Study on the correlation between PPG and HVPG in patients with portal hypertension
10.3760/cma.j.cn501113-20200603-00291
- VernacularTitle:门静脉高压患者PPG与HVPG相关性研究
- Author:
Lei WANG
1
;
Qingkun SONG
;
Zhendong YUE
;
Hongwei ZHAO
;
Zhenhua FAN
;
Yifan WU
;
Fuquan LIU
;
Mingming MENG
;
Ke ZHANG
;
Li JIANG
;
Huiguo DING
;
Yuening ZHANG
Author Information
1. 首都医科大学附属北京世纪坛医院介入治疗科，北京 100038
- Keywords:
Portal hypertension;
Portal vein pressure gradient;
Hepatic vein pressure gradient;
Transjugular intrahepatic portosystem shunt
- From:
Chinese Journal of Hepatology
2022;30(7):722-727
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To explore the correlation between portal vein pressure gradient (PPG) and hepatic vein pressure gradient (HVPG) in patients with portal hypertension (PHT).Methods:752 cases with portal hypertension (PHT) who underwent transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) and met the enrollment criteria between January 2016 to December 2019 were analyzed for hepatic vein, inferior vena cava and portal vein pressure. Paired t-test was used for analysis. Pearson correlation test was used to estimate correlation coefficient and coefficient of determination. P<0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results:Wedged hepatic vein pressure (WHVP), portal vein pressure (PVP), correlation coefficient, and coefficient of determination were 27.98±8.95 mmHg, 33.85±7.33 mmHg, 0.329 ( P<0.001), and 0.108, respectively. HVPG, PPG,correlation coefficient, and coefficient of determination were 16.84±7.97 mmHg, 25.11±6.95 mmHg ( P<0.001), 0.145, and 0.021 ( P<0.001), respectively. The difference between HVPG and PPG was greater than 5 mmHg in 524 cases, accounting for 69.7%. The difference between HVPG and PPG was within 5 mmHg or basically equal in 228 cases, accounting for 30.3%. The correlation coefficient between free hepatic venous pressure (FHVP) and inferior vena cava pressure (IVCP) was 0.568 ( P<0.001), and the coefficient of determination was 0.323. According to the presence or absence of hepatic venous collaterals after balloon occluded hepatic angiography, they were divided into two groups: 157 (20.9%) cases in the group with hepatic venous collaterals, and 595 (79.1%) cases in the group without hepatic venous collaterals. The parameters of the two groups were compared: WHVP (15.73±3.63) mmHg vs. (31.22±6.90) mmHg, P<0.001; PVP (31.69±8.70) mmHg vs. (34.42±6.81) mmHg, P<0.001; HVPG (7.18±4.40) mmHg vs. (19.40±6.62) mmHg, P<0.001; PPG (24.24±8.11) mmHg vs. (25.34±6.60) mmHg, P<0.001; free hepatic venous pressure (FHVP) (8.58±3.37) mmHg vs. (11.82±5.07) mmHg , P<0.001; inferior vena cava pressure (IVCP) (7.45±3.29) mmHg vs. (9.09±4.14) mmHg, P<0.001. Conclusion:The overall correlation is poor between HVPG and PPG. HVPG of most patients is not an accurate representation of PPG, and the former is lower than the latter. Hepatic venous collateral formation is one of the important reasons for the serious underestimation of HVPG values.
