Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 30, 2025

Measurement of the Hepatic Venous Pressure Gradient and Transjugular Liver Biopsy
Published on: June 18, 2020
[Study on the correlation between PPG and HVPG in patients with portal hypertension]
1Department of Interventional Therapy, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100038, China.
Abstract:
Objective: To explore the correlation between portal vein pressure gradient (PPG) and hepatic vein pressure gradient (HVPG) in patients with portal hypertension (PHT). Methods: 752 cases with portal hypertension (PHT) who underwent transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) and met the enrollment criteria between January 2016 to December 2019 were analyzed for hepatic vein, inferior vena cava and portal vein pressure. Paired t-test was used for analysis. Pearson correlation test was used to estimate correlation coefficient and coefficient of determination. P<0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: Wedged hepatic vein pressure (WHVP), portal vein pressure (PVP), correlation coefficient, and coefficient of determination were 27.98±8.95 mmHg, 33.85±7.33 mmHg, 0.329 (P<0.001), and 0.108, respectively. HVPG, PPG,correlation coefficient, and coefficient of determination were 16.84±7.97 mmHg, 25.11±6.95 mmHg (P<0.001), 0.145, and 0.021 (P<0.001), respectively. The difference between HVPG and PPG was greater than 5 mmHg in 524 cases, accounting for 69.7%. The difference between HVPG and PPG was within 5 mmHg or basically equal in 228 cases, accounting for 30.3%. The correlation coefficient between free hepatic venous pressure (FHVP) and inferior vena cava pressure (IVCP) was 0.568 (P<0.001), and the coefficient of determination was 0.323. According to the presence or absence of hepatic venous collaterals after balloon occluded hepatic angiography, they were divided into two groups: 157 (20.9%) cases in the group with hepatic venous collaterals, and 595 (79.1%) cases in the group without hepatic venous collaterals. The parameters of the two groups were compared: WHVP (15.73±3.63) mmHg vs. (31.22±6.90) mmHg, P<0.001; PVP (31.69±8.70) mmHg vs. (34.42±6.81) mmHg, P<0.001; HVPG (7.18±4.40) mmHg vs. (19.40±6.62) mmHg, P<0.001; PPG (24.24±8.11) mmHg vs. (25.34±6.60) mmHg, P<0.001; free hepatic venous pressure (FHVP) (8.58±3.37) mmHg vs. (11.82±5.07) mmHg , P<0.001; inferior vena cava pressure (IVCP) (7.45±3.29) mmHg vs. (9.09±4.14) mmHg, P<0.001. Conclusion: The overall correlation is poor between HVPG and PPG. HVPG of most patients is not an accurate representation of PPG, and the former is lower than the latter. Hepatic venous collateral formation is one of the important reasons for the serious underestimation of HVPG values.
More Related Videos
09:37Invasive Hemodynamic Characterization of the Portal-hypertensive Syndrome in Cirrhotic Rats
Published on: August 1, 2018
06:20Contrast-Enhanced Subharmonic Aided Pressure Estimation SHAPE Using Ultrasound Imaging with a Focus on Identifying Portal Hypertension
Published on: December 5, 2020
Related Concept Videos
Hepatic Portal System
At its core, the hepatic portal vein is the result of a confluence of the superior and inferior mesenteric veins along with the splenic vein. Each of these veins has a unique role. The superior mesenteric vein is...
Esophageal Varices-II: Clinical Features and Management
In the initial assessment, a thorough review of the patient's medical history is vital to identify risk factors such as liver disease, alcohol...
Peptic Ulcer Disease III: Clinical Manifestations and Diagnostic Studies
Few clinical manifestations differentiate gastric ulcers from duodenal ulcers. Distinctions in the location, timing, and pain relief are crucial for healthcare providers in differentiating between gastric and duodenal ulcers during clinical assessments.
Hypertension III: Clinical Manifestations and Diagnostic Studies
Esophageal Varices-I: Introduction