | M | Gastric perforation | Death | Abdominal pain, vomiting | + | + | 3+ | + | + | + | 7800 | 0.17 | -11.3 | 73 |
| 5 | 69 | M | NOMI | Recovery | Abdominal pain | + | + | 2+ | + | - | - | 13200 | 10.8 | 2.3 | 14 |
| 6 | 71 | M | Mesenteric artery thrombosis | Recovery | Abdominal pain, vomiting | + | + | 1+ | + | + | + | 22500 | 1.81 | -6.3 | 46 |
| 7 | 84 | M | NOMI | Recovery | Abdominal fullness | + | + | 2+ | + | NE | - | 36700 | 15.54 | -5.5 | 47 |
| 8 | 34 | M | Strangulation ileus | Recovery | Abdominal fullness | - | NE | - | + | + | - | 10000 | 4.67 | -3.1 | 42 |
≤ Systolic blood pressure 90 mmHg.
Semiquantitative evaluation as – (none).
Shown as case 1 in the case presentation. 1+: Small amount; 2+: Moderate amount; 3+: Large amount. LOCE: Lack of contrast enhancement; BE: Base excess; NE: Not examined; NOMI: Non-occlusive mesenteric ischemia.
Clinical data comparison between the non-surgical recovery and the non-surgical death cases
| Age [median (range)] | 86 (56-92) | 84 (72-99) | |
| Gender (M:F) | 4:12 | 4:6 | |
| Shock (≤ systolic BP 90 mmHg) (%) | 0 (0%) | 6 (60%) | |
| Peritoneal irritation (%) | 2 (13%) | 8 (80%) | |
| Ascites (%) | 5 (31%) | 8 (80%) | |
| Intestinal pneumatosis (%) | 8 (50%) | 7 (70%) | |
| WBC (/μL) [median (range)] | 9050 (4200-31800) | 13400 (9900-19000) | |
| CRP (mg/dL) [median (range)] | 2.39 (0.11-28.41) | 12.84 (0.1-33.26) | |
| BE (mmol/L) [median (range)] | 1.8 (-8.4 – 14.6) | -6.2 (-18.2 – 6.8) | |
| Lactate (mg/dL) [median (range)] | 26 (9-63) | 36 (11-120) |
Mann-Whitney-U test.
Fisher’s exact test. A significant P value is shown on underline. BE: Base excess.
Mortality prediction in the 26 non-surgical cases by the three factors [Ascites, peritoneal irritation sign (muscular defense and/or rebound tenderness), and shock]
| 0-1 Factor | 16 | 1 |
| 2-3 Factors | 0 | 9 |