Wedged hepatic venous pressure adequately reflects portal pressure in hepatitis C virus-related cirrhosis

Wedged hepatic venous pressure (WHVP) is equivalent to portal venous pressure in patients with alcoholic liver diseases. However, it may underestimate portal pressure in nonalcoholics, which is important because hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is a frequent cause of chronic liver disease. We investigated the agreement between directly measured portal pressure and WHVP in alcoholic and HCV-related liver diseases. Seventy-one patients with liver disease resulting from HCV infection (n = 32), alcohol (n = 25), or both (n = 14) underwent simultaneous measurements of WHVP (by hepatic vein catheterization) and portal pressure (by direct puncture). In 9 patients, measurements were repeated 20 minutes after acute iv propranolol administration. WHVP showed an excellent agreement with portal pressure in patients with cirrhosis resulting from either HCV, alcohol or both (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.94, 0.93, and 0.97, respectively; P <.001). A discrepancy of >/=5 mm Hg was observed in 7 cases. WHVP underestimated portal pressure in only 1 case and exceeded portal pressure by >/=5 mm Hg in 6 patients. The WHVP response to propranolol closely and significantly correlated with changes in portal pressure (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.87; P <.004). The simple and safe measurement of WHVP accurately reflects portal pressure in alcoholic and HCV-related liver disease. This technique also allows us to accurately assess the portal pressure response to propranolol in both alcoholic and HCV-related cirrhosis.     

Relationship between degree of portal hypertension and liver histologic lesions in patients with alcoholic cirrhosis

The relationship between the degree of portal hypertension and histologic liver lesions was studied in a group of 84 patients with histologically proven alcoholic cirrhosis. The degree of portal hypertension was evaluated by the gradient between wedged and free hepatic venous pressures. Five histologic lesions were quantified: liver cell necrosis, Mallory bodies, neutrophilic infiltrate, fibrosis, and fatty infiltration. The gradient between wedged and free hepatic venous pressures was significantly correlated with the degree of liver cell necrosis and the degree of neutrophilic infiltrate. The stepwise regression analysis showed that only liver cell necrosis has a significant and independent correlation for the degree of portal hypertension. The value for the gradient between wedged and free hepatic venous pressures was significantly higher in patients with (N=48) than in those without (N=36) acute alcoholic hepatitis (19.4±0.8 and 16.5±0.7 mmHg, respectively). Thus, histologic liver lesions observed in acute alcoholic hepatitis may play a role in the risk of complications of portal hypertension in patients with alcoholic cirrhosis.     

Discrepancy between wedged hepatic venous pressure and portal venous pressure after acute propranolol administration in patients with alcoholic cirrhosis

In patients with alcoholic cirrhosis, wedged hepatic venous pressure closely reflects portal venous pressure. This study was carried out to determine if propranolol-induced reductions in portal venous pressure are accurately evaluated by the measurement of wedged hepatic venous pressure. Hepatic venous cannulation and percutaneous transhepatic catheterization of the portal vein were simultaneously performed in 7 patients with alcoholic cirrhosis. One hour after oral administration of 40 mg of propranolol, wedged hepatic and portal venous pressures significantly decreased from 24.3 +/- 3.5 (mean +/- SD) to 19.0 +/- 3.0 mmHg, and from 24.7 +/- 3.9 to 22.4 +/- 3.6 mmHg, respectively. Although no significant difference was found between baseline wedged hepatic and portal venous pressures, a significant difference was found between these pressures after propranolol administration. We concluded that during acute administration of a drug acting on the splanchnic circulation, the measurement of wedged hepatic venous pressure may not provide a reliable estimation of the magnitude of the changes in portal venous pressure. There is, however, no evidence that the direction of the changes might not be adequately assessed by wedged hepatic venous pressure measurement.     

