论著
ENGLISH ABSTRACT
肝硬化食管胃底静脉曲张2型与孤立性胃静脉曲张1型的临床和影像学差异
司可可
向红雨
王泽慧
宋宇虎
李欣
作者及单位信息
·
DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn321463-20211018-00502
The differences in clinical profiles and imaging features between liver cirrhosis combined with gastroesophageal varices type 2 and isolated gastric varices type 1
Si Keke
Xiang Hongyu
Wang Zehui
Song Yuhu
Li Xin
Authors Info & Affiliations
Si Keke
Department of Radiology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology; Hubei Key Laboratory of Molecular Imaging,Wuhan 430030,China
Xiang Hongyu
Depertment of Gastroenterology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430022, China
Wang Zehui
Depertment of Gastroenterology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430022, China
Song Yuhu
Depertment of Gastroenterology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430022, China
Li Xin
Department of Radiology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology; Hubei Key Laboratory of Molecular Imaging,Wuhan 430030,China
·
DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn321463-20211018-00502
489
82
0
1
1
0
PDF下载
APP内阅读
摘要

目的探讨肝硬化合并食管胃底静脉曲张2型(gastroesophageal varices type 2,GOV2)与孤立性胃静脉曲张1型(isolated gastric varices type 1,IGV1)患者在临床特征、影像学表现的差异。

方法回顾性纳入2013年10月—2021年3月华中科技大学同济医学院附属协和医院收治的肝硬化合并胃底静脉曲张患者,收集并分析其临床及影像学资料。

结果共纳入患者210例,其中139例GOV2型,71例IGV1型。血常规结果显示患者中位血红蛋白降低,其中GOV2组较IGV1组更显著(91.00 g/L比112.00 g/L, P<0.05),GOV2组较IGV1组肝硬化门静脉高压性胃病发生率高[20.14%(28/139)比5.63%(4/71), P<0.05];而消化性溃疡发生率低[12.23%(17/139)比38.03%(27/71), P<0.05]。GOV2组门静脉主干中位直径大于IGV1组(15.09 mm比12.85 mm, P<0.05),胃底曲张静脉中位体积显著小于IGV1组(2.14 mL比10.00 mL, P<0.05)。GOV2组流入血管胃左静脉的构成比例高于IGV1组[98.43%(125/127)比77.78%(42/54), P<0.05]且胃左静脉中位直径较IGV1组更大(5.58 mm比4.53 mm, P<0.05);流出血管主要包括胃肾分流、脾肾分流,GOV2组与IGV1组相比,胃肾分流发生率[27.56%(35/127)比66.67%(36/54), P<0.05]与脾肾分流发生率[12.60%(16/127)比25.93%(14/54), P<0.05]均较低,而附脐静脉开放[38.58%(49/127)比12.96%(7/54), P<0.05]与腹膜后侧枝分流[30.71%(39/127)比11.11%(6/54), P<0.05]相对多见。

结论肝硬化合并GOV2型与IGV1型患者在临床特征和影像学表现方面存在显著异质性。充分认识和理解两型患者间差异,可为临床采取适宜的治疗措施提供依据,有益于改善患者预后。

肝硬化;胃底静脉曲张;胃肾分流;门静脉高压性胃病
ABSTRACT

ObjectiveTo investigate the differences in clinical features and imaging findings of cirrhotic patients with fundic varices between gastroesophageal varices type 2 (GOV2) and isolated fundic varices type 1 (IGV1).

MethodsClinical and imaging data of cirrhotic patients with fundic varices treated in Union Hospital, Tonji Medical Colloge, of Huazhong University of Science and Technology from October 2013 to March 2021 were retrospectively analyzed.

ResultsA total of 210 patients were enrolled, including 139 patients of GOV2 (GOV2 group) and 71 patients of IGV1 (IGV1 group). Blood routine examination results showed that the median value of hemoglobin in GOV2 group was lower than that in IGV1 group(91.00 g/L VS 112.00 g/L, P<0.05). The incidence of portal hypertensive gastropathy (PHG) in GOV2 group was higher than that in IGV1 group [20.14% (28/139) VS 5.63% (4/71), P<0.05]. The incidence of peptic ulcer was lower in GOV2 group than that in IGV1 group [12.23% (17/139) VS 38.03% (27/71), P<0.05]. The median diameter of portal veins in GOV2 group was larger than that in IGV1 group (15.09 mm VS 12.85 mm, P<0.05), and the volume of gastric fundus varices in GOV2 group was smaller than that in IGV1 group (2.14 mL VS 10.00 mL, P<0.05). The proportion of afferent veins in left gastric vein in GOV2 group was higher than that in IGV1 group [98.43% (125/127) VS 77.78% (42/54), P<0.05], and the median diameter of left gastric vein in GOV2 group was larger than that in IGV1 group (5.58 mm VS 4.53 mm, P<0.05). The efferent vessels mainly included gastrorenal shunt and splenorenal shunt. The incidences of gastrorenal shunt [27.56% (35/127) VS 66.67% (36/54)] and splenirenal shunt [12.60% (16/127) VS 25.93% (14/54)] in GOV2 group were lower than those in IGV1 group ( both P<0.05). The incidences of venae parumbilicales vein [38.58% (49/127) VS 12.96% (7/54)] and retroperitoneal collateral shunt [30.71% (39/127) VS 11.11% (6/54)] in GOV2 group were higher than those in IGV1 group (both P<0.05).

