Variceal pressure is a strong predictor of variceal haemorrhage in patients with cirrhosis as well as in patients with non-cirrhotic portal hypertension

BACKGROUND: Variceal pressure is a strong predictor for a first variceal bleed in patients with cirrhosis. AIMS: To evaluate whether variceal pressure is also a determinant of the risk of a first variceal bleed in patients with non-cirrhotic portal hypertension. METHODS: Variceal pressure was measured non-invasively in 25 patients with non-cirrhotic portal hypertension and large varices while receiving a stable therapeutic regimen. Factors predictive of bleeding were compared with those observed in 87 cirrhotics. RESULTS: The one year incidence of variceal bleeding was 32% (n=28) for the cirrhotic and 20% (n=5) for the non-cirrhotic patients. There was no difference in factors predicting the risk of bleeding between the groups, except for variceal pressure. For the same level of variceal pressure, the risk of variceal bleeding was lower in patients with non-cirrhotic portal hypertension. Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed the following variables as having a significant predictive power: variceal pressure (p=0.0001), red spots (p=0.004), and the time interval between the first observation of the varices and the moment of variceal pressure measurement (p=0. 0046). For the non-cirrhotics the risk of bleeding increased with higher Child-Pugh score (p=0.0024); this was not the case for the cirrhotic patients (p=0.9521). CONCLUSION: Variceal pressure is a major predictor of variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis as well as in patients with non-cirrhotic portal hypertension. The risk of bleeding in non-cirrhotics is less than in cirrhotics for the same level of variceal pressure. In patients with non-cirrhotic portal hypertension the risk of variceal bleeding increases more with advancing disease.     

The effects of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt on portal hypertensive gastropathy

In addition to variceal bleeding, haematemesis may occur due to haemorrhagic gastritis in patients with portal hypertension. This has been known as portal hypertensive gastropathy (PHG). We have evaluated the effects of the transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) on portal venous pressure (PVP) and endoscopic gastric mucosal changes observed in patients with portal hypertension. We performed TIPS in 12 patients with complications due to portal hypertension as follows: variceal bleeding in nine patients (bleeding from oesophageal varices in seven and gastric varices in two), refractory ascites in three and haemorrhage from severe PHG in one. Endoscopic examinations were performed before and after TIPS for all patients. Changes of PVP and gastric mucosal findings on endoscopy were analysed. Before TIPS, PHG was seen in 10 patients. Portal venous pressure decreased from an average of 25.1 ± 8.8 to 17.1 ± 6.2 mmHg after TIPS ( P < 0.005). On endoscopy, PHG improved in nine of 10 patients. Oesophagogastric varices improved in eight of 11 patients. In one patient with massive haematemesis, haemorrhage from severe PHG completely stopped after TIPS. Because TIPS effectively reduced PVP, this procedure appeared to be effective for the treatment of uncontrollable PHG.     

3 Natural history. Clinical-haemodynamic correlations. Prediction of the risk of bleeding

Promoting the development of oesophageal varices and ascites, portal hypertension dominates the clinical course of cirrhosis. Varices appear in patients with portal pressure gradient above 10 mmHg and enlarge in 10–20% within 1–2 years of their detection. Bleeding occurs in patients with portal pressure gradient above 12 mmHg when the wall tension causes the rupture of varices, with an incidence of about 10% per year. Indicators of bleeding risk are portal pressure gradient, variceal pressure, large varices and liver dysfunction. Mortality per bleeding episode is 30–50%. Among survivors 60% will rebleed and 30% will die in the following year. The risk of rebleeding decreases in patients with spontaneous or treatment induced reduction of portal pressure gradinent or variceal pressure. Ascites develops in almost all patients along the course of the disease. Median survival after its appearance is less than 2 years. Less than 5% of cirrhotic patients die without ascites or without a previous bleeding. Thus portal hypertension is a major determinant of survival in cirrhosis.     

