Dataset Information

Measurement of variceal pressure with a computerized endoscopic manometry: validation and effect of propranolol therapy in cirrhotic patients.

ABSTRACT:

Background and purpose

Recently, we invented a computerized endoscopic balloon manometry (CEBM) to measure variceal pressure (VP) in cirrhotic patient. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability and feasibility of this method, and whether this technique provided further information to pharmacological therapy.

Patients and methods

VP measurements were performed in 83 cirrhotic patients and compared with HVPG as well as endoscopic bleeding risk parameters. Furthermore, VP was assessed before and during propranolol therapy in 30 patients without previous bleeding.

Results

VP measurements were successful in 96% (83/86) of all patients. Of the 83 patients, the VP correlated closely with the HVPG (P<0.001). The presence of red colour signs and the size of varices were strongly associated with VP. Patients with previous bleeding had higher VP than those who had not yet experienced bleeding. In univariate analysis, the level of VP, the size of varices, and red color signs predicted a higher risk of bleeding. The multiple logistic regression model revealed that VP was the major risk factor for bleeding. In 30 patients receiving propranolol, VP significantly decreased from 21.1 ± 3.5 mmHg before therapy to 18.1 ± 3.3 mmHg after 3 months and to 16.3 ± 4.0 mmHg after 6 months. Comparing the mean decrease in VP with that in hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG), the decrease in VP was more obvious than HVPG response to propranolol.

Conclusions

This study showed that CEBM is safe and practical to assess VP in cirrhotic patient. It has the potential to be used as a clinical method to assess the risk of variceal bleeding and the effects of pharmacological therapy.

Trial registration

Effect of vasoactive drugs on esophageal variceal hemodynamics in patients with portal hypertension. Chinese Clinical Trial Registry -TRC-08000252.

SUBMITTER: Kong DR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3576342 | biostudies-literature | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Measurement of variceal pressure with a computerized endoscopic manometry: validation and effect of propranolol therapy in cirrhotic patients.

Kong De-Run DR Zhang Chao C Zhang Lei L Wang Jing-Guang JG Xiong Zhuang Z Li Pan P Xu Jian-Ming JM

PloS one 20130219 2

<h4>Background and purpose</h4>Recently, we invented a computerized endoscopic balloon manometry (CEBM) to measure variceal pressure (VP) in cirrhotic patient. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability and feasibility of this method, and whether this technique provided further information to pharmacological therapy.<h4>Patients and methods</h4>VP measurements were performed in 83 cirrhotic patients and compared with HVPG as well as endoscopic bleeding risk parameters. Furthermore ...[more]

PMID: 23431369

Similar Datasets

Project description:Mean systemic filling pressure (Pms) is a promising parameter in determining intravascular fluid status. Pms derived from venous return curves during inspiratory holds with incremental airway pressures (Pms-Insp) estimates Pms reliably but is labor-intensive. A computerized algorithm to calculate Pms (Pmsa) at the bedside has been proposed. In previous studies Pmsa and Pms-Insp correlated well but with considerable bias. This observational study was performed to validate Pmsa with Pms-Insp in cardiac surgery patients. Cardiac output, right atrial pressure and mean arterial pressure were prospectively recorded to calculate Pmsa using a bedside monitor. Pms-Insp was calculated offline after performing inspiratory holds. Intraclass-correlation coefficient (ICC) and assessment of agreement were used to compare Pmsa with Pms-Insp. Bias, coefficient of variance (COV), precision and limits of agreement (LOA) were calculated. Proportional bias was assessed with linear regression. A high degree of inter-method reliability was found between Pmsa and Pms-Insp (ICC 0.89; 95%CI 0.72-0.96, p = 0.01) in 18 patients. Pmsa and Pms-Insp differed not significantly (11.9 mmHg, IQR 9.8-13.4 vs. 12.7 mmHg, IQR 10.5-14.4, p = 0.38). Bias was -0.502 ± 1.90 mmHg (p = 0.277). COV was 4% with LOA -4.22 - 3.22 mmHg without proportional bias. Conversion coefficient Pmsa ➔ Pms-Insp was 0.94. This assessment of agreement demonstrates that the measures Pms-Insp and the computerized Pmsa-algorithm are interchangeable (bias -0.502 ± 1.90 mmHg with conversion coefficient 0.94). The choice of Pmsa is straightforward, it is non-interventional and available continuously at the bedside in contrast to Pms-Insp which is interventional and calculated off-line. Further studies should be performed to determine the place of Pmsa in the circulatory management of critically ill patients. ( www.clinicaltrials.gov ; TRN NCT04202432, release date 16-12-2019; retrospectively registered).Clinical Trial Registration www.ClinicalTrials.gov , TRN: NCT04202432, initial release date 16-12-2019 (retrospectively registered).

Dataset Information

Measurement of variceal pressure with a computerized endoscopic manometry: validation and effect of propranolol therapy in cirrhotic patients.

Background and purpose

Patients and methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Publications

Measurement of variceal pressure with a computerized endoscopic manometry: validation and effect of propranolol therapy in cirrhotic patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure