ArticleCardiovascular and interventional radiology2024
The Balloon Catheter Method and the End-hole Catheter Method in the Measurement of Hepatic Venous Pressure Gradient: a Comparative Study.
Article in Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The pathophysiological role of portal hypertension in metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease.Hepatology communications · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to evaluate the differences between The balloon catheter method and End-hole Catheter Method in measuring hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) among cirrhosis patients.
methodsFrom October 2017 to January 2024, patients who underwent HVPG measurements using both methods were consecutively included. HVPGs obtained from both methods were compared with the portal vein pressure gradient (PPG) obtained via transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) using paired comparisons. Additionally, the consistency and predictive ability for bleeding risk of the two methods, as well as the impact of intrahepatic veno-venous shunt (IHVS), were analyzed.
resultsThe study enrolled 145 patients, each of whom had HVPG measured by both methods. PPG was measured in 61 patients. There was a statistically significant difference between the PPGs and HVPGs measured by both the balloon catheter method and the end-hole catheter method (P < 0.001), with the HVPG mean values obtained by the end-hole catheter method being closer to the PPGs. In the non-IHVS group, no significant statistical difference was found between the two methods (P = 0.071). In contrast, the IHVS group showed a significant difference (P < 0.001), with a mean difference of 2.98 ± 4.03 mmHg. When IHVS was absent, the measurement results from the end-hole catheter method and the balloon catheter method were found to be highly correlated. The end-hole catheter method has a higher screening capability for patients at risk of bleeding compared to the balloon catheter method (75.90% vs. 72.86%).
conclusionHVPG measurements using either the balloon catheter method or end-hole catheter method showed significant difference with the PPG. The end-hole catheter method has a higher screening capability for patients at risk of bleeding, and IHVS could lead to lower HVPG measurements with The balloon catheter method.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39060793What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.