View clinical trials related to Portal Hypertension.
Filter by:Exploring and establishing new non-invasive risk stratification techniques for portal hypertension based on E imaging technology for measuring liver and spleen stiffness is an urgent need in this field of research.
The objective of this study is to assess the non-inferiority of the intraparenchymal portal vein covered stent in terms of safety and efficacy for managing portal hypertension and its related complications, in comparison to the currently available TIPS Covered Stent System by GORE.
The objective of this observational study is to investigate and validate the utility of the Sound Touch Viscoelastography(STVi) technique in patients with liver cirrhosis for noninvasive prediction of Portal hