Intrahepatic veno-venous collateralization and misrepresentative hepatic venous pressure gradients in children.

BACKGROUND

Accurate and reproducible means of measuring the portosystemic gradient are essential for risk stratification and treatment of portal hypertension.

OBJECTIVE

To report the reliability of hepatic venous pressure gradients in children with intrahepatic veno-venous collateralization.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between January 2012 and December 2019 (96 months), 39 patients with native livers underwent wedge hepatic venography and hepatic venous pressure gradient measurements at a tertiary pediatric center. All archived images were reviewed for balloon isolation of the hepatic vein and hepatic vein-to-hepatic vein (HV-HV) collaterals. HV-HV collaterals were categorized as present on the basis of non-catheterized segmental venous opacification despite appropriate balloon isolation. Hepatic venous pressure gradient was defined as the difference of wedge and free hepatic venous pressures. Wedge portosystemic gradient was defined as the difference between wedge hepatic venous pressure and right atrial (RA) pressures. For patients subsequently undergoing portal venous catheterization, portosystemic gradient was defined as the difference between main portal vein and RA pressures.

RESULTS

Thirteen of 39 (33.3%) patients demonstrated HV-HV collaterals on wedge hepatic venography. The mean hepatic venous pressure gradient was 5.2±3.8 mmHg (range: 0-15 mmHg). The mean hepatic venous pressure gradient was 3.6±2.6 mmHg (range: 0-9 mmHg) in the presence of HV-HV collaterals and 5.9±4.2 mmHg (range: 1-15 mmHg) in the absence of HV-HV collaterals (P=0.043). Twelve (30.8%) patients were found to have varices: 10 gastroesophageal, 1 rectal and 1 stomal. The mean hepatic venous pressure gradient in patients with varices was 5.4±47 mmHg (range: 0-15 mmHg). For patients with varices, mean hepatic venous pressure gradient was 3.0±2.7 mmHg (range: 0-9 mmHg) in the presence of HV-HV collaterals and 10.3±4.1 mmHg (range: 5-15 mmHg) in the absence of HV-HV collaterals (P=0.004). Four (10.3%) patients had extrahepatic portal vein occlusion: 3 with cavernous transformation and 1 with type Ib Abernethy malformation. All patients with extrahepatic portal vein occlusion demonstrated HV-HV collaterals compared with 8 of 35 (22.9%) patients without extrahepatic portal vein occlusion (P=0.002). Four of 39 (10.3%) patients underwent direct portal pressure measurements: 3 via transhepatic and 1 via trans-splenic portal access. All had demonstrated HV-HV collaterals on wedged imaging. One had extrahepatic portal vein occlusion. The mean time between wedge portosystemic gradient and portosystemic gradient measurement was 3.75 days (range: 0-8 days). The mean wedge portosystemic gradient was 4.5±3.1 mmHg (range: 2-9 mmHg) and the mean portosystemic gradient was 14.5±3.7 mmHg (range: 12-20 mmHg) (P=0.006).

CONCLUSION

HV-HV collateralization is frequently observed in children undergoing wedged portal venography and leads to misrepresentative hepatic venous pressure gradients. All patients undergoing hepatic venous pressure gradient measurement should have wedged venography to identify HV-HV collaterals and to qualify measured pressures. Additional techniques to obtain representative pressures in the presence of HV-HV collaterals warrant further investigation.