Loading…

Impact of spontaneous splenorenal shunt on liver volume and long‐term survival of liver cirrhosis

Background and Aim Spontaneous splenorenal shunt (SSRS) is one of the manifestations of portal hypertension in liver cirrhosis. However, the impact of SSRS on long‐term survival of cirrhotic patients remains unclear. We hypothesize that SSRS may worsen liver dysfunction and deteriorate prognosis in...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology 2021-06, Vol.36 (6), p.1694-1702
Main Authors: Yi, Fangfang, Guo, Xiaozhong, Wang, Le, Xu, Xiangbo, An, Yang, Tang, Yufu, Zhang, Wenwen, Tacke, Frank, Arora, Ankur, Qi, Xingshun
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background and Aim Spontaneous splenorenal shunt (SSRS) is one of the manifestations of portal hypertension in liver cirrhosis. However, the impact of SSRS on long‐term survival of cirrhotic patients remains unclear. We hypothesize that SSRS may worsen liver dysfunction and deteriorate prognosis in liver cirrhosis by decreasing hepatic perfusion. Methods Patients with liver cirrhosis who were admitted to our department between December 2014 and August 2019 and underwent contrast‐enhanced computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging scans were prospectively collected. The maximum diameters of SSRS and portal vein system vessels were retrospectively measured. Liver‐to‐abdominal area ratio, Child–Pugh, and model for end‐stage liver disease scores were calculated. Results Overall, 122 cirrhotic patients were included. The prevalence of SSRS was 30.3% (37/122). Median diameter of SSRS was 13.5 mm. Patients with SSRS had significantly thinner diameters of right portal vein (9 mm vs 11.2 mm, P = 0.001) and main portal vein (15.3 mm vs 16.8 mm, P = 0.017) than those without SSRS. Patients with SSRS had significantly lower liver‐to‐abdominal area ratio score (25.39 vs 31.58, P 
ISSN:0815-9319
1440-1746
DOI:10.1111/jgh.15386