6533b7cffe1ef96bd1259999

RESEARCH PRODUCT

Circulatory response to volume expansion and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in refractory ascites: Relationship with diastolic dysfunction

Daniela FilìRoberto MiragliaCalogero FallettaGiovanni VizziniFrancesco ClemenzaBruno GridelliJaime BoschFabio TuzzolinoCesare ScardullaCesar Mario Hernandez BaravogliaAngelo Luca

subject

AdultLiver CirrhosisMaleCardiac Catheterizationmedicine.medical_specialtymedicine.medical_treatmentCardiac indexDiastoleElectrocardiographyInternal medicineNatriuretic Peptide BrainmedicineHumansProspective StudiesPulmonary wedge pressureAgedCardiac catheterizationHeart Failure DiastolicHepatologybusiness.industryHemodynamicsGastroenterologyAscitesMiddle Agedmedicine.diseasePeptide Fragmentsmedicine.anatomical_structureEchocardiographySpainHeart failureHeart catheterizationVascular resistanceCardiologyFemaleVascular ResistancePortasystemic Shunt Transjugular IntrahepaticbusinessTransjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt

description

Abstract Background Cirrhotic cardiomyopathy may lead to heart failure in stressful circumstances, such as after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) placement. Aim To examine whether acute volume expansion predicts haemodynamic changes after TIPS and elicits signs of impending heart failure. Methods We prospectively evaluated refractory ascites patients (group A) and compensated cirrhotics (group B), who underwent echocardiography, NT-proBNP measurement, and heart catheterization before and after volume load; group A repeated measurements after TIPS. Results 15 patients in group A (80% male; 54 ± 12.4 years) and 8 in group B (100% male; 56 ± 6.2 years) were enrolled. Echocardiography disclosed diastolic dysfunction in 30% and 12.5%, respectively. In group A, volume load and TIPS induced a significant increase in right atrial, mean pulmonary, capillary wedge pressure and cardiac index, and a decrease in systemic vascular resistance (respectively, 4.7 ± 2.8 vs. 9.9 ± 3.6 mmHg; 13.3 ± 3.5 vs. 21.9 ± 5.9 mmHg; 8.3 ± 3.4 vs. 15.4 ± 4.7 mmHg; 3.7 ± 0.7 vs. 4.6 ± 1 lt/min/m 2 ; 961 ± 278 vs. 767 ± 285 dyn s cm −5 ; and 10.1 ± 3.3 vs. 14.2 ± 3.4 mmHg; 17.5 ± 4 vs. 25.2 ± 4.2 mmHg; 12.3 ± 4 vs. 19.3 ± 3.4 mmHg; 3.4 ± 0.8 vs. 4.5 ± 0.91 lt/min/m 2 ; 779 ± 62 vs. 596 ± 199 dyn s cm −5 , p Conclusions Acute volume expansion predicted haemodynamic changes immediately after TIPS. All patients had adequate haemodynamic adaptation to TIPS; none developed signs of heart failure.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dld.2015.08.014