Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
The Balloon Catheter Method and the End-hole Catheter Method in the Measurement of Hepatic Venous Pressure Gradient: a Comparative Study.
Yu, Jian-An; Yang, Si-Wei; Wang, Yu; Li, Jian; Su, Tian-Hao; Chang, Jiang; Chen, Guang.
Afiliación
  • Yu JA; Department of Interventional Radiology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100050, China.
  • Yang SW; Department of Interventional Radiology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100050, China.
  • Wang Y; Liver Research Center, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100050, China.
  • Li J; Department of Interventional Radiology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100050, China.
  • Su TH; Department of Interventional Radiology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100050, China.
  • Chang J; Department of Interventional Radiology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100050, China.
  • Chen G; Department of Interventional Radiology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100050, China. chenguang134@126.com.
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol ; 2024 Jul 25.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39060793
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.
Palabras clave
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: China Pais de publicación: Estados Unidos
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: China Pais de publicación: Estados Unidos