Right atrial pressure is not adequate to calculate portal pressure gradient in cirrhosis

A clinical-hemodynamic correlation study

Vincenzo La Mura, Juan G. Abraldes, Annalisa Berzigotti, Eva Erice, Alexandra Flores-Arroyo, Juan Carlos García-Pagán, Jaime Bosch

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

42 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG), the difference between wedge and free hepatic venous pressure, is the preferred method for estimating portal pressure. However, it has been suggested that hepatic atrial pressure gradient (HAPG) - the gradient between wedge hepatic venous pressure and right atrial pressure (RAP) - might better reflect variceal hemodynamics. The aim of this study was to (1) investigate whether HAPG with nonselective beta-blockers correlates with prognosis in cirrhotic patients with portal hypertension at baseline and during treatment; (2) compare the prognostic value of HAPG with that of HVPG; and (3) investigate the agreement between portoatrial gradient (PAG) and portocaval gradient (PCG) in patients with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS). We included 154 cirrhotic patients with varices with a complete hemodynamic study at baseline and on chronic treatment for primary (n = 71) or secondary (n = 83) prophylaxis for bleeding and 99 patients with TIPS. All patients were followed for up to 2 years; portal hypertensive-related bleeding and bleeding-free survival were analyzed. HVPG was equal or lower than HAPG in all patients (23.2 mm Hg; P <0.001). Agreement between HAPG and HVPG was modest, especially in patients with increased intra-abdominal pressure. One hundred two patients were HVPG nonresponders and 52 patients were HVPG responders to nonselective beta-blockers, whereas 101 patients were HAPG nonresponders and 53 patients were HAPG responders (k = 0.610). HVPG response revealed an excellent predictive value for bleeding risk and bleeding-free survival; HAPG did not. In our TIPS patients, 20% had a PCG ≤ 12 mm Hg and a PAG > 12 mm Hg, which may have induced unnecessary overdilation of the TIPS. Conclusion: The excellent prognostic information provided by HVPG response to drug therapy is lost if HAPG response is considered. RAP should not be used for the calculation of portal pressure gradient in patients with cirrhosis.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2108-2116
Number of pages9
JournalHepatology
Volume51
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2010

Fingerprint

Portal Pressure
Atrial Pressure
Fibrosis
Hemodynamics
Venous Pressure
Liver
Transjugular Intrahepatic Portasystemic Shunt
Hemorrhage
Varicose Veins
Portal Hypertension

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Hepatology

Cite this

La Mura, V., Abraldes, J. G., Berzigotti, A., Erice, E., Flores-Arroyo, A., García-Pagán, J. C., & Bosch, J. (2010). Right atrial pressure is not adequate to calculate portal pressure gradient in cirrhosis: A clinical-hemodynamic correlation study. Hepatology, 51(6), 2108-2116. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.23612

Right atrial pressure is not adequate to calculate portal pressure gradient in cirrhosis : A clinical-hemodynamic correlation study. / La Mura, Vincenzo; Abraldes, Juan G.; Berzigotti, Annalisa; Erice, Eva; Flores-Arroyo, Alexandra; García-Pagán, Juan Carlos; Bosch, Jaime.

In: Hepatology, Vol. 51, No. 6, 06.2010, p. 2108-2116.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

La Mura, V, Abraldes, JG, Berzigotti, A, Erice, E, Flores-Arroyo, A, García-Pagán, JC & Bosch, J 2010, 'Right atrial pressure is not adequate to calculate portal pressure gradient in cirrhosis: A clinical-hemodynamic correlation study', Hepatology, vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 2108-2116. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.23612
La Mura, Vincenzo ; Abraldes, Juan G. ; Berzigotti, Annalisa ; Erice, Eva ; Flores-Arroyo, Alexandra ; García-Pagán, Juan Carlos ; Bosch, Jaime. / Right atrial pressure is not adequate to calculate portal pressure gradient in cirrhosis : A clinical-hemodynamic correlation study. In: Hepatology. 2010 ; Vol. 51, No. 6. pp. 2108-2116.
@article{e7df7f31d8594e16a1cce40b04840324,
title = "Right atrial pressure is not adequate to calculate portal pressure gradient in cirrhosis: A clinical-hemodynamic correlation study",
abstract = "Hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG), the difference between wedge and free hepatic venous pressure, is the preferred method for estimating portal pressure. However, it has been suggested that hepatic atrial pressure gradient (HAPG) - the gradient between wedge hepatic venous pressure and right atrial pressure (RAP) - might better reflect variceal hemodynamics. The aim of this study was to (1) investigate whether HAPG with nonselective beta-blockers correlates with prognosis in cirrhotic patients with portal hypertension at baseline and during treatment; (2) compare the prognostic value of HAPG with that of HVPG; and (3) investigate the agreement between portoatrial gradient (PAG) and portocaval gradient (PCG) in patients with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS). We included 154 cirrhotic patients with varices with a complete hemodynamic study at baseline and on chronic treatment for primary (n = 71) or secondary (n = 83) prophylaxis for bleeding and 99 patients with TIPS. All patients were followed for up to 2 years; portal hypertensive-related bleeding and bleeding-free survival were analyzed. HVPG was equal or lower than HAPG in all patients (23.2 mm Hg; P <0.001). Agreement between HAPG and HVPG was modest, especially in patients with increased intra-abdominal pressure. One hundred two patients were HVPG nonresponders and 52 patients were HVPG responders to nonselective beta-blockers, whereas 101 patients were HAPG nonresponders and 53 patients were HAPG responders (k = 0.610). HVPG response revealed an excellent predictive value for bleeding risk and bleeding-free survival; HAPG did not. In our TIPS patients, 20{\%} had a PCG ≤ 12 mm Hg and a PAG > 12 mm Hg, which may have induced unnecessary overdilation of the TIPS. Conclusion: The excellent prognostic information provided by HVPG response to drug therapy is lost if HAPG response is considered. RAP should not be used for the calculation of portal pressure gradient in patients with cirrhosis.",
author = "{La Mura}, Vincenzo and Abraldes, {Juan G.} and Annalisa Berzigotti and Eva Erice and Alexandra Flores-Arroyo and Garc{\'i}a-Pag{\'a}n, {Juan Carlos} and Jaime Bosch",
year = "2010",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1002/hep.23612",
language = "English",
volume = "51",
pages = "2108--2116",
journal = "Hepatology",
issn = "0270-9139",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Right atrial pressure is not adequate to calculate portal pressure gradient in cirrhosis

