Hepatic venous pressure gradient: Inaccurately estimates
portal venous pressure gradient in alcoholic cirrhosis and portal hypertension.
World J Gastrointest Surg 2023;
15:2490-2499. [PMID:
38111777 PMCID:
PMC10725542 DOI:
10.4240/wjgs.v15.i11.2490]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/13/2023] [Revised: 10/03/2023] [Accepted: 10/23/2023] [Indexed: 11/26/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Portal hypertension (PHT) in patients with alcoholic cirrhosis causes a range of clinical symptoms, including gastroesophageal varices and ascites. The hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG), which is easier to measure, has replaced the portal venous pressure gradient (PPG) as the gold standard for diagnosing PHT in clinical practice. Therefore, attention should be paid to the correlation between HVPG and PPG.
AIM
To explore the correlation between HVPG and PPG in patients with alcoholic cirrhosis and PHT.
METHODS
Between January 2017 and June 2020, 134 patients with alcoholic cirrhosis and PHT who met the inclusion criteria underwent various pressure measurements during transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt procedures. Correlations were assessed using Pearson's correlation coefficient to estimate the correlation coefficient (r) and determination coefficient (R2). Bland-Altman plots were constructed to further analyze the agreement between the measurements. Disagreements were analyzed using paired t tests, and P values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
RESULTS
In this study, the correlation coefficient (r) and determination coefficient (R2) between HVPG and PPG were 0.201 and 0.040, respectively (P = 0.020). In the 108 patients with no collateral branch, the average wedged hepatic venous pressure was lower than the average portal venous pressure (30.65 ± 8.17 vs. 33.25 ± 6.60 mmHg, P = 0.002). Hepatic collaterals were identified in 26 cases with balloon occlusion hepatic venography (19.4%), while the average PPG was significantly higher than the average HVPG (25.94 ± 7.42 mmHg vs 9.86 ± 7.44 mmHg; P < 0.001). The differences between HVPG and PPG < 5 mmHg in the collateral vs no collateral branch groups were three cases (11.54%) and 44 cases (40.74%), respectively.
CONCLUSION
In most patients, HVPG cannot accurately represent PPG. The formation of hepatic collaterals is a vital reason for the strong underestimation of HVPG.
Collapse