Hepatic Hemodynamic Laboratory, Liver Unit, Hospital Clínic, Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer, University of Barcelona and Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Hepáticas y Digestivas (CIBERehd), Barcelona, Spain.
Hepatology. 2010 Jun;51(6):2108-16. doi: 10.1002/hep.23612.
Hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG), the difference between wedge and free hepatic venous pressure, is the preferred method for estimating portal pressure. However, it has been suggested that hepatic atrial pressure gradient (HAPG)--the gradient between wedge hepatic venous pressure and right atrial pressure (RAP)--might better reflect variceal hemodynamics. The aim of this study was to (1) investigate whether HAPG with nonselective beta-blockers correlates with prognosis in cirrhotic patients with portal hypertension at baseline and during treatment; (2) compare the prognostic value of HAPG with that of HVPG; and (3) investigate the agreement between portoatrial gradient (PAG) and portocaval gradient (PCG) in patients with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS). We included 154 cirrhotic patients with varices with a complete hemodynamic study at baseline and on chronic treatment for primary (n = 71) or secondary (n = 83) prophylaxis for bleeding and 99 patients with TIPS. All patients were followed for up to 2 years; portal hypertensive-related bleeding and bleeding-free survival were analyzed. HVPG was equal or lower than HAPG in all patients (-3.2 mm Hg; P < 0.001). Agreement between HAPG and HVPG was modest, especially in patients with increased intra-abdominal pressure. One hundred two patients were HVPG nonresponders and 52 patients were HVPG responders to nonselective beta-blockers, whereas 101 patients were HAPG nonresponders and 53 patients were HAPG responders (k = 0.610). HVPG response revealed an excellent predictive value for bleeding risk and bleeding-free survival; HAPG did not. In our TIPS patients, 20% had a PCG < or =12 mm Hg and a PAG >12 mm Hg, which may have induced unnecessary overdilation of the TIPS.
The excellent prognostic information provided by HVPG response to drug therapy is lost if HAPG response is considered. RAP should not be used for the calculation of portal pressure gradient in patients with cirrhosis.
(1)探讨肝静脉压力梯度(HVPG)与右心房压力(RAP)之差(HAPG)是否与基线和治疗期间门静脉高压症的肝硬化患者的预后相关;(2)比较 HAPG 与 HVPG 的预后价值;(3)研究经颈静脉肝内门体分流术(TIPS)患者门房梯度(PAG)与门腔梯度(PCG)之间的一致性。
我们纳入了 154 例伴有静脉曲张的肝硬化患者,这些患者在基线时有完整的血流动力学研究,并且在原发性(n=71)或继发性(n=83)预防出血的慢性治疗中有完整的血流动力学研究,99 例 TIPS 患者。所有患者均随访了 2 年;分析了与门脉高压相关的出血和无出血生存情况。在所有患者中,HVPG 均等于或低于 HAPG(-3.2mmHg;P<0.001)。HAPG 与 HVPG 的一致性较差,尤其是在有腹内压增高的患者中。102 例患者为 HVPG 无反应者,52 例患者为 HVPG 对非选择性β受体阻滞剂有反应者,而 101 例患者为 HAPG 无反应者,53 例患者为 HAPG 对非选择性β受体阻滞剂有反应者(k=0.610)。HVPG 反应对出血风险和无出血生存具有极好的预测价值;HAPG 则不然。在我们的 TIPS 患者中,有 20%的患者 PCG≤12mmHg,而 PAG>12mmHg,这可能导致 TIPS 过度扩张。
如果考虑 HAPG 反应,则 HVPG 对药物治疗反应提供的极好预后信息将会丢失。RAP 不应用于计算肝硬化患者的门脉压力梯度。