Chikara Shirata1, Yujiro Nishioka1, Jiro Sato2, Takeyuki Watadani2, Junichi Arita1, Nobuhisa Akamatsu1, Junichi Kaneko1, Yoshihiro Sakamoto1, Osamu Abe2, Kiyoshi Hasegawa3. 1. Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery Division, Department of Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan. 2. Department of Radiology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan. 3. Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery Division, Department of Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan. Electronic address: kihase-tky@umin.ac.jp.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The therapeutic effect of portal vein (PV) stenting for PV stenosis following nontransplant hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) surgery has not been fully investigated. METHODS: Changes in portal venous pressure (PVP) gradient before and after stenting, complications, symptomatic improvement, and stent patency were evaluated. RESULTS: We identified 14 consecutive patients undergoing PV stenting for malignant (n = 8) and benign (n = 6) PV stenosis. Signs of PV stenosis were composed of refractory ascites in 6 patients, varices with hemorrhagic tendencies in 5, and abnormal liver function in 5. The median PVP gradient after PV stenting was 3.0 cm H2O (range, 1.5-3.0), which was significantly smaller than that before PV stenting (median, 15 cm H2O [range, 2.5-25]; P < 0.01). Thirteen out of 14 (93%) achieved clinical success with symptomatic improvement, except one patient with sustained refractory ascites because of peritoneal seeding. During the median follow-up time of 7.3 months (range, 1.0-87), stent occlusion occurred in two patients (14%) because of intrastent tumor growth. The 1-year cumulative stent patency rate was 76% in the entire cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Based on durable effect on patency, we deemed PV stenting for PV stenosis after HPB surgery to be safe and beneficial for improving symptoms.
BACKGROUND: The therapeutic effect of portal vein (PV) stenting for PV stenosis following nontransplant hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) surgery has not been fully investigated. METHODS: Changes in portal venous pressure (PVP) gradient before and after stenting, complications, symptomatic improvement, and stent patency were evaluated. RESULTS: We identified 14 consecutive patients undergoing PV stenting for malignant (n = 8) and benign (n = 6) PV stenosis. Signs of PV stenosis were composed of refractory ascites in 6 patients, varices with hemorrhagic tendencies in 5, and abnormal liver function in 5. The median PVP gradient after PV stenting was 3.0 cm H2O (range, 1.5-3.0), which was significantly smaller than that before PV stenting (median, 15 cm H2O [range, 2.5-25]; P < 0.01). Thirteen out of 14 (93%) achieved clinical success with symptomatic improvement, except one patient with sustained refractory ascites because of peritoneal seeding. During the median follow-up time of 7.3 months (range, 1.0-87), stent occlusion occurred in two patients (14%) because of intrastent tumor growth. The 1-year cumulative stent patency rate was 76% in the entire cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Based on durable effect on patency, we deemed PV stenting for PV stenosis after HPB surgery to be safe and beneficial for improving symptoms.