AI Article Synopsis
- This study compares the balloon catheter and end-hole catheter methods for measuring hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) in cirrhosis patients from October 2017 to January 2024.
- Results showed significant differences between HVPG values and portal vein pressure gradient (PPG), with the end-hole catheter providing measurements closer to PPG and a higher ability to screen for bleeding risk.
- The presence of intrahepatic veno-venous shunt (IHVS) affected the accuracy of the balloon catheter method, leading to generally lower HVPG readings.
Article Abstract
Objective: This study aims to evaluate the differences between The balloon catheter method and End-hole Catheter Method in measuring hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) among cirrhosis patients.
Methods: From October 2017 to January 2024, patients who underwent HVPG measurements using both methods were consecutively included. HVPGs obtained from both methods were compared with the portal vein pressure gradient (PPG) obtained via transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) using paired comparisons. Additionally, the consistency and predictive ability for bleeding risk of the two methods, as well as the impact of intrahepatic veno-venous shunt (IHVS), were analyzed.
Results: The study enrolled 145 patients, each of whom had HVPG measured by both methods. PPG was measured in 61 patients. There was a statistically significant difference between the PPGs and HVPGs measured by both the balloon catheter method and the end-hole catheter method (P < 0.001), with the HVPG mean values obtained by the end-hole catheter method being closer to the PPGs. In the non-IHVS group, no significant statistical difference was found between the two methods (P = 0.071). In contrast, the IHVS group showed a significant difference (P < 0.001), with a mean difference of 2.98 ± 4.03 mmHg. When IHVS was absent, the measurement results from the end-hole catheter method and the balloon catheter method were found to be highly correlated. The end-hole catheter method has a higher screening capability for patients at risk of bleeding compared to the balloon catheter method (75.90% vs. 72.86%).
Conclusion: HVPG measurements using either the balloon catheter method or end-hole catheter method showed significant difference with the PPG. The end-hole catheter method has a higher screening capability for patients at risk of bleeding, and IHVS could lead to lower HVPG measurements with The balloon catheter method.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00270-024-03814-w | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!