Intrahepatic veno-venous collateralization and misrepresentative hepatic venous pressure gradients in children
- PDF / 2,670,942 Bytes
- 8 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 78 Downloads / 173 Views
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Intrahepatic veno-venous collateralization and misrepresentative hepatic venous pressure gradients in children Eric J. Monroe 1,2 & Whitney Shofner Michalsky 1 & Kevin S. H. Koo 1,2 & Giridhar M. Shivaram 1,2 & Anthony N. Hage 3 & Evelyn K. Hsu 4,5 & Simon P. Horslen 4,5 & Jeffrey Forris Beecham Chick 1 Received: 15 March 2020 / Revised: 12 May 2020 / Accepted: 2 June 2020 # Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020
Abstract Background Accurate and reproducible means of measuring the portosystemic gradient are essential for risk stratification and treatment of portal hypertension. Objective To report the reliability of hepatic venous pressure gradients in children with intrahepatic veno-venous collateralization. Materials and methods Between January 2012 and December 2019 (96 months), 39 patients with native livers underwent wedge hepatic venography and hepatic venous pressure gradient measurements at a tertiary pediatric center. All archived images were reviewed for balloon isolation of the hepatic vein and hepatic vein-to-hepatic vein (HV-HV) collaterals. HVHV collaterals were categorized as present on the basis of non-catheterized segmental venous opacification despite appropriate balloon isolation. Hepatic venous pressure gradient was defined as the difference of wedge and free hepatic venous pressures. Wedge portosystemic gradient was defined as the difference between wedge hepatic venous pressure and right atrial (RA) pressures. For patients subsequently undergoing portal venous catheterization, portosystemic gradient was defined as the difference between main portal vein and RA pressures. Results Thirteen of 39 (33.3%) patients demonstrated HV-HV collaterals on wedge hepatic venography. The mean hepatic venous pressure gradient was 5.2±3.8 mmHg (range: 0–15 mmHg). The mean hepatic venous pressure gradient was 3.6 ±2.6 mmHg (range: 0–9 mmHg) in the presence of HV-HV collaterals and 5.9±4.2 mmHg (range: 1–15 mmHg) in the absence of HV-HV collaterals (P=0.043). Twelve (30.8%) patients were found to have varices: 10 gastroesophageal, 1 rectal and 1 stomal. The mean hepatic venous pressure gradient in patients with varices was 5.4±47 mmHg (range: 0– 15 mmHg). For patients with varices, mean hepatic venous pressure gradient was 3.0±2.7 mmHg (range: 0–9 mmHg) in the presence of HV-HV collaterals and 10.3±4.1 mmHg (range: 5–15 mmHg) in the absence of HV-HV collaterals (P=0.004). Four (10.3%) patients had extrahepatic portal vein occlusion: 3 with cavernous transformation and 1 with type Ib Abernethy malformation. All patients with extrahepatic portal vein occlusion demonstrated HV-HV collaterals compared with 8 of 35 (22.9%) patients without extrahepatic portal vein occlusion (P=0.002). Four of 39 (10.3%) patients underwent direct portal pressure measurements: 3 via transhepatic and 1 via trans-splenic portal access. All had demonstrated HV-HV collaterals on wedged imaging. One had extrahepatic portal vein occlusion. The mean time between wedge portosystemic gradient and portosyst
Data Loading...