T2 - A clinical-hemodynamic correlation study

AU - La Mura, Vincenzo

AU - Abraldes, Juan G.

AU - Berzigotti, Annalisa

AU - Erice, Eva

AU - Flores-Arroyo, Alexandra

AU - García-Pagán, Juan Carlos

AU - Bosch, Jaime

PY - 2010/6

Y1 - 2010/6

N2 - Hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG), the difference between wedge and free hepatic venous pressure, is the preferred method for estimating portal pressure. However, it has been suggested that hepatic atrial pressure gradient (HAPG) - the gradient between wedge hepatic venous pressure and right atrial pressure (RAP) - might better reflect variceal hemodynamics. The aim of this study was to (1) investigate whether HAPG with nonselective beta-blockers correlates with prognosis in cirrhotic patients with portal hypertension at baseline and during treatment; (2) compare the prognostic value of HAPG with that of HVPG; and (3) investigate the agreement between portoatrial gradient (PAG) and portocaval gradient (PCG) in patients with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS). We included 154 cirrhotic patients with varices with a complete hemodynamic study at baseline and on chronic treatment for primary (n = 71) or secondary (n = 83) prophylaxis for bleeding and 99 patients with TIPS. All patients were followed for up to 2 years; portal hypertensive-related bleeding and bleeding-free survival were analyzed. HVPG was equal or lower than HAPG in all patients (23.2 mm Hg; P <0.001). Agreement between HAPG and HVPG was modest, especially in patients with increased intra-abdominal pressure. One hundred two patients were HVPG nonresponders and 52 patients were HVPG responders to nonselective beta-blockers, whereas 101 patients were HAPG nonresponders and 53 patients were HAPG responders (k = 0.610). HVPG response revealed an excellent predictive value for bleeding risk and bleeding-free survival; HAPG did not. In our TIPS patients, 20% had a PCG ≤ 12 mm Hg and a PAG > 12 mm Hg, which may have induced unnecessary overdilation of the TIPS. Conclusion: The excellent prognostic information provided by HVPG response to drug therapy is lost if HAPG response is considered. RAP should not be used for the calculation of portal pressure gradient in patients with cirrhosis.

AB - Hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG), the difference between wedge and free hepatic venous pressure, is the preferred method for estimating portal pressure. However, it has been suggested that hepatic atrial pressure gradient (HAPG) - the gradient between wedge hepatic venous pressure and right atrial pressure (RAP) - might better reflect variceal hemodynamics. The aim of this study was to (1) investigate whether HAPG with nonselective beta-blockers correlates with prognosis in cirrhotic patients with portal hypertension at baseline and during treatment; (2) compare the prognostic value of HAPG with that of HVPG; and (3) investigate the agreement between portoatrial gradient (PAG) and portocaval gradient (PCG) in patients with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS). We included 154 cirrhotic patients with varices with a complete hemodynamic study at baseline and on chronic treatment for primary (n = 71) or secondary (n = 83) prophylaxis for bleeding and 99 patients with TIPS. All patients were followed for up to 2 years; portal hypertensive-related bleeding and bleeding-free survival were analyzed. HVPG was equal or lower than HAPG in all patients (23.2 mm Hg; P <0.001). Agreement between HAPG and HVPG was modest, especially in patients with increased intra-abdominal pressure. One hundred two patients were HVPG nonresponders and 52 patients were HVPG responders to nonselective beta-blockers, whereas 101 patients were HAPG nonresponders and 53 patients were HAPG responders (k = 0.610). HVPG response revealed an excellent predictive value for bleeding risk and bleeding-free survival; HAPG did not. In our TIPS patients, 20% had a PCG ≤ 12 mm Hg and a PAG > 12 mm Hg, which may have induced unnecessary overdilation of the TIPS. Conclusion: The excellent prognostic information provided by HVPG response to drug therapy is lost if HAPG response is considered. RAP should not be used for the calculation of portal pressure gradient in patients with cirrhosis.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77952734979&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77952734979&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/hep.23612

DO - 10.1002/hep.23612

M3 - Article

VL - 51

SP - 2108

EP - 2116

JO - Hepatology

JF - Hepatology

SN - 0270-9139

IS - 6

ER -