Hepatic venous pressure measurements: comparison of end-hole and balloon catheter methods.

Journal Article (Journal Article)

PURPOSE: To determine the difference in hepatic venous pressures measured with the use of an end-hole diagnostic catheter versus a balloon catheter. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 92 patients underwent transjugular hepatic venous pressure measurements with a 5-F diagnostic end-hole catheter and a balloon catheter, with the catheter type used initially determined randomly. With both catheters, free and wedged systolic, diastolic, and mean pressures were collected. Hepatic venous pressure gradients were calculated from each pressure set. Eighty-five patients (92%) also underwent concurrent transjugular biopsy after pressures were recorded. Demographic, histologic, and specific procedural information were also collected. RESULTS: The study included 47 men and 45 women, with a mean age of 52.7 years (range, 19-84 y). For the entire population, there were statistically significant differences in mean measurements between the two catheters in wedged systolic (P = .004), diastolic (P = .021), and mean (P = .036) pressures. However, the differences between the means were only 0.783, 0.609, and 0.207 mm Hg, respectively. A subanalysis based on histologic stage revealed no difference between catheter types for normal or cirrhotic livers, but a significant (P = .017) difference in systolic wedged pressure (absolute difference of 0.67 mm Hg) in patients with mild to moderate fibrosis (stages 1-3). In all differences, the balloon catheter had the greater pressure reading. CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant difference in wedged pressure measurements between the two catheter systems in the overall population and among patients with a histologic grade indicating fibrosis. However, the absolute value differences between the two systems were comparatively small (< 1 mm Hg).

Full Text

Duke Authors

Cited Authors

  • Smith, TP; Kim, CY; Smith, AD; Janas, G; Miller, MJ; Sopko, DR; Suhocki, PV

Published Date

  • February 2012

Published In

Volume / Issue

  • 23 / 2

Start / End Page

  • 219 - 26.e6

PubMed ID

  • 22209265

Electronic International Standard Serial Number (EISSN)

  • 1535-7732

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

  • 10.1016/j.jvir.2011.09.025


  • eng

Conference Location

  • United States