Endoscopic variceal ligation for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleed: preliminary report of a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Prevention of variceal bleeding, a major cause of morbidity and mortality, is an important goal in the management of patients with portal hypertension (PHT). Although propranolol has been found useful in preventing the first episode of variceal bleeding (primary prophylaxis) in cirrhotic PHT, it has limitations which include side effects, contraindications, non-compliance and failure in some patients. Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) has not been used for primary prophylaxis. METHODS: Thirty cirrhotic patients with PHT, grade III to IV oesophageal varices, hepatic venous pressure gradient > or = 12 mmHg and no prior history of upper gastrointestinal bleeding were randomized to receive propranolol (to reduce their pulse rate by 25% from baseline, n = 15) and EVL (weekly to fortnightly until variceal eradication, n = 15). The two groups were comparable. All the patients in EVL group had variceal eradication during 3.8 +/- 2.2 sessions. RESULTS: There was no major complication or interval bleeding. During a follow-up period of 17.6 +/- 4.7 months, varices recurred in three, two of which bled (successfully treated by EVL). In contrast, during this period of follow up one patient in the propranolol group had variceal bleeding (P=NS). Side effects of propranolol included symptomatic bradycardia requiring reduction of dose in one of 15 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Although sample size in this study is small, it seems that EVL may be a good option for primary prophylaxis for variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhotic PHT; further studies on a larger number of patients and longer follow up are required.     

Risk factors for haemorrhage from oesophageal varices and acute gastric erosions

Rupture, versus erosion, is the most likely cause of variceal bleeding. The risk of rupture appears to be enhanced in large varices and varices with reddish discoloration. Incompetent perforating veins connecting varices to deeper venous systems may also be important in the pathogenesis of this event. Perhaps one-third of patients with large varices will bleed from them over a period of one to two years. Portal hypertension cannot be used to predict the future risk of bleeding among groups of patients. Nevertheless, it is possible that increases or decreases in portal pressure in individual patients may alter their bleeding risk. We and others have observed portal pressure as low as 10 mmHg in patients with clear-cut, recurrent variceal bleeding. Portal hypertension probably predisposes to gastric mucosal injury by enhancing, by an undefined mechanism, back-diffusion of acid. Consequently, haemorrhagic gastritis is more common in patients with portal hypertension than those without. Whether haemorrhagic gastritis is a more severe lesion in patients with portal hypertension is unclear.     

Portal hypertension: a permissive factor only in the development of ascites and variceal bleeding

It is controversial whether the occurrence of ascites and gastrointestinal bleeding in cirrhosis is related to the severity of portal hypertension. Portal pressure was examined in 124 unselected patients with portal hypertension due to chronic liver disease to evaluate this issue. Portal pressure was less in patients without complications of chronic liver disease (11.7 +/- 3.0 mmHg, n = 16) as compared to patients who had bled from varices or erosive gastritis (16.6 +/- 3.4 mmHg, p less than 0.001, n = 49), who had ascites (16.2 +/- 3.0 mmHg, p less than 0.001, n = 78) or both (16.5 +/- 3.0 mmHg, p less than 0.001, n = 19). Portal pressure was similar in patients bleeding from varices and erosive gastritis (16.7 +/- 3.4 mmHg, n = 43; vs 16.2 +/- 4.0 mmHg, n = 6, respectively) and in patients with refractory and nonrefractory ascites (16.2 +/- 3.5, n = 21; vs 16.2 +/- 3.5 mmHg, n = 57). The lowest portal pressure recorded in a patient with variceal bleeding was 9.0 mmHg. The lowest portal pressure recorded in a patient with ascites was 8.0 mmHg. Esophageal varices (graded 0-4 at endoscopy) were larger in patients with a history of bleeding from esophageal varices as compared to patients without such a history (3.2 +/- 0.7 vs 2.0 +/- 0.9, p less than 0.001). Serum albumin concentration was greater in patients without ascites as compared to patients with ascites (33 +/- 5 vs 26 +/- 5 g/l p less than 0.001) but was similar in patients with refractory and nonrefractory ascites (25 +/- 7 vs 26 +/- 5 g/l, respectively).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Prognosis in patients with cirrhosis and mild portal hypertension

Objective. Sixty to 70% of upper gastrointestinal bleeding episodes in patients with cirrhosis are caused by oesophageal varices. Prophylaxis is indicated in patients with varices and a hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) above 12 mmHg. The study of the natural history of patients with lower HVPG has been sparse. In this study, long-term survival and the risk of complications in mild portal hypertension were analysed. Material and methods. Sixty-one patients with cirrhosis and HVPG below 10 mmHg were included in the study. Data were collected from medical files and National Patient Registries. Variceal bleeding, hepatic encephalopathy and death related to cirrhosis were registered. Thirty-nine patients were graded as Child class A, 19 as class B and 3 as class C. Median survival time was 11 years. Results. Twenty-eight patients (46%) developed one or more complications: variceal bleeding in 10 (16%) and hepatic encephalopathy in 18 patients (30%). Twenty-three patients (38%) died from complications of cirrhosis. Two patients (3%) died from variceal bleeding, another two (3%) from gastrointestinal bleeding of unidentified source. Survival rate was significantly decreased compared with that in the background population. Conclusions. The frequency of complications in patients with mild portal hypertension is considerable, and guidelines for follow-up or medical prophylaxis are warranted. The risk of bleeding from oesophageal varices is low and bleeding-related deaths rare.     

