Noninvasive variceal pressure measurement may be useful for predicting effect of sclerotherapy for esophageal varices

What Are Risk Factors for Graft Loss in Patients Who Underwent Simultaneous Splenectomy During Living-donor Liver Transplantation?

BACKGROUND

The consensus that portal venous pressure modulation, including splenectomy (Spx), prevents portal hypertension-related complications after living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has been established. However, little evidence about the risk factors for graft loss after simultaneous Spx during LDLT is available. This study aimed to identify the independent predictors of graft loss after simultaneous Spx during LDLT.

METHODS

Data of 655 recipients who underwent LDLT between 1997 and 2021 were collected and separated into the simultaneous Spx group (n = 461) and no-Spx group (n = 194).

RESULTS

The simultaneous Spx group had significantly lower serum total bilirubin levels, drained ascites volumes, and prothrombin time-international normalized ratios on postoperative day 14 than the no-Spx group ( P  < 0.001 for each). Incidences of small-for-size graft syndrome ( P  < 0.001), acute cellular rejection ( P  = 0.002), and sepsis ( P  = 0.007) were significantly lower in the Spx group. Graft survival of the Spx group was significantly better than that of the no-Spx group ( P  < 0.001; hazard ratio [HR], 1.788; 95% confidence interval, 1.214-2.431). A multivariate analysis revealed that 3 variables, platelet count ≤4.0 × 10 4 /mm 3 ( P  = 0.029; HR, 2.873), donor age ≥60 y old ( P  = 0.013; HR, 6.693), and portal venous pressure at closure ≥20 mm Hg ( P  = 0.010; HR, 3.891), were independent predictors of graft loss within 6 mo after simultaneous Spx during LDLT.

CONCLUSIONS

Spx is a safe inflow modulation procedure with a positive impact on both postoperative complications and prognosis for most patients. However, patients with the 3 aforementioned independent factors could experience graft loss after LDLT.

Pipeline Esophagogastric Varices Secondary to Extrahepatic Portal Vein Obstruction Treated Endoscopically with the Assistance of Transileocolic Obliteration

Endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS) for esophagogastric varices (EGV) was attempted for a 29-year-old man with extrahepatic portal vein obstruction. However, pipeline varices characterized by a large blood flow volume were present, and the sclerosant did not accumulate sufficiently in them. Transileocolic obliteration (TIO) using coils was performed, but some EGVs and palisading veins remained. Thus, EIS was performed once again immediately after TIO. Since a reduction in the intravariceal blood flow was achieved by preceding TIO, effective injection of sclerosant into the vessels was possible. For pipeline varices difficult to treat endoscopically, combination therapy with TIO may be effective.

Assessment of portal hypertension in humans

Patients suspected of having portal hypertension (either by clinical history, physical examination, or previous diagnosis) should undergo ultrasonography and upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Ultrasonography, preferably using the duplex technique, can disclose the patency of the portal venous system, the presence of signs of portal hypertension (splenomegaly, portocollateral vessels, repermeabilization of the umbilical vein, and so forth) and provide additional information about liver, biliary, or pancreatic diseases that may be the cause of portal hypertension. Endoscopy can assess the presence and size of gastroesophageal varices, the appearance of the variceal wall, and the presence and severity of portal hypertensive gastropathy. Patients showing a patent portal vein should have hepatic vein catheterization to evaluate the presence of presinusoidal, sinusoidal, or postsinusoidal portal hypertension. Patients in whom presinusoidal portal hypertension is suspected (those having esophageal varices with an HVPG below 10 mm Hg) should have liver biopsy and percutaneous transhepatic measurement of portal pressure. In sinusoidal portal hypertension, the results of endoscopy and HVPG measurement are decisive for the therapeutic management of the patients. The authors' results indicate that, before starting prophylactic therapy with beta-blockers, all patients should undergo at least an hepatic vein catheterization to assess HVPG; it would be preferable to have a variceal pressure measurement also. These measurements must be repeated 3 to 4 weeks after the final dose of therapy has been reached to assess the risk of variceal bleeding or rebleeding.

Sequential variceal pressure measurement by endoscopic needle puncture during maintenance sclerotherapy: the correlation between variceal pressure and variceal rebleeding

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The risk factors for esophageal variceal rebleeding are little known. Variceal pressure is one of the major determinants of variceal rupture, but the relationship between variceal pressure and variceal rebleeding during maintenance sclerotherapy has not been determined. This study was undertaken to evaluate the relationship between variceal pressure/gradient change and variceal rebleeding during maintenance sclerotherapy.

METHODS

Patients with liver cirrhosis and recent esophageal variceal hemorrhage underwent consecutive variceal pressure measurements by direct puncture of the varices before each elective sclerotherapy.

RESULTS

In 46 patients, the initial variceal pressure was no different regardless of age, sex, underlying etiology or hepatic reserve. Variceal pressure was higher in large varices, varices with more severe red wale markings, and varices with slower reduction in size during maintenance sclerotherapy. A larger volume of sclerosant was required to eradicate large varices, varices with more severe red wale markings, and varices with slower reduction in size during maintenance sclerotherapy. There was a positive correlation between initial variceal pressure and total amount of sclerosant (r=0.485, p=0.001). Initial variceal pressure was not related to rebleeding. Variceal pressure increased more in patients with rebleeding from varices per se (n=7) than in those without rebleeding (n= 24). There was no difference in pressure change between patients without rebleeding (n=24) and those with rebleeding from variceal ulcers (n=7).

CONCLUSIONS

Large varices, severe red color signs and slow reduction in variceal size were associated with higher initial variceal pressure, and more sclerosant was required to eradicate the varices. An increase in variceal pressure during maintenance sclerotherapy indicates a higher risk of variceal rebleeding, but not of variceal ulcer rebleeding.