Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2010 Nov;76(2):239-45.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.06.011. Epub 2009 Jul 14.

Evaluation of portosystemic collaterals by MDCT-MPR imaging for management of hemorrhagic esophageal varices

Affiliations

Evaluation of portosystemic collaterals by MDCT-MPR imaging for management of hemorrhagic esophageal varices

Hideaki Kodama et al. Eur J Radiol. 2010 Nov.

Abstract

Objective: To study the correlation between changes in portosystemic collaterals, evaluated by multidetector-row computed tomography imaging using multiplanar reconstruction (MDCT-MPR), and prognosis in patients with hemorrhagic esophageal varices (EV) after endoscopic treatment.

Methods: Forty-nine patients with primary hemostasis for variceal bleeding received radical endoscopic treatment: endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS) or endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL). Patients were classified according to the rate of reduction in feeding vessel diameter on MDCT-MPR images, into the narrowing (n=24) and no-change (n=25) groups. We evaluated changes in portosystemic collaterals by MDCT-MPR before and after treatment, and determined rebleeding and survival rates.

Results: The left gastric and paraesophageal (PEV) veins were recognized as portosystemic collaterals in 100 and 80%, respectively, of patients with EV on MDCT-MPR images. The rebleeding rates at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years after endoscopic treatment were 10, 15, 23, and 23%, respectively, for the narrowing group, and 17, 24, 35, and 67%, respectively, for the no-change group (P=0.068). Among no-change group, the rebleeding rate in patients with large PEV was significantly lower than that with small PEV (P=0.027). The rebleeding rate in patients with small PEV of the no-change group was significantly higher than that in the narrowing group (P=0.018). There was no significant difference in rebleeding rates between the no-change group with a large PEV and narrowing group (P=0.435).

Conclusion: Changes in portosystemic collaterals evaluated by MDCT-MPR imaging correlate with rebleeding rate. Evaluation of portosystemic collaterals in this manner would provide useful information for the management of hemorrhagic EV.

PubMed Disclaimer

MeSH terms