Sagar V. Desai, Balasubramani Natarajan, Vinit Khanna, Paul Brady
{"title":"成人肝移植后的肝动脉狭窄:评估不同的血管内治疗方法","authors":"Sagar V. Desai, Balasubramani Natarajan, Vinit Khanna, Paul Brady","doi":"10.1186/s42155-024-00439-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"To evaluate the efficacy and safety of hepatic artery interventions (HAI) versus extra-hepatic arterial interventions (EHAI) when managing clinically significant hepatic artery stenosis (HAS) after adult orthotopic liver transplantation. A single-center retrospective cohort analysis was conducted on liver transplant patients who underwent intervention for clinically significant HAS from September 2012 to September 2021. The HAI treatment arm included hepatic artery angioplasty and/or stent placement while the EHAI treatment arm comprised of non-hepatic visceral artery embolization. Primary outcomes included peri-procedural complications and 1-year liver-related deaths. Secondary outcomes included biliary ischemic events, longitudinal trends in liver enzymes and ultrasound parameters pre-and post-intervention. The HAI arm included 21 procedures in 18 patients and the EHAI arm included 27 procedures in 22 patients. There were increased 1-year liver-related deaths (10% [2/21] vs 0% [0/27], p = 0.10) and complications (29% [6/21] vs 4% [1/27], p = 0.015) in the HAI group compared to the EHAI group. Both HAI and EHAI groups exhibited similar improvements in transaminitis including changes of ALT (-72 U/L vs -112.5 U/L, p = 0.60) and AST (-58 U/L vs -48 U/L, p = 0.56) at 1-month post-procedure. Both treatment arms demonstrated increases in post-procedural peak systolic velocity of the hepatic artery distal to the stenosis, while the HAI group also showed significant improvement in resistive indices following the intervention. Direct hepatic artery interventions remain the definitive treatment for clinically significant hepatic artery stenosis; however, non-hepatic visceral artery embolization can be considered a safe alternative intervention in cases of unfavorable hepatic anatomy. ","PeriodicalId":52351,"journal":{"name":"CVIR Endovascular","volume":"42 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hepatic artery stenosis following adult liver transplantation: evaluation of different endovascular treatment approaches\",\"authors\":\"Sagar V. Desai, Balasubramani Natarajan, Vinit Khanna, Paul Brady\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s42155-024-00439-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"To evaluate the efficacy and safety of hepatic artery interventions (HAI) versus extra-hepatic arterial interventions (EHAI) when managing clinically significant hepatic artery stenosis (HAS) after adult orthotopic liver transplantation. A single-center retrospective cohort analysis was conducted on liver transplant patients who underwent intervention for clinically significant HAS from September 2012 to September 2021. The HAI treatment arm included hepatic artery angioplasty and/or stent placement while the EHAI treatment arm comprised of non-hepatic visceral artery embolization. Primary outcomes included peri-procedural complications and 1-year liver-related deaths. Secondary outcomes included biliary ischemic events, longitudinal trends in liver enzymes and ultrasound parameters pre-and post-intervention. The HAI arm included 21 procedures in 18 patients and the EHAI arm included 27 procedures in 22 patients. There were increased 1-year liver-related deaths (10% [2/21] vs 0% [0/27], p = 0.10) and complications (29% [6/21] vs 4% [1/27], p = 0.015) in the HAI group compared to the EHAI group. Both HAI and EHAI groups exhibited similar improvements in transaminitis including changes of ALT (-72 U/L vs -112.5 U/L, p = 0.60) and AST (-58 U/L vs -48 U/L, p = 0.56) at 1-month post-procedure. Both treatment arms demonstrated increases in post-procedural peak systolic velocity of the hepatic artery distal to the stenosis, while the HAI group also showed significant improvement in resistive indices following the intervention. Direct hepatic artery interventions remain the definitive treatment for clinically significant hepatic artery stenosis; however, non-hepatic visceral artery embolization can be considered a safe alternative intervention in cases of unfavorable hepatic anatomy. \",\"PeriodicalId\":52351,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CVIR Endovascular\",\"volume\":\"42 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CVIR Endovascular\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s42155-024-00439-5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CVIR Endovascular","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s42155-024-00439-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:评估在处理成人正位肝移植后临床症状明显的肝动脉狭窄(HAS)时,肝动脉介入治疗(HAI)与肝外动脉介入治疗(EHAI)的有效性和安全性。我们对2012年9月至2021年9月期间因临床症状明显的HAS而接受介入治疗的肝移植患者进行了单中心回顾性队列分析。HAI治疗组包括肝动脉血管成形术和/或支架置入术,而EHAI治疗组包括非肝内脏动脉栓塞术。主要结果包括围手术期并发症和 1 年肝脏相关死亡。次要结果包括胆道缺血性事件、干预前后肝酶和超声参数的纵向变化趋势。HAI治疗组包括18名患者的21次手术,EHAI治疗组包括22名患者的27次手术。与 EHAI 组相比,HAI 组 1 年肝脏相关死亡(10% [2/21] vs 0% [0/27],p = 0.10)和并发症(29% [6/21] vs 4% [1/27],p = 0.015)有所增加。HAI组和EHAI组在转氨酶方面都有相似的改善,包括术后1个月时ALT(-72 U/L vs -112.5 U/L,p = 0.60)和AST(-58 U/L vs -48 U/L,p = 0.56)的变化。两组治疗均显示肝动脉狭窄远端肝动脉术后收缩峰值速度增加,而HAI组在介入治疗后阻力指数也有显著改善。直接肝动脉介入治疗仍是临床上治疗肝动脉明显狭窄的最终方法;然而,在肝脏解剖结构不理想的情况下,非肝内脏动脉栓塞可被视为一种安全的替代介入治疗方法。
Hepatic artery stenosis following adult liver transplantation: evaluation of different endovascular treatment approaches
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of hepatic artery interventions (HAI) versus extra-hepatic arterial interventions (EHAI) when managing clinically significant hepatic artery stenosis (HAS) after adult orthotopic liver transplantation. A single-center retrospective cohort analysis was conducted on liver transplant patients who underwent intervention for clinically significant HAS from September 2012 to September 2021. The HAI treatment arm included hepatic artery angioplasty and/or stent placement while the EHAI treatment arm comprised of non-hepatic visceral artery embolization. Primary outcomes included peri-procedural complications and 1-year liver-related deaths. Secondary outcomes included biliary ischemic events, longitudinal trends in liver enzymes and ultrasound parameters pre-and post-intervention. The HAI arm included 21 procedures in 18 patients and the EHAI arm included 27 procedures in 22 patients. There were increased 1-year liver-related deaths (10% [2/21] vs 0% [0/27], p = 0.10) and complications (29% [6/21] vs 4% [1/27], p = 0.015) in the HAI group compared to the EHAI group. Both HAI and EHAI groups exhibited similar improvements in transaminitis including changes of ALT (-72 U/L vs -112.5 U/L, p = 0.60) and AST (-58 U/L vs -48 U/L, p = 0.56) at 1-month post-procedure. Both treatment arms demonstrated increases in post-procedural peak systolic velocity of the hepatic artery distal to the stenosis, while the HAI group also showed significant improvement in resistive indices following the intervention. Direct hepatic artery interventions remain the definitive treatment for clinically significant hepatic artery stenosis; however, non-hepatic visceral artery embolization can be considered a safe alternative intervention in cases of unfavorable hepatic anatomy.