Department of Gastroenterology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Guo Xue Ln 37, Chengdu 610041, Sichuan, China.
Laboratory of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2021 Jun;216(6):1579-1587. doi: 10.2214/AJR.20.23859. Epub 2020 Aug 26.
Sinistral portal hypertension (SPH) is caused by an obstruction of the splenic vein and is a potential cause of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Although splenic arterial embolization (SAE) and splenic vein stenting are accepted treatment options for SPH, their outcomes have not been compared directly. This retrospective study compared the outcomes of splenic vein stenting and SAE for SPH-related gastrointestinal bleeding. Data of patients with SPH treated by interventional radiology between January 1, 2013, and June 1, 2019, who had at least 6 months of clinical follow-up were retrospectively identified from the electronic database at our hospital. Patients were divided into the SAE group (SAE alone), splenic vein stenting-SAE group (SAE immediately after splenic vein stenting failure using the same procedure as the SAE group), and splenic vein stenting group (successful treatment with SVS). Patients' baseline characteristics and follow-up data were retrieved, and their clinical outcomes were compared. Thirty-seven patients with SPH were included. We assigned 11, 12, and 14 patients to the SAE, splenic vein stenting-SAE, and splenic vein stenting groups, respectively. Rebleeding (e.g., hematemesis, melena, or both) was significantly less common ( = .01) in the splenic vein stenting group (7.1% [1/14]) than in the SAE and splenic vein stenting-SAE groups combined (47.8% [11/23]). Splenectomy to resolve rebleeding was not significantly different ( = .63) in the splenic vein stenting group (7.1% [1/14]) compared with the SAE and splenic vein stenting-SAE groups combined (17.4% [4/23]). No interventional procedure-related deaths were observed during follow-up in any group. When feasible, splenic vein stenting is a safe and effective treatment of SPH-related gastrointestinal bleeding that appears to better prevent rebleeding than SAE. Splenic vein stenting should be recommended over SAE for the treatment of SPH-related upper gastrointestinal bleeding when possible.
脾静脉血栓形成(SPH)是由脾静脉阻塞引起的,是上消化道出血的潜在原因。尽管脾动脉栓塞术(SAE)和脾静脉支架置入术是 SPH 的公认治疗选择,但它们的结果尚未直接比较。这项回顾性研究比较了 SPH 相关胃肠道出血的脾静脉支架置入术和 SAE 的治疗结果。从我院电子数据库中回顾性地确定了 2013 年 1 月 1 日至 2019 年 6 月 1 日期间接受介入放射学治疗的 SPH 患者的数据,这些患者至少有 6 个月的临床随访。患者分为 SAE 组(单纯 SAE)、脾静脉支架置入术-SAE 组(SAE 组因脾静脉支架置入术失败,采用与 SAE 组相同的方法)和脾静脉支架置入术组(采用 SVS 成功治疗)。检索患者的基线特征和随访数据,并比较其临床结果。37 例 SPH 患者纳入研究。我们将 11 例、12 例和 14 例患者分别分配到 SAE 组、脾静脉支架置入术-SAE 组和脾静脉支架置入术组。再出血(例如呕血、黑便或两者兼有)在脾静脉支架置入术组(7.1%[1/14])明显较少( =.01),而 SAE 组和脾静脉支架置入术-SAE 组(47.8%[11/23])则明显较多。脾切除术以解决再出血在脾静脉支架置入术组(7.1%[1/14])和 SAE 组和脾静脉支架置入术-SAE 组(17.4%[4/23])之间差异无统计学意义( =.63)。在任何一组的随访期间,均未观察到与介入程序相关的死亡。在可行的情况下,脾静脉支架置入术是治疗 SPH 相关胃肠道出血的一种安全有效的方法,似乎比 SAE 更能预防再出血。在可能的情况下,脾静脉支架置入术应推荐用于治疗 SPH 相关上消化道出血,而不是 SAE。