Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, CHU UCL Namur, Université Catholique de Louvain, Yvoir, Belgium.
Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Diagn Interv Imaging. 2019 Mar;100(3):147-156. doi: 10.1016/j.diii.2018.07.009. Epub 2018 Nov 28.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of portal vein recanalization (PVR) and propose a new classification for better selecting candidates with portal vein occlusion (PVO) in whom PVR could be feasible.
The charts of 15 non-cirrhotic patients in whom stent placement using a trans-hepatic approach was attempted for the treatment of PVO with cavernous transformation were reviewed. There were 12 men and 3 women with a mean age of 47 ± 12 years (range: 22–60 years) [corrected]. Intrahepatic involvement was classified into 3 groups according to the intrahepatic extent of PVO: type 1 included occlusions limited to the origin of the main portal vein and/or the right or left portal branches, type 2 included type 1 plus extension to the origin of segmental branches, type 3 included type 2 plus extension to distal branches.
There were 6 patients with PVO type 1, 7 patients with PVO type 2, and 2 patients with PVO type 3. Indications for PVR were gastrointestinal bleeding (n=6), portal biliopathy (n=2), reduce portal pressure before surgery (n=4), or other (n=3). PVR was successful in 13 patients (87%) with no severe side effects. Failure of PVR or early stent thrombosis occurred in 100% of type 3 vs. 8% of type 1 and 2 patients (P=0.03). During a mean follow-up of 42±28 months (range: 6-112 months), patients with a permeable stent had resolution of portal hypertension-related manifestations. In 13 patients in whom PVR was feasible, stent permeability was 77% at 2 years (87% vs. 60% in patients who received anticoagulation or not, respectively; P=0.3).
PVR is feasible in most patients with non-cirrhotic, non-tumoral portal vein occlusion when there is no extension of the occlusion to distal branches.
本研究旨在评估门静脉再通(PVR)的可行性、安全性和疗效,并提出一种新的分类方法,以便更好地选择可能可行 PVR 的门静脉闭塞(PVO)患者。
回顾了 15 例非肝硬化患者的病历,这些患者因海绵样变而接受经肝途径支架置入治疗 PVO。12 例男性,3 例女性,平均年龄 47±12 岁(范围:22-60 岁)[校正]。根据 PVO 的肝内范围,将肝内受累分为 3 组:1 型包括局限于主门静脉起源和/或右或左门静脉分支的闭塞,2 型包括 1 型加节段分支起源的延伸,3 型包括 2 型加远端分支的延伸。
6 例患者为 PVO 1 型,7 例患者为 PVO 2 型,2 例患者为 PVO 3 型。PVR 的适应证为胃肠道出血(n=6)、门静脉胆病(n=2)、术前降低门静脉压(n=4)或其他(n=3)。13 例(87%)患者 PVR 成功,无严重副作用。PVR 失败或早期支架血栓形成发生在 100%的 3 型患者中,而 1 型和 2 型患者发生率为 8%(P=0.03)。在平均 42±28 个月(范围:6-112 个月)的随访期间,可透性支架患者门静脉高压相关表现得到缓解。在 13 例可行 PVR 的患者中,支架通透性在 2 年内为 77%(可行 PVR 的患者中,抗凝治疗与未抗凝治疗的患者分别为 87%和 60%;P=0.3)。
在没有闭塞延伸至远端分支的情况下,大多数非肝硬化、非肿瘤性门静脉闭塞患者可行 PVR。