[Status of HVPG clinical application in China in 2021].

Objective: The investigation and research on the application status of Hepatic Venous Pressure Gradient (HVPG) is very important to understand the real situation and future development of this technology in China. Methods: This study comprehensively investigated the basic situation of HVPG technology in China, including hospital distribution, hospital level, annual number of cases, catheters used, average cost, indications and existing problems. Results: According to the survey, there were 70 hospitals in China carrying out HVPG technology in 2021, distributed in 28 provinces (autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the central Government). A total of 4 398 cases of HVPG were performed in all the surveyed hospitals in 2021, of which 2 291 cases (52.1%) were tested by HVPG alone. The average cost of HVPG detection was (5 617.2±2 079.4) yuan. 96.3% of the teams completed HVPG detection with balloon method, and most of the teams used thrombectomy balloon catheter (80.3%). Conclusion: Through this investigation, the status of domestic clinical application of HVPG has been clarified, and it has been confirmed that many domestic medical institutions have mastered this technology, but it still needs to continue to promote and popularize HVPG technology in the future.

Immediate effects of different schedules of somatostatin on portal pressure in patients with liver cirrhosis.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Somatostatin (SST) is used for the treatment of acute variceal bleeding based on its ability to decrease portal pressure and collateral blood flow. To date, no studies have focused on the immediate-early effects (between 1 and 30 min) of SST. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of different schedules of SST therapy with placebo on portal pressure in patients with portal hypertension treated with portal-azygous disconnection and to test whether an increase in bolus or infusion dose can improve the clinical efficacy of SST therapy. METHODS: Patients were treated with four different schedules: (a) standard dose (n = 11): one 250 µg bolus + a continuous infusion of 250 µg/h; (b) medium dose (n = 10): 500 µg bolus + a continuous infusion of 250 µg/h; (c) high dose (n = 10): 250 µg bolus + a continuous infusion of 500 µg/h; (d) control (n = 10): an injection of placebo (saline) followed by a placebo infusion. Following SST or placebo administration, portal pressure, central venous pressure (CVP), systemic blood pressure and heart rate (HR) were measured at 1, 3, 5, 7, 10 and 30 min. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The three schedules of SST induced a marked, rapid and highly significant decrease in portal pressure. The decline in portal pressure was moderate at 1 min (P < 0·040), achieved a peak effect at 5 min (P < 0·009) and remained decreased at 30 min. The effect of SST on portal pressure was significantly greater than placebo from 1 min after administration. There were no significant differences in portal pressure decrease between the three schedules of SST. The three schedules of SST and the placebo schedule did not induce significant changes in HR, systemic blood pressure and CVP. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: This study shows that SST is effective in decreasing portal pressure within 30 min of administration in patients with liver cirrhosis. The clinical schedule used in this study was reasonable and safe.

Computerized endoscopic balloon manometry to detect esophageal variceal pressure.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Measuring the variceal pressure is important in predicting esophageal variceal bleeding. However, current noninvasive methods of measuring variceal pressure have not gained wide popularity. We have developed a computerized endoscopic balloon manometry (CEBM) system to detect variceal pressure. The aims of the study were to test the in-vitro accuracy of CEBM and to evaluate the clinical reliability and feasibility of this method. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The CEBM system, comprising an esophageal variceal manometer and a computer, records variceal pressure and manometry images simultaneously. In the in-vitro study, variceal models were fixed inside an artificial esophagus, into which an endoscope with transparent balloon was inserted for intraluminal pressure measurement. The artificial varix was filled with water and connected to a water column to modulate the intraluminal pressure. This CEBM system was tested blindly in variceal models with different intraluminal pressures. CEBM was also used to measure variceal pressure in 23 patients with liver cirrhosis and esophageal varices, and the results were compared with the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG). RESULTS: In the in-vitro study, the measured intraluminal pressure correlated significantly with the actual intraluminal pressure for different diameters (R > or = 0.993, P < 0.001). Variceal pressure measurements with CEBM were technically successful in 23 patients. Regression analysis showed a good correlation between variceal pressure measured with CEBM and the HVPG (R = 0.858, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary results indicate that CEBM is feasible and accurate. CEBM may become a more reliable method for detecting variceal pressure.