ConclusionThere is significant heterogeneity in clinical features and imaging findings between cirrhotic patients complicated with GOV2 and IGV1. Recognizing and understanding the differences between the two types of patients is beneficial to taking appropriate clinical measures and improving patient prognosis.

Liver cirrhosis;Gastric fundic varices;Gastrorenal shunt;Portal hypertensive gastropathy
Li Xin, Email: mocdef.3ab614102yrswxl
引用本文

司可可,向红雨,王泽慧,等. 肝硬化食管胃底静脉曲张2型与孤立性胃静脉曲张1型的临床和影像学差异[J]. 中华消化内镜杂志,2022,39(09):725-730.

DOI:10.3760/cma.j.cn321463-20211018-00502

PERMISSIONS

Request permissions for this article from CCC.

评价本文
*以上评分为匿名评价
肝硬化门静脉高压引起的胃静脉曲张包括食管胃底静脉曲张(gastroesophageal varices,GOV)和孤立性胃静脉曲张(isolated gastric varices,IGV) 1。Sarin分类法 2 中GOV包括 2种亚型,GOV1为食管静脉曲张为主,向下沿胃小弯延伸,其预防及治疗措施与食管静脉曲张相一致;GOV2为食管静脉曲张经食管胃交界处延伸至胃底。IGV也包括2种亚型,IGV1为孤立的曲张静脉位于胃底;IGV2为曲张静脉位于胃体、胃窦或幽门处。临床上以胃底静脉曲张为主要表现的GOV2与IGV1型静脉曲张相对少见,但胃底静脉曲张一旦出血,常更严重,且对药物和内镜治疗的反应差,往往伴随更高的死亡率。国内外有关肝硬化合并GOV2及IGV1两种亚型间差异研究甚少,本研究通过回顾性分析以胃底静脉曲张为主要特征的肝硬化门静脉高压患者资料,研究GOV2及IGV1两种亚型间内镜与临床表现、影像学特征中的差异,为临床诊疗工作提供帮助。
试读结束,您可以通过登录机构账户或个人账户后获取全文阅读权限。
参考文献
[1]
Lee EW , Shahrouki P , Alanis L ,et al. Management options for gastric variceal hemorrhage[J]. JAMA Surg, 2019,154(6):540-548. DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2019.0407 .
返回引文位置Google Scholar
百度学术
万方数据
[2]
Henry Z , Uppal D , Saad W ,et al. Gastric and ectopic varices[J]. Clin Liver Dis, 2014,18(2):371-388. DOI: 10.1016/j.cld.2014.01.002 .
返回引文位置Google Scholar
百度学术
万方数据
[3]
Kovacs T , Jensen DM . Varices: esophageal, gastric, and rectal[J]. Clin Liver Dis, 2019,23(4):625-642. DOI: 10.1016/j.cld.2019.07.005 .
返回引文位置Google Scholar
百度学术
万方数据
[4]
Jakab SS , Garcia-Tsao G . Evaluation and management of esophageal and gastric varices in patients with cirrhosis[J]. Clin Liver Dis, 2020,24(3):335-350. DOI: 10.1016/j.cld.2020.04.011 .
返回引文位置Google Scholar
百度学术
万方数据
[5]
Stine JG , Niccum BA , Zimmet AN ,et al. Increased risk of venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients with cirrhosis due to non-alcoholic steatohepatitis[J]. Clin Transl Gastroenterol, 2018,9(3):140. DOI: 10.1038/s41424-018-0002-y .
返回引文位置Google Scholar
百度学术
万方数据
[6]
中华医学会消化病学分会肝胆疾病学组. 肝硬化门静脉血栓管理专家共识(2020年,上海)[J]. 中华肝脏病杂志, 2020,28(12):999-1007. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501113-20201112-00612 .
返回引文位置Google Scholar
百度学术
万方数据
[7]
Zeng XQ , Li N , Ma LL ,et al. Endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection with lauromacrogol for gastric varices: long-term outcomes and predictors in a retrospective cohort study[J]. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A, 2019,29(9):1135-1143. DOI: 10.1089/lap.2019.0360 .
返回引文位置Google Scholar
百度学术
万方数据
[8]
Sharma M , Rameshbabu CS . Collateral pathways in portal hypertension[J]. J Clin Exp Hepatol, 2012,2(4):338-352. DOI: 10.1016/j.jceh.2012.08.001 .
返回引文位置Google Scholar
百度学术
万方数据
[9]
Bang CS , Kim HS , Suk KT ,et al. Portal hypertensive gastropathy as a prognostic index in patients with liver cirrhosis[J]. BMC Gastroenterol, 2016,16(1):93. DOI: 10.1186/s12876-016-0508-2 .
