Liver Vein Deprivation versus Portal Vein Embolization: Retrospective Review of Safety and Effectiveness.

IF 2.6 3区医学 Q2 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE

Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology Pub Date : 2024-10-09 DOI:10.1016/j.jvir.2024.09.025

Sameer Gadani, Jirapa Chansangrat, Baljendra Kapoor, Aaron McBride, Sasan Partovi, Nancy Obuchowski, David Choon Hyuck Kwon, Federico Aucejo, Abraham Levitin

{"title":"Liver Vein Deprivation versus Portal Vein Embolization: Retrospective Review of Safety and Effectiveness.","authors":"Sameer Gadani, Jirapa Chansangrat, Baljendra Kapoor, Aaron McBride, Sasan Partovi, Nancy Obuchowski, David Choon Hyuck Kwon, Federico Aucejo, Abraham Levitin","doi":"10.1016/j.jvir.2024.09.025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: To compare the safety and effectiveness of liver vein deprivation (LVD) and portal vein embolization (PVE) in patients scheduled to undergo liver resection.Materials and methods: This retrospective cohort study included 59 patients who underwent either PVE (n = 28) or LVD (n = 31) in preparation for liver resection. The primary outcome was percent change in future liver remnant volume (FLRV). The secondary endpoints were degree of hypertrophy (DH) and kinetic growth rate (KGR).Results: Low baseline FLRV and time interval in days between the procedure and follow-up imaging (Ti) positively impacted the primary and secondary endpoints in both groups. Percent change in FLRV was higher in the LVD group (52.8% ± 5.3) than in the PVE group (22.3% ± 3.0, P < .001). DH was also higher in the LVD group (15.4% ± 1.7) than in the PVE group (6.4% ± 0.9, P < .001). KGR did not differ significantly between groups (LVD, 0.54%/d ± 0.06; PVE, 0.35%/d ± 0.1; P = .239). When patients with a baseline standardized FLRV of >35% were excluded from the analysis, the LVD group demonstrated higher values than the PVE group in KGR (0.57%/d ± 0.06 vs 0.29%/d ± 0.05, P < .001), percent change in FLRV (64.2% ± 6.0 vs 25.9% ± 4.3, P < .001), and DH (15.4% ± 1.4 vs 6.6% ± 1.0, P < .001). No adverse events were noted in either group.Conclusions: LVD appears to be safe and may be superior to PVE in inducing hypertrophy of future liver remnant in patients scheduled to undergo surgical resection.","PeriodicalId":49962,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2024.09.025","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the safety and effectiveness of liver vein deprivation (LVD) and portal vein embolization (PVE) in patients scheduled to undergo liver resection.

Materials and methods: This retrospective cohort study included 59 patients who underwent either PVE (n = 28) or LVD (n = 31) in preparation for liver resection. The primary outcome was percent change in future liver remnant volume (FLRV). The secondary endpoints were degree of hypertrophy (DH) and kinetic growth rate (KGR).

Results: Low baseline FLRV and time interval in days between the procedure and follow-up imaging (Ti) positively impacted the primary and secondary endpoints in both groups. Percent change in FLRV was higher in the LVD group (52.8% ± 5.3) than in the PVE group (22.3% ± 3.0, P < .001). DH was also higher in the LVD group (15.4% ± 1.7) than in the PVE group (6.4% ± 0.9, P < .001). KGR did not differ significantly between groups (LVD, 0.54%/d ± 0.06; PVE, 0.35%/d ± 0.1; P = .239). When patients with a baseline standardized FLRV of >35% were excluded from the analysis, the LVD group demonstrated higher values than the PVE group in KGR (0.57%/d ± 0.06 vs 0.29%/d ± 0.05, P < .001), percent change in FLRV (64.2% ± 6.0 vs 25.9% ± 4.3, P < .001), and DH (15.4% ± 1.4 vs 6.6% ± 1.0, P < .001). No adverse events were noted in either group.

Conclusions: LVD appears to be safe and may be superior to PVE in inducing hypertrophy of future liver remnant in patients scheduled to undergo surgical resection.

查看原文本刊更多论文

肝静脉剥夺术与门静脉栓塞术：安全性和有效性的回顾性研究。

目的：比较肝静脉切除术（LVD）和门静脉栓塞术（PVE）对计划接受肝切除术的患者的安全性和有效性：这项回顾性队列研究纳入了59名接受PVE（28人）或LVD（31人）以准备肝切除术的患者。主要结果是未来肝脏残余体积（FLRV）的百分比变化。次要终点是肥厚程度（DH）和动力学生长率（KGR）：结果：基线FLRV较低、手术与随访成像之间的时间间隔（天数）对两组的主要和次要终点均有积极影响。LVD组的FLRV变化百分比（52.8%±5.3%）高于PVE组（22.3%±3.0%；P 35%未纳入分析），LVD组的KGR值高于PVE组（0.57%/d±0.06%/d vs 0.29%/d ±0.05%/d；P 结论：LVD似乎是一种安全的治疗方法：对于计划接受手术切除的患者，LVD似乎是安全的，而且在诱导FLR肥大方面可能优于PVE。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology 医学-核医学

CiteScore

4.30

自引率

10.30%

发文量

942

审稿时长

90 days

期刊介绍： JVIR, published continuously since 1990, is an international, monthly peer-reviewed interventional radiology journal. As the official journal of the Society of Interventional Radiology, JVIR is the peer-reviewed journal of choice for interventional radiologists, radiologists, cardiologists, vascular surgeons, neurosurgeons, and other clinicians who seek current and reliable information on every aspect of vascular and interventional radiology. Each issue of JVIR covers critical and cutting-edge medical minimally invasive, clinical, basic research, radiological, pathological, and socioeconomic issues of importance to the field.