Haemodynamic effects of enalaprilat on portal hypertension in patients with HBsAg-positive cirrhosis

Abstract It has been suggested that enalaprilat inhibits the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in plasma and tissue; it may therefore reduce portal vascular pressure owing to secondary hyperaldosteronism in patients with liver cirrhosis. In order to evaluate this concept, 20 patients with hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)-positive liver cirrhosis and portal hypertension received an intravenous infusion of 2.5 mg of enalaprilat. Wedged hepatic venous pressure, free hepatic venous pressure and cardiac index were measured before, immediately after, and then 15 min, 30 min and 1 h after intravenous enalaprilat infusion. The mean pressure gradient between wedged hepatic venous pressure and free hepatic venous pressure was significantly decreased, by 13% immediately after, 18% at 15 min, 23% at 30 min and 13% at 1 h after infusion of enalaprilat. Thirteen patients experienced a decrease of hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) greater than 5 mmHg, another three 3-5 mmHg and the remaining four patients exhibited no significant change in HVPG. Systemic haemodynamic indices, including pulmonary arterial pressure, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure and central venous pressure, decreased significantly at 15 and 30 min after enalaprilat infusion ( P < 0.01). Liver function, renal function and blood routine before and after enalaprilat infusion showed no significant changes. There were no adverse effects during or after enalaprilat infusion. We conclude that enalaprilat infusion can quickly and safely reduce the hepatic venous pressure gradient in patients with HBsAg-positive cirrhosis.     

Comparison of Doppler ultrasonography and the hepatic venous pressure gradient in assessing portal hypertension in liver cirrhosis

BACKGROUND AND AIM: This prospective study aimed to determine whether Doppler ultrasonography can represent the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) as an assessment of the severity of portal hypertension and the response to terlipressin, which reduces the portal pressure in liver cirrhosis. METHODS: The HVPG and the Doppler ultrasonographic parameters, such as the portal venous velocity and the splenic venous velocity, the pulsatility and the resistive index of the hepatic, splenic and renal arteries were measured in 138 patients with liver cirrhosis. The changes in the HVPG and the portal venous velocity after administering terlipressin were evaluated in 43 of the 138 patients. The patients who showed a reduction in the HVPG of more than 20% of the baseline were defined as responders to terlipressin. RESULTS: None of the Doppler ultrasonographic parameters correlated with the HVPG. Both the HVPG (28.0 +/- 19.8%) and the portal venous velocity (29.7 +/- 13.2%) showed a significant reduction after terlipressin administration. However, the portal venous velocity decreased significantly, not only in the responders (31.0 +/- 12.0%) but also in the non-responders (25.2 +/- 16.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Doppler ultrasonography does not represent the HVPG, and is therefore not suitable for replacing HVPG as a means of assessing the severity of portal hypertension and the response to drugs which reduce the portal pressure in liver cirrhosis.     

Comparison between portal vein pressure and wedged hepatic vein pressure in hepatitis B-related cirrhosis

Portal vein pressure and wedged hepatic vein pressure were measured simultaneously in 21 patients with hepatitis B-related cirrhosis of the liver and were compared to pressure measured in six patients with idiopathic portal hypertension. No significant difference in the portal venous pressure gradient was found between patients with cirrhosis and those with idiopathic portal hypertension (17.3 +/- 4.3 mmHg (mean +/- S.D.) vs. 19.7 +/- 3.1 mmHg, P greater than 0.05). However, the difference between the portal and the hepatic venous pressure gradient was significantly smaller in patients with cirrhosis than in idiopathic portal hypertension patients (1.3 +/- 1.7 vs. 10.8 +/- 2.1 mmHg, P less than 0.001). An excellent correlation was found between portal vein pressure and wedged hepatic vein pressure in hepatitis B-related cirrhosis (r = 0.94, P less than 0.001). There was no linear relationship between the portal venous pressure gradient and varix size or bleeding episodes. We concluded that a close agreement existed between portal vein pressure and wedged hepatic vein pressure in hepatitis B-related liver cirrhosis. Therefore, measurement of wedged hepatic vein pressure reliably reflects portal vein pressure in these patients.     

Percutaneous transhepatic measurement of the pressure gradient between the portal and hepatic veins

