{"title":"The Balloon Catheter Method and the End-hole Catheter Method in the Measurement of Hepatic Venous Pressure Gradient: a Comparative Study.","authors":"Jian-An Yu, Si-Wei Yang, Yu Wang, Jian Li, Tian-Hao Su, Jiang Chang, Guang Chen","doi":"10.1007/s00270-024-03814-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":9591,"journal":{"name":"CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-024-03814-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
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.
期刊介绍：
CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology (CVIR) is the official journal of the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe, and is also the official organ of a number of additional distinguished national and international interventional radiological societies. CVIR publishes double blinded peer-reviewed original research work including clinical and laboratory investigations, technical notes, case reports, works in progress, and letters to the editor, as well as review articles, pictorial essays, editorials, and special invited submissions in the field of vascular and interventional radiology. Beside the communication of the latest research results in this field, it is also the aim of CVIR to support continuous medical education. Articles that are accepted for publication are done so with the understanding that they, or their substantive contents, have not been and will not be submitted to any other publication.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