PREDICTION OF RECURRENCE AFTER ENDOSCOPIC TREATMENT FOR ESOPHAGEAL VARICES: WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO ESOPHAGEAL VARICEAL PRESSURE

Background : We investigated the factors influencing esophageal variceal recurrence after endoscopic treatment on the basis of 25 variceal patients who were measured for esophageal variceal pressure, which had been reported to have a close relationship to variceal rupture. Method : Six patients (24.0%) showed variceal recurrence during follow‐up periods of up to 60 months. Clinical, biochemical, endoscopic and portal hemodynamic parameters were analyzed by univariate analysis in order to determine variceal recurrence. Results : The cumulative risk of variceal recurrence was greater in patients with F3 varices (P = 0.027), and esophageal variceal pressure (EVP) ≥ 15 mmHg (P = 0.021). It was not significantly related to any clinical, biochemical parameter. Large portosystemic collaterals, which were not concerned with esophageal varices, were demonstrated in five patients who had never showed variceal recurrence; all of their EVP were under 15 mmHg. Conclusion : It is suggested that the form of varices and EVP, which may reflect a part of portal hemodynamics, are the most reliable factors for predicting variceal recurrence.     

Indications for portal pressure measurement in chronic liver disease

Abstract

Portal hypertension leads to development of serious complications such as esophageal varices, ascites, renal and cardiovascular dysfunction. The importance of the degree of portal hypertension has been substantiated within recent years. Measurement of the portal pressure is simple and safe and the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) independently predicts survival and development of complications such as ascites, HCC and bleeding from esophageal varices. Moreover, measurements of HVPG can be used to guide pharmacotherapy for primary and secondary prophylaxis for variceal bleeding. Assessment of HVPG should therefore be considered as a part of the general characterization of patients with portal hypertension in departments assessing and treating this condition.     

Endoscopic measurement of variceal pressure in cirrhosis: correlation with portal pressure and variceal hemorrhage

This study evaluated the clinical application of a pressure-sensitive gauge that allows the noninvasive measurement of the pressure of esophageal varices at endoscopy. The study was performed in 70 patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension. Among them, 47 had bled from the varices and 23 had varices but had not bled. In addition to measurements of variceal pressure, the size of the varices was estimated semiquantitatively at endoscopy. This allowed an estimate of the tension on the wall of the varices as the product of the transmural pressure and the estimated radius of the varices. Most patients had a standard hemodynamic evaluation of portal hypertension, with measurements of wedged and free hepatic venous pressures, and of azygos blood flow. These were performed within 24 h of the variceal pressure measurements. Variceal pressure was significantly higher in bleeders than in nonbleeders (15.7 +/- 2.8 vs. 12.1 +/- 2.6 mmHg, p less than 0.001) in spite of a similar portal pressure in both groups (20.1 +/- 5.1 vs. 20.4 +/- 7.6 mmHg, NS). More than 60% of the bleeders, but only 22% of the nonbleeders had a variceal pressure greater than or equal to 15 mmHg (p less than 0.005). Among nonbleeders, variceal pressure was higher in patients with large varices (13.9 +/- 2 mmHg, n = 9) than in those with small varices (10.9 +/- 2.4 mmHg, n = 14) (p less than 0.01). Estimates of variceal wall tension further exaggerated the differences between bleeders and nonbleeders (66.1 +/- 22.6 vs. 32.0 +/- 19.8 mmHg.mm, p less than 0.001). More than 50% of bleeders, but just 9% of nonbleeders had an estimated variceal tension greater than 50 mmHg.mm (p less than 0.001). Our findings support the role of an increased variceal pressure in the pathogenesis of variceal hemorrhage, and suggest that this noninvasive technique can be valuable in assessing the risk of variceal hemorrhage in patients with portal hypertension.     

