REGULAR CONTENT
Final ID
548
Type
Original Scientific Research-Oral or Pos
Authors
J Keung1, A Kim1, T Caridi1, G Lynskey1
Institutions
1MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC
Purpose
To evaluate the differences between wedged hepatic and direct portal pressures in the presence or absence of intrahepatic veno-venous shunts seen on CO2 venography.
Materials & Methods
A retrospective review was performed for all transjugular portosystemic shunt (TIPS) procedures at a single center from 2013 to 2016. Direct portal (DPP) and wedged hepatic venous pressures (WHVP) were obtained when available. Standard CO2 venograms were independently reviewed by two radiologists to assess for the presence of intrahepatic veno-venous shunts.
Results
A total of 21 patients were included in the analysis, with 12 (57%) demonstrating a veno-venous shunt on CO2 venography and 9 (43%) with no shunt. The average differences between DPP and WHVP in the presence and absence of an intrahepatic veno-venous shunt measured 7.83 mmHg and 3 mmHg, respectively. This difference was noted to be statistically significant (p-value = 0.026). No significant difference was noted in the number of CO 2 venograms performed between these two groups (p-value = 0.094).
Conclusions
Intrahepatic veno-venous shunts identifiable on CO2 venograms may lead to falsely decreased estimation of portal pressure when using wedged hepatic pressures as a surrogate for direct portal pressure.
Final ID
548
Type
Original Scientific Research-Oral or Pos
Authors
J Keung1, A Kim1, T Caridi1, G Lynskey1
Institutions
1MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC
Purpose
To evaluate the differences between wedged hepatic and direct portal pressures in the presence or absence of intrahepatic veno-venous shunts seen on CO2 venography.
Materials & Methods
A retrospective review was performed for all transjugular portosystemic shunt (TIPS) procedures at a single center from 2013 to 2016. Direct portal (DPP) and wedged hepatic venous pressures (WHVP) were obtained when available. Standard CO2 venograms were independently reviewed by two radiologists to assess for the presence of intrahepatic veno-venous shunts.
Results
A total of 21 patients were included in the analysis, with 12 (57%) demonstrating a veno-venous shunt on CO2 venography and 9 (43%) with no shunt. The average differences between DPP and WHVP in the presence and absence of an intrahepatic veno-venous shunt measured 7.83 mmHg and 3 mmHg, respectively. This difference was noted to be statistically significant (p-value = 0.026). No significant difference was noted in the number of CO 2 venograms performed between these two groups (p-value = 0.094).
Conclusions
Intrahepatic veno-venous shunts identifiable on CO2 venograms may lead to falsely decreased estimation of portal pressure when using wedged hepatic pressures as a surrogate for direct portal pressure.