Abstract Background: Knowledge of the portal pressure may be of value in the assessment of patients with chronic liver disease but its measurement is problematic. Aims: To evaluate the ease and safety of percutaneous transhepatic measurement of the pressure gradient between the portal and hepatic veins and to determine directly the need for an internal zero. Methods: Sixty-one patients undergoing liver biopsy for suspected liver disease had pressures in branches of portal and hepatic veins measured using a flexible 22G (Chiba) needle. Results: The procedure was successful in all patients, took less than ten minutes in most, and was associated with minimal discomfort. Post-procedure morbidity was similar to that of liver biopsy. Portal pressure using an external zero (either puncture site or sternal angle) was inaccurate compared with pressures obtained using the generally accepted gold standard internal zero, hepatic venous pressure, and led to incorrect classification of the presence or absence of portal hypertension in at least 10% of patients. Variations in hepatic venous pressure were not predictable on clinical grounds. The only histopathological feature predictive of portal hypertension was cirrhosis, 20 of 25 patients with and four of 36 patients without cirrhosis having portal hypertension. Of routine biochemical and haematological tests, only plasma albumin and platelet count jointly (and negatively) predicted hepatic venous pressure gradient on multiple regression analysis (R²= 0.40). Conclusions: The use of an internal zero is essential for accurate measurement of portal pressure and this can be achieved safely using the percutaneous, transhepatic route in patients with well compensated liver disease.     

Hepatic venous pressure gradient measurement: Time to learn!

Portal hypertension is a clinical syndrome defined by a pathological increase in portal pressure. The development of cirrhosis of the liver is characterized by clinical manifestations related to portal hypertension like esophageal varices, ascites, bleeding, and encephalopathy. Direct measurement of portal pressure is invasive, inconvenient, and clinically impractical. Currently, the most commonly used parameter is the Hepatic Venous Pressure Gradient (HVPG), i.e., the difference between the wedged (WHVP) and the free hepatic venous pressures. HVPG represents the gradient between pressures in the portal vein and the intra-abdominal portion of inferior vena cava. When blood flow in a hepatic vein is stopped by a wedged catheter, the proximal static column of blood transmits the pressure from the preceding communicated vascular territory (hepatic sinusoids) to the catheter. Thus, WHVP reflects hepatic sinusoidal pressure and not the portal pressure itself. In the normal liver, due to pressure equilibration through interconnected sinusoids, wedged pressure is slightly lower than portal pressure, though this difference is clinically insignificant. In liver cirrhosis, the static column created by balloon inflation cannot be decompressed at the sinusoidal level due to disruption of the normal intersinusoidal communications; therefore, WHVP gives an accurate estimation of portal pressure in cirrhosis. The normal HVPG value is between 1 to 5 mmHg. Pressure higher than this defines the presence of portal hypertension, regardless of clinical evidence. HVPG >/= 10 mmHg (termed clinically significant portal hypertension) is predictive of the development of complications of cirrhosis, including death. HVPG above 12 mmHg is the threshold pressure for variceal rupture. The main advantages of HVPG are its simplicity, reproducibility, and safety. This review summarizes the technique of the HVPG measurement.     

Hepatic venous pressure gradient measurement: is it mandatory in the management of portal hypertension?

Abstract   Portal hypertension can be evaluated by hepatic vein catheterization and measurement of wedged and free hepatic vein pressures. The hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) is the difference between both pressures and its normal value is lower than 5 mmHg. The technique is safe and reliable provided several requirements are fulfilled to get accurate results. HVPG measurement is useful to determine the site of increased resistance either presinusoidal, sinusoidal or postsinusoidal. If HVPG is normal in the presence of clinical signs of portal hypertension, evaluation of the portal venous system and direct measurement of portal vein pressure is required. HVPG measurement may also be used as a prognostic marker to evaluate the risks of developing complications such as ascites or variceal bleeding; in addition, it has been suggested that it could provide prognostic information for variceal rebleeding or survival. Primary and secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding can be achieved with a pharmacological treatment using beta blockers and/or nitrates. Repeated HVPG measurements are probably useful to monitor the treatment; it has been suggested that decreasing HVPG by 20% or below 12 mmHg is a reasonable target to define a good hemodynamic response and hopefully a low risk of bleeding; endoscopic therapy can be used in non-responders. Repeated hemodynamic evaluation, however, is invasive and must be performed in specialized liver units; therefore, future clinical trials must demonstrate unequivocally the clinical usefulness of this approach prior to recommending repeated HVPG measurement on a routine basis.     