Treatment of portal hypertension

Portal hypertension is the main complication of cirrhosis and is defined as an hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) of more than 5 mmHg. Clinically significant portal hypertension is defined as HVPG of 10 mmHg or more. Development of gastroesophageal varices and variceal hemorrhage are the most direct consequence of portal hypertension. Over the last decades significant advancements in the field have led to standard treatment options. These clinical recommendations have evolved mostly as a result of randomized controlled trials and consensus conferences among experts where existing evidence has been reviewed and future goals for research and practice guidelines have been proposed. Management of varices/variceal hemorrhage is based on the clinical stage of portal hypertension. No specific treatment has shown to prevent the formation of varices. Prevention of first variceal hemorrhage depends on the size/characteristics of varices. In patients with small varices and high risk of bleeding, non-selective β-blockers are recommended, while patients with medium/large varices can be treated with either β-blockers or esophageal band ligation. Standard of care for acute variceal hemorrhage consists of vasoactive drugs, endoscopic band ligation and antibiotics prophylaxis. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is reserved for those who fail standard of care or for patients who are likely to fail ("early TIPS"). Prevention of recurrent variceal hemorrhage consists of the combination of β-blockers and endoscopic band ligation.     

Natural history of portal hypertension in patients with cirrhosis

All patients with cirrhosis will eventually develop portal hypertension and esophagogastric varices. Bleeding from ruptured esophagogastric varices is the most severe complication of cirrhosis and is the cause of death in about one third of patients. The rate of development and growth of esophageal varices is poorly defined but in general seem to be related to the degree of liver dysfunction. Once varices have formed, they tend to increase in size and eventually to bleed. In unselected patients, the incidence of variceal bleeding is about 20% to 30% at 2 years. Variceal size is the single most important predictor of a first variceal bleeding episode. Several prognostic indexes based on endoscopic and clinical parameters have been developed to predict the risk of bleeding; however, their degree of accuracy is unsatisfactory. Death caused by uncontrolled bleeding occurs in about 6% to 8% of patients; the 6-week mortality rate after a variceal hemorrhage is 25% to 30%. There are no good prognostic indicators of death caused by uncontrolled bleeding or death within 6 weeks. Untreated patients surviving a variceal hemorrhage have a 1- to 2-year risk of rebleeding of about 60% and a risk of death of about 40% to 50%. The risk of bleeding is greatest in the first days after a bleeding episode and slowly declines thereafter. All patients surviving a variceal hemorrhage must be treated to prevent rebleeding. Varices can also be found in the stomach of cirrhotic patients, alone or in association with esophageal varices. Gastric varices bleed less frequently but more severely than esophageal varices. Portal hypertensive gastropathy is a common feature of cirrhosis, and its prevalence parallels the severity of portal hypertension and liver dysfunction. Portal hypertensive gastropathy can progress from mild to severe and vice-versa or even disappear completely. Acute bleeding from portal hypertensive gastropathy seems to be relatively uncommon, and less severe than bleeding from varices.     

Natural history of patients with non cirrhotic portal hypertension: Comparison with patients with compensated cirrhosis

BackgroundThe knowledge of natural history of patients with portal hypertension (PH) not due to cirrhosis is less well known than that of cirrhotic patients.AimTo describe the clinical presentation and the outcomes of 89 patients with non-cirrhotic PH (25 with non-cirrhotic portal hypertension, INCPH, and 64 with chronic portal vein thrombosis, PVT) in comparison with 77 patients with Child A cirrhosis.MethodsThe patients were submitted to a standardized clinical, laboratory, ultrasonographic and endoscopic follow-up. Variceal progression, incidence of variceal bleeding, portal vein thrombosis, ascites and survival were recorded.ResultsAt presentation, the prevalence of varices, variceal bleeding and ascites was similar in the 3 groups. During follow-up, the rate of progression to varices at risk of bleeding (p < 0.0001) and the incidence of first variceal bleeding (p = 0.02) were significantly higher in non-cirrhotic then in cirrhotic patients. A PVT developed in 32% of INCPH patients and in 18% of cirrhotics (p = 0.02).ConclusionsIn the patients with non-cirrhotic PH variceal progression is more rapid and bleeding more frequent than in cirrhotics. Patients with INCPH are particularly prompt to develop PVT. This observational study suggests that the management of patients with non-cirrhotic PH should take into consideration the natural history of portal hypertension in these patients and cannot be simply derived by the observation of cirrhotic patients.     