返回引文位置Google Scholar
百度学术
万方数据
[10]
Panés J , Bordas JM , Piqué JM ,et al. Increased gastric mucosal perfusion in cirrhotic patients with portal hypertensive gastropathy[J]. Gastroenterology, 1992,103(6):1875-1882. DOI: 10.1016/0016-5085(92)91447-c .
返回引文位置Google Scholar
百度学术
万方数据
[11]
Kitano S , Dolgor B . Does portal hypertension contribute to the pathogenesis of gastric ulcer associated with liver cirrhosis?[J]. J Gastroenterol, 2000,35(2):79-86. DOI: 10.1007/s005350050018 .
返回引文位置Google Scholar
百度学术
万方数据
[12]
Rockey DC . An update: portal hypertensive gastropathy and colopathy[J]. Clin Liver Dis, 2019,23(4):643-658. DOI: 10.1016/j.cld.2019.07.002 .
返回引文位置Google Scholar
百度学术
万方数据
[13]
Zhao LQ , He W , Ji M ,et al. 64-row multidetector computed tomography portal venography of gastric variceal collateral circulation[J]. World J Gastroenterol, 2010,16(8):1003-1007. DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v16.i8.1003 .
返回引文位置Google Scholar
百度学术
万方数据
[14]
Maruyama H , Kobayashi K , Kiyono S ,et al. Left gastric vein-based noninvasive test for esophageal varices: a same- day comparison of portal hemodynamic assessment with endoscopic appearance[J]. Clin Transl Gastroenterol, 2018,9(5):154. DOI: 10.1038/s41424-018-0021-8 .
返回引文位置Google Scholar
百度学术
万方数据
[15]
Moubarak E , Bouvier A , Boursier J ,et al. Portosystemic collateral vessels in liver cirrhosis: a three-dimensional MDCT pictorial review[J]. Abdom Imaging, 2012,37(5):746-766. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-011-9811-0 .
返回引文位置Google Scholar
百度学术
万方数据
[16]
Saad WE , Sabri SS . Balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO): technical results and outcomes[J]. Semin Intervent Radiol, 2011,28(3):333-338. DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1284460 .
返回引文位置Google Scholar
百度学术
万方数据
[17]
Nardelli S , Riggio O , Gioia S ,et al. Spontaneous porto- systemic shunts in liver cirrhosis: clinical and therapeutical aspects[J]. World J Gastroenterol, 2020,26(15):1726-1732. DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v26.i15.1726 .
返回引文位置Google Scholar
百度学术
万方数据
[18]
Kondo T , Maruyama H , Sekimoto T ,et al. Influence of paraumbilical vein patency on the portal hemodynamics of patients with cirrhosis[J]. J Clin Gastroenterol, 2014,48(2):178-183. DOI: 10.1097/MCG.0b013e3182a46d84 .
返回引文位置Google Scholar
百度学术
万方数据
备注信息
A
李欣,Email: mocdef.3ab614102yrswxl
B

司可可:数据采集与分析、论文撰写;向红雨:数据分析;王泽慧:数据采集;宋宇虎:研究设计、论文审阅;李欣:数据分析与解释、技术支持、论文审阅

C

司可可, 向红雨, 王泽慧, 等. 肝硬化食管胃底静脉曲张2型与孤立性胃静脉曲张1型的临床和影像学差异[J]. 中华消化内镜杂志, 2022, 39(9): 725-730. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn321463-20211018-00502.

D
所有作者声明不存在利益冲突
E
国家自然科学基金 (82070631)
评论 (0条)
注册
登录
时间排序
暂无评论,发表第一条评论抢沙发
MedAI助手(体验版)
文档即答
智问智答
机器翻译
回答内容由人工智能生成,我社无法保证其准确性和完整性,该生成内容不代表我们的态度或观点,仅供参考。
生成快照
文献快照

你好,我可以帮助您更好的了解本文,请向我提问您关注的问题。

0/2000

《中华医学会杂志社用户协议》 | 《隐私政策》

《SparkDesk 用户协议》 | 《SparkDesk 隐私政策》

网信算备340104764864601230055号 | 网信算备340104726288401230013号

技术支持:

历史对话
本文全部
还没有聊天记录
设置
模式
纯净模式沉浸模式
字号