Hepatic venous pressure gradient determination in patients with hepatitis C virus-related and alcoholic cirrhosis

OBJECTIVES: Few data exist regarding the degree of portal hypertension in hepatitis C virus (HCV)-related cirrhosis, as the majority of studies have included mainly patients with alcoholic cirrhosis. This study was aimed at comparing the severity of portal hypertension in patients with HCV-related or alcoholic cirrhosis. METHODS: In total, 59 cirrhotic patients with portal hypertension (HCV-related in 34 cases and alcoholic in 25) underwent main right hepatic vein catheterization, with determination of the wedged and free hepatic venous pressures, and of hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG). RESULTS: HVPG values did not differ between the two groups of patients (19.4 +/- 6.0 mmHg vs 18.5 +/- 3.5 mmHg; P = 0.51). The prevalence and degree of oesophageal and gastric varices and portal hypertensive gastropathy did not correlate with the aetiology. Patients with viral cirrhosis had a lower prevalence of previous bleeding than those with alcoholic cirrhosis, despite a similar proportion of large varices in the two groups and similar HVPG levels. In both groups of patients, HVPG did not differ between patients with previous bleeds and those without. CONCLUSIONS: The degree of portal hypertension in cirrhotic patients does not correlate with the cause of the disease. Thus, current statements on the management of portal hypertension, although based upon studies including mainly patients with alcoholic cirrhosis, can be applied also to patients with viral-related cirrhosis.     

Increased urotensin II plasma levels in patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Vasodilatation--despite activation of endogenous vasoconstrictors--is pronounced in portal hypertension. We therefore investigated the role of Urotensin II (U II), a newly described peptide reported to be a vasoconstrictor in the central arterial compartment and a vasodilator in the splanchnic vasculature. METHODS: U II immunoreactivity was measured in 50 patients with cirrhosis and in 15 healthy controls. U II levels were compared in portal venous and central venous blood of 30 patients immediately before transjugular intrahepatic porto-systemic stent shunt implantation. RESULTS: U II levels (median, range, ng/ml) were significantly increased in cirrhotics (12.3, 1.6-41.4) compared to controls (3.6, 0.1-12.0; P<0.001). In patients with cirrhosis, U II levels were significantly higher in central venous (12.9, 2.5-41.4) than in portal venous blood (11.0, 0.6-31.9; P<0.005). U II levels were higher in ascitic than in non-ascitic patients (P<0.02). They correlated positively with the wedged hepatic venous pressure gradient (rho=0.34, P<0.005) and negatively with the mean arterial pressure (rho=-0.41; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Urotensin II formation is upregulated in patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension. The transhepatic gradient suggests a hepatic production of this peptide.     

The hypotensive effect of oral nitroglycerin on portal venous pressure in patients with cirrhotic portal hypertension

Abstract Nitroglycerin was administered orally to seven patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension, to determine whether portal venous pressure (PVP) may be lowered without the systemic effects associated with its intravenous or sublingual use. PVP was measured via direct cannulation of the portal vein transhepatically using a Chiba needle. PVP decreased from 29 (s.d. = 4) to 22.7 (s.d. = 3.7) mmHg (22% mean fall) following 1.2 mg nitroglycerin with onset 7–15 min following ingestion, and the response persisted for up to 150 min. This was not associated with headache in any patient. Although a decrease in blood pressure was seen in most patients, this temporally followed the fall in PVP suggesting that it was a secondary response. Sublingual nitroglycerin was given to two patients without change in PVP yet both experienced severe headache. These findings support the hypothesis that oral nitroglycerin is delivered differentially to the portal venous bed with differential effects on PVP. Further studies are needed to evaluate this agent and this strategy for their potential role in long-term control of portal pressure.     

CO(2) wedged hepatic venography in the evaluation of portal hypertension

BACKGROUND/AIMS/METHODS: During hepatic vein catheterisation, in addition to measurement of hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG), iodine wedged retrograde portography can be easily obtained. However, it rarely allows correct visualisation of the portal vein. Recently, CO(2) has been suggested to allow better angiographic demonstration of the portal vein than iodine. In this study we investigated the efficacy of CO(2) compared with iodinated contrast medium for portal vein imaging and its role in the evaluation of portal hypertension in a series of 100 patients undergoing hepatic vein catheterisation, 71 of whom had liver cirrhosis. RESULTS: In the overall series, CO(2) venography was markedly superior to iodine, allowing correct visualisation of the different segments of the portal venous system. In addition, CO(2), but not iodine, visualised portal-systemic collaterals in 34 patients. In cirrhosis, non-visualisation of the portal vein on CO(2) venography occurred in 11 cases; four had portal vein thrombosis and five had communications between different hepatic veins. Among non-cirrhotics, lack of portal vein visualisation had a 90% sensitivity, 88% specificity, 94% negative predictive value, and 83% positive predictive value in the diagnosis of pre-sinusoidal portal hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: Visualisation of the venous portal system by CO(2) venography is markedly superior to iodine. The use of CO(2) wedged portography is a useful and safe complementary procedure during hepatic vein catheterisation which may help to detect portal thrombosis. Also, lack of demonstration of the portal vein in non-cirrhotic patients strongly suggests the presence of pre-sinusoidal portal hypertension.     