Portal hypertension: Pre-primary and primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding

In liver cirrhosis, variceal bleeding is the last in a chain of events initiated by the increase in portal pressure (estimated in clinical practice by the hepatic venous pressure gradient). When hepatic venous pressure gradient goes above 10 mmHg the patient is at risk of developing varices, and when hepatic venous pressure gradient reaches 12 mmHg variceal bleeding might develop. Currently, there is not any effective therapy for the prevention of the development of varices. When varices are small, beta-adrenergic blockers might prevent the enlargement of the varices, and may reduce the risk of variceal bleeding. In patients with medium to large varices, beta-blockers are clearly effective in reducing the risk of variceal bleeding. Endoscopic band ligation might be more effective than beta-blockers, but available evidence is still very weak.     

The influence of endoscopic variceal ligation on the portal pressure gradient in cirrhotics

BACKGROUND/AIMS: After variceal eradication by endoscopic ligation, fundal varices and worsening of portal hypertensive gastropathy can occur. The aim of this study is to verify the impact of the eradication of esophageal varices by endoscopic ligation on the portal pressure gradient, worsening of portal hypertensive gastropathy and development of fundal varices. METHODOLOGY: Twenty-two (15M/7F, mean age: 54.5 years) cirrhotics with previous variceal bleeding were submitted to measurement of hepatic venous pressure gradient before and after variceal eradication by endoscopic ligation. RESULTS: The mean hepatic venous pressure gradient in the first measurement was 14.1 mmHg and after eradication, 13.5 mmHg (p = 0.403). After eradication, 12 patients experienced a reduction in portal pressure and 10, an elevation. Three patients developed fundal varices. Their mean gradient before treatment was 22 mmHg and 18.8 mmHg after therapy (p = 0.368). The gastropathy worsened in 9 patients (mean gradient before therapy of 15.2 mmHg; and 16.1 mmHg after treatment) (p = 0.303). The initial pressure gradient of these patients was not different from the other 13 cases (p = 0.463). CONCLUSIONS: The esophageal variceal eradication by endoscopic band ligation does not alter the hepatic venous pressure gradient. There is no significant variation in the portal pressure of patients in whom there was a worsening of portal hypertensive gastropathy or fundal varices development.     

Use of portal pressure studies in the management of variceal haemorrhage

Portal hypertension occurs as a complication of liver cirrhosis and complications such as variceal bleeding lead to significant demands on resources. Endoscopy is the gold standard method for screening cirrhotic patients however universal endoscopic screening may mean a lot of unnecessary procedures as the presence of oesophageal varices is variable hence a large time and cost burden on endoscopy units to carry out both screening and subsequent follow up of variceal bleeds. A less invasive method to identify those at high risk of bleeding would allow earlier prophylactic measures to be applied. Hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) is an acceptable indirect measurement of portal hypertension and predictor of the complications of portal hypertension in adult cirrhotics. Varices develop at a HVPG of 10-12 mmHg with the appearance of other complications with HPVG > 12 mmHg. Variceal bleeding does not occur in pressures under 12 mmHg. HPVG > 20 mmHg measured early after admission is a significant prognostic indicator of failure to control bleeding varices, indeed early transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) in such circumstances reduces mortality significantly. HVPG can be used to identify responders to medical therapy. Patients who do not achieve the suggested reduction targets in HVPG have a high risk of rebleeding despite endoscopic ligation and may not derive significant overall mortality benefit from endoscopic intervention alone, ultimately requiring TIPS or liver transplantation. Early HVPG measurements following a variceal bleed can help to identify those at risk of treatment failure who may benefit from early intervention with TIPS. Therefore, we suggest using HVPG measurement as the investigation of choice in those with confirmed cirrhosis in place of endoscopy for intitial variceal screening and, where indicated, a trial of B-blockade, either intravenously during the initial pressure study with assessment of response or oral therapy with repeat HVPG six weeks later. In those with elevated pressures, primary medical prophylaxis could be commenced with subsequent close monitoring of HVPG thus negating the need for endoscopy at this point. All patients presenting with variceal haemorrhage should undergo HVPG measurement and those with a gradient greater than 20 mmHg should be considered for early TIPS. By introducing portal pressure studies into a management algorithm for variceal bleeding, the number of endoscopies required for further intervention and follow up can be reduced leading to significant savings in terms of cost and demand on resources.     

