Belén Martinez-Moreno, Juan Martínez Martínez, Iván Herrera, Lucía Guilabert, María Rodríguez-Soler, Pablo Bellot, Cayetano Miralles, Sonia Pascual, Javier Irúrzun, Pedro Zapater, José María Palazón-Azorín, Vicente Gil Guillén, Rodrigo Jover, José R Aparicio
{"title":"Correlation of endoscopic ultrasound-guided portal pressure gradient measurements with hepatic venous pressure gradient: a prospective study.","authors":"Belén Martinez-Moreno, Juan Martínez Martínez, Iván Herrera, Lucía Guilabert, María Rodríguez-Soler, Pablo Bellot, Cayetano Miralles, Sonia Pascual, Javier Irúrzun, Pedro Zapater, José María Palazón-Azorín, Vicente Gil Guillén, Rodrigo Jover, José R Aparicio","doi":"10.1055/a-2369-0759","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Hepatic venous portal gradient (HVPG) measurement remains the gold standard for estimating portal pressure gradient (PPG). This study aimed to evaluate the correlation between endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided PPG and HVPG in patients with chronic portal hypertension.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with chronic portal hypertension in whom HVPG assessment was clinically indicated were invited to undergo transjugular HVPG and EUS-PPG with a 22-G needle in separate sessions for comparison. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the Bland-Altman method were used to evaluate the agreement between techniques.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>33 patients were included. No significant differences in technical success were observed: EUS-PPG (31/33, 93.9%) vs. HVPG (31/33, 93.9%). Overall, 30 patients who underwent successful EUS-PPG and HVPG were analyzed. Correlation between the two techniques showed an ICC of 0.82 (0.65-0.91). Four patients had major discrepancies (≥5 mmHg) between HVPG and EUS-PPG. No significant differences in adverse events were observed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The correlation between EUS-PPG and HVPG was almost perfect. EUS-PPG could be a safe and reliable method for direct PPG measurement in patients with cirrhosis and a valid alternative to HVPG.</p>","PeriodicalId":11516,"journal":{"name":"Endoscopy","volume":" ","pages":"62-67"},"PeriodicalIF":11.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2369-0759","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Hepatic venous portal gradient (HVPG) measurement remains the gold standard for estimating portal pressure gradient (PPG). This study aimed to evaluate the correlation between endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided PPG and HVPG in patients with chronic portal hypertension.
Methods: Patients with chronic portal hypertension in whom HVPG assessment was clinically indicated were invited to undergo transjugular HVPG and EUS-PPG with a 22-G needle in separate sessions for comparison. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the Bland-Altman method were used to evaluate the agreement between techniques.
Results: 33 patients were included. No significant differences in technical success were observed: EUS-PPG (31/33, 93.9%) vs. HVPG (31/33, 93.9%). Overall, 30 patients who underwent successful EUS-PPG and HVPG were analyzed. Correlation between the two techniques showed an ICC of 0.82 (0.65-0.91). Four patients had major discrepancies (≥5 mmHg) between HVPG and EUS-PPG. No significant differences in adverse events were observed.
Conclusions: The correlation between EUS-PPG and HVPG was almost perfect. EUS-PPG could be a safe and reliable method for direct PPG measurement in patients with cirrhosis and a valid alternative to HVPG.
期刊介绍:
Endoscopy is a leading journal covering the latest technologies and global advancements in gastrointestinal endoscopy. With guidance from an international editorial board, it delivers high-quality content catering to the needs of endoscopists, surgeons, clinicians, and researchers worldwide. Publishing 12 issues each year, Endoscopy offers top-quality review articles, original contributions, prospective studies, surveys of diagnostic and therapeutic advances, and comprehensive coverage of key national and international meetings. Additionally, articles often include supplementary online video content.