Effect of viral suppression on hepatic venous pressure gradient in hepatitis C with cirrhosis and portal hypertension

Portal hypertension is a predictor of liver‐related clinical events and mortality in patients with hepatitis C and cirrhosis. The effect of interferon‐free hepatitis C treatment on portal pressure is unknown. Fifty patients with Child‐Pugh‐Turcotte (CPT) A and B cirrhosis and portal hypertension (hepatic venous pressure gradient [HVPG] >6 mm Hg) were randomized to receive 48 weeks of open‐label sofosbuvir plus ribavirin at Day 1 or after a 24‐week observation period. The primary endpoint was sustained virologic response 12 weeks after therapy (SVR12) in patients who received ≥1 dose of treatment. Secondary endpoints included changes in HVPG, laboratory parameters, and MELD and CPT scores. A subset of patients was followed 48 weeks posttreatment to determine late changes in HVPG. SVR12 occurred in 72% of patients (33/46). In the 37 patients with paired HVPG measurements at baseline and the end of treatment, mean HVPG decreased by ‐1.0 (SD 3.97) mm Hg. Nine patients (24%) had ≥20% decreases in HVPG during treatment. Among 39 patients with pretreatment HVPG ≥12 mm Hg, 27 (69%) achieved SVR12. Four of the 33 (12%) patients with baseline HVPG ≥12 mm Hg had HVPG <12 mm Hg at the end of treatment. Of nine patients with pretreatment HVPG ≥12 mm Hg who achieved SVR12 and completed 48 weeks of follow‐up, eight (89%) had a ≥20% reduction in HVPG, and three reduced their pressure to <12 mm Hg. Patients with chronic HCV and compensated or decompensated cirrhosis who achieve SVR can have clinically meaningful reductions in HVPG at long‐term follow‐up. (EudraCT 2012‐002457‐29).     

HIV–HCV co‐infected patients with low CD4+ cell nadirs are at risk for faster fibrosis progression and portal hypertension

Summary. Patients co‐infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and the hepatitis C virus (HCV) are fraught with a rapid fibrosis progression rate and with complications of portal hypertension (PHT) We aimed to assess the influence of immune function [Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) stage] on development of PHT and disease progression in HIV–HCV co‐infection. Data of 74 interferon‐naïve HIV–HCV co‐infected patients undergoing liver biopsy, measurement of portal pressure and of liver stiffness and routine laboratory tests (including CD4+ cell count, HIV and HCV viral load) were analysed. Time of initial exposure (risk behaviour) was used to assess fibrosis progression. Fibrosis progression, time to cirrhosis and portal pressure were correlated with HIV status (CDC stage). HIV–HCV patients had rapid progression of fibrosis [0.201 ± 0.088 METAVIR fibrosis units/year (FU/y)] and accelerated time to cirrhosis (24 ± 13 years), high HCV viral loads (4.83 × 10⁶ IU/mL) and a mean HVPG at the upper limit of normal (5 mmHg). With moderate or severe immunodeficiency, fibrosis progression was even higher (CDC‐2 = 0.177 FU/y; CDC‐3 = 0.248 FU/y) compared with patients with higher CD4+ nadirs (CDC‐1 = 0.120 FU/y; P = 0.0001). An indirect correlation between CD4+ cell count and rate of fibrosis progression (R = ?0.6654; P < 0.001) could be demonstrated. Hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) showed early elevation of portal pressure with median values of 4, 8 and 12 mmHg after 10, 15 and 20 years of HCV infection for CDC‐3 patients. Patients treated with highly active anti‐retroviral therapy (HAART) had similar rates of progression and portal pressure values than patients without HAART. Progression of HCV disease is accelerated in HIV–HCV co‐infection, being more pronounced in patients with low CD4+ cell count. A history of a CD4+ cell nadir <200/μL is a risk factor for rapid development of cirrhosis and PHT. Thus, HCV treatment should be considered early in patients with HIV–HCV co‐infection and largely preserved CD4+ cell counts.     

Assessment of the agreement between wedge hepatic vein pressure and portal vein pressure in cirrhotic patients

BACKGROUND: Measuring wedged hepatic venous pressure and hepatic venous pressure gradient as indices of portal pressure is being increasingly used in assessing the prognosis and response to pharmacological treatment for portal hypertension in cirrhotic patients. AIM: To re-evaluate the agreement and correlation between wedged hepatic pressures and directly measured portal pressures. METHODS: Medline search for studies comparing direct portal with wedged hepatic pressure measurement and assessment of correlation and agreement of the pooled data. RESULTS: Eleven suitable studies included 320 patients. Coefficient of determination (r2) was 0.87 in all patients, 0.87 in 102 patients with alcoholic liver disease, 0.83 in 88 patients with non-alcoholic liver disease and 0.75 in 53 patients with hepatitis C-related liver disease. Coefficient of determination was 0.85 in the 194 patients in whom a wedge catheter and 0.90 in the 113 patients in whom a balloon catheter was used. Agreement according to the method of Bland and Altman was also found to be good, with only 4-8% of the measurements outside 2 standard deviations. CONCLUSIONS: Wedged hepatic pressure measurement correlates well with direct portal pressure measurement and the agreement is sufficiently good to use this as a surrogate measurement.     

Short-term effects of propranolol on portal venous pressure

The present study was designed to investigate the effect of propranolol on portal pressure of patients with alcoholic cirrhosis and portal hypertension and to correlate these effects with clinical and laboratory parameters. The mean baseline hepatic venous pressure gradient in the 50 patients studied was of 18.2 +/- 4.1 mm Hg. It decreased significantly 2 hr after the oral administration of 40 mg of propranolol to 15.7 +/- 4.2 mm Hg (a mean reduction of 13.4 +/- 17%). This reduction in hepatic venous pressure gradient resulted mainly from a decrease in mean wedged hepatic venous pressure. There was no correlation between the decrease in hepatic venous pressure gradient and the decrease in heart rate. When results were analyzed individually, only 15 (30%) showed a large decrease in hepatic venous pressure gradient (greater than 20%), 15 (30%) showed a moderate decrease (10 to 19%), and in 20 patients (40%) there was no reduction or an increase in hepatic venous pressure gradient. Comparison of "responders" (those that reduced hepatic venous pressure gradient greater than 10%) and "nonresponders" (hepatic venous pressure gradient reduction less than 10%) showed no significant differences in baseline laboratory and hemodynamic parameters, in the severity of the liver disease, in the heart rate and blood pressure response to propranolol, nor in the propranolol plasma levels achieved 2 hr after propranolol administration. Propranolol plasma levels correlated with the reduction in heart rate but not with the reduction in hepatic venous pressure gradient. Of 14 nonresponders to 40 mg of propranolol who received additional doses, six showed a reduction in hepatic venous pressure gradient.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Wedged Hepatic Venous Pressure Does Not Reflect Portal Pressure in Patients with Cirrhosis and Hepatic Veno–Venous Communications

Some cirrhotic patients have hepatic veno–venous communications (HVVC) and large porto-systemic collaterals. However, the relationship between wedged hepatic vein pressure (WHVP) and portal vein pressure (PVP) in such patients is not clear. The aim of this study was to determine the relationships between simultaneously measured WHVP and PVP, and occluded hepatic and splenic portal venography in 100 cirrhotic patients (40 alcoholic and 60 hepatitis C virus (HCV)-related cirrhosis). PVP and WHVP were closely related in both groups (alcoholic-cirrhosis: 27.8 ± 4.7 and 27.5 ± 4.8 mmHg, HCV-cirrhosis: 27.3 ± 3.7 and 26.2 ± 4.4 mmHg, respectively). Occluded hepatic venography revealed that 13 of the 100 patients had HVVC (alcoholic-cirrhosis: 4, HCV-cirrhosis: 9). In patients with HVVC, PVP (27.9 ± 3.0 mmHg) was significantly higher than WHVP (21.9 ± 3.3 mmHg, P < 0.001). Large porto-systemic collaterals did not affect the relationship. We conclude that HVVC affects the relationship between PVP and WHVP. When WHVP is measured, occluded hepatic venography should be examined to detect HVVC.     