Propranolol reduces variceal pressure and wall tension in schistosomiasis presinusoidal portal hypertension

Background and Aim: Although prophylaxis with β‐blockers has been shown to decrease variceal pressure and wall tension in cirrhotic patients, this has not been demonstrated in non‐cirrhotic portal hypertension caused by Schistosoma mansoni infection. Methods: Thirteen patients without history of previous gastrointestinal bleeding were included. All of them had high‐risk esophageal varices at endoscopy. An endoscopic gauge and a high‐frequency endoscopic ultrasonography miniprobe were used to assess transmural variceal pressure and wall tension before and after achieving β‐blockade with propranolol. Results: Baseline variceal pressure decreased from 13.3 ± 3.5 to 8.2 ± 2.0 mmHg (P < 0.0001) and wall tension from 500.2 ± 279.8 to 274.0 ± 108.3 mg.mm^?1. The overall effect of propranolol on decreasing variceal pressure and wall tension expressed in percentage change in relation to baseline values was 35.7 ± 18.4% and 35.9 ± 26.7%, respectively (P = 0.9993). Conclusion: Propranolol significantly reduced variceal pressure and wall tension in schistosomiasis.     

The free portal pressure in awake patients with and without cirrhosis of the liver

ABSTRACT— The free portal pressure was measured by percutaneous transhepatic catheterization of the portal vein in 106 patients with cirrhosis of the liver and in 19 patients without liver disease and with normal portography. Patients with cirrhosis had a median portal pressure of 38 cmH₂O and patients without liver disease had a median portal pressure of 16 cmH₂O. Among the cirrhotic patients the free portal pressure showed no relationship to etiology of cirrhosis, ascites, variceal bleedings or extrahepatic shunting. The median portal pressure was significantly higher in patients with (40 cmH₂O) than without (30 cmH₂O) gastroesophageal varices (p<0.01). The pressure was not related to the size of the varices.     

Percutaneous transhepatic catheterization of the portal venous system

During recent years, percutaneous transhepatic catheterization of the portal venous system has become the most accurate procedure for investigation of the portal system. The procedure can be performed under local analgesia, is relatively simple, and complications are rare. The success rate is high, approximately 90%, especially when the liver hilum is localized by ultrasonography prior to catheterization. The free portal pressure can be measured. Selective catheterization of all portal tributaries can be performed. The indications are: portography in patients with cirrhosis of the liver and portal hypertension for delineation of collateral vein systems including gastro-oesophageal varices; visualization of veins that may be used for portosystemic shunt operations; postoperative control of shunt patency; diagnosis of portal and hepatic vein thrombosis; localization of stenosis in the portal vein system; pre-operative evaluation of patients with tumours in the biliary tract and pancreas; obliteration of bleeding oesophageal varices; and verification and localization of endocrine pancreatic tumours making curative resection possible. Further, transhepatic catheterization of the portal system may be used in research on the development of portal hypertension, collateral veins, variceal bleeding, and for haemodynamic, metabolic and pharmacologic studies in the gastrointestinal tract.     

Correlation of hepatic venous pressure gradient with variceal bleeding, size of esophageal varices, etiology, ascites and degree of liver dysfunction in cirrhosis of liver

An elevated hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) has been associated with risk of variceal bleeding, and outcome and survival after variceal bleeding. In this pilot study, we measured HVPG in 40 patients with liver cirrhosis and studied its relationship with etiology of liver disease, esophageal variceal size, history of variceal bleeding or ascites, biochemical liver tests and Child-Pugh class. There was no procedurerelated complication. The mean (SD) HVPG was similar in patients who had history of variceal bleeding as compared to those who did not (15.4 [2.8] mmHg vs. 13.9 [2.7] mmHg, p=0.1); HVPG had no significant association with etiology of cirrhosis (p=0.4). HVPG levels were significantly higher in patients with larger esophageal varices (grade III/IV vs. I/II: 15.2 [2.7] mmHg vs.13.1 [2.8] mmHg, p=0.04), poorer Child-Pugh class (B or C versus A), and presence of ascites (p=0.04). Thus, HVPG correlated with variceal size, Child-Pugh class, and presence of ascites, but not with variceal bleeding status.