Jingqin Ma1, Ximing Gong2, Jianjun Luo3, Junying Gu1, Zhiping Yan1, Wen Zhang1, Changyu Li1, Zihan Zhang1, Minjie Yang1. 1. Department of Interventional Radiology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, 180 Fenglin Road, Shanghai 200032, China; Shanghai Institution of Medical Imaging, Shanghai, China. 2. Department of General Surgery, Shanghai Pudong New Area People's Hospital, Shanghai, China. 3. Department of Interventional Radiology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, 180 Fenglin Road, Shanghai 200032, China; Shanghai Institution of Medical Imaging, Shanghai, China. Electronic address: luo.jianjun@zs-hospital.sh.cn.
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.
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.