Short- and long-term hemodynamic response to octreotide in portal hypertensive patients: a double-blind,controlled study

Abstract: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study on the hemodynamic effect of two different doses of octreotide administered subcutaneously was conducted among 20 cirrhotic portal hypertensive patients. The wedged hepatic venous pressure, the hepatic venous pressure gradient, the mean portal venous flow velocity, the resistive index of the superior mesenteric artery, the heart rate and the mean arterial pressure were simultaneously evaluated by hepatic vein catheterization and Doppler flowmetry at baseline, 30 and 45 min after a subcutaneous injection of octreotide [0.10 mg (7 patients), 0.05 mg (7 patients)] and of a placebo (6 patients). The portal blood flow velocity, the resistive index of the superior mesenteric artery, the heart rate and the mean arterial pressure were also measured 2, 4, 6 and 8 h after the injection. The hemodynamic changes observed 30 min after the injection did not differ from those at 45 min and the changes at 2, 4, and 6 h were similar to those at 8 h. A statistically significant decrease, in comparison to the placebo group, was observed 45 min after the injection of the two doses of octreotide in the wedged hepatic venous pressure (cumulative median decrease: —10%, p<0.005), in the hepatic venous pressure gradient (cumulative median decrease: —10%, p<0.005) and in the mean portal flow velocity (cumulative median decrease: —11%, p<0.005). A significant increase in the resistive index of the superior mesenteric artery was observed 45 min after the injection of the two doses of octreotide (cumulative median increase: + 10%, p<0.005). Lower, but significant changes in the mean portal flow velocity and in the resistive index of the superior mesenteric artery persisted until 8 h after the injection of the two doses of octreotide (cumulative median decrease of mean portal flow velocity: —7%, p<0.005 and cumulative median increase of resistive index of the superior mesenteric artery: +4%, p<0.005). Changes in the wedged hepatic venous pressure, the hepatic venous pressure gradient, the mean portal flow velocity and the resistive index of the superior mesenteric artery showed a great variability among patients. These changes were more pronounced in patients injected with the lower dose with no relationship with the plasma drug concentrations. Responder patients showed a significant higher baseline mean portal flow velocity in comparison with nonresponders (15.2±1.7 cm/s vs 11.3 ±1.3 cm/s; p<0.005).     

Low-dose midazolam sedation: an option for patients undergoing serial hepatic venous pressure measurements

The hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) is becoming increasingly used clinically. It is useful in the differential diagnosis of portal hypertension and provides a prognostic index in cirrhotic patients. Performance of serial measurements has been shown to be useful in guiding pharmacological therapy of portal hypertension and variceal hemorrhage. The technique is safe to perform; however, many patients are anxious and reluctant to undergo serial measurements. The effects of sedatives on portal pressure measurements have not yet been defined. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of midazolam on the HVPG. Twenty patients with compensated cirrhosis were included in this prospective, double-blind study. The HVPG was determined by subtracting the free hepatic venous pressure (FHVP) from the wedged hepatic venous pressure (WHVP). Patients were randomized to receive either placebo, 0.02 mg/kg midazolam, or 0.03 mg/kg midazolam, administered intravenously over 3 minutes. Immediately after drug administration and every 3 minutes thereafter, for a total of 30 or 40 minutes, measurements were repeated. Three hours later, patients were asked to state whether the sedative affected their state of comfort/relaxation. The effects of both doses of midazolam on HVPG did not differ significantly from those of placebo. Furthermore, neither dose of midazolam induced significant changes in HVPG as compared with baseline values. However, higher-dose midazolam (0.03 mg/kg) was associated with significant reductions in FHVP from baseline and a tendency for a reduction in WHVP. Both doses significantly increased patient comfort and relaxation during the test. Midazolam, used at a dose of 0.02 mg/kg, is effective in increasing patient comfort and relaxation during hepatic venous pressure measurements, without significantly affecting pressures (HVPG, WHVP, or FHVP). It is therefore an acceptable option for patients undergoing serial hepatic venous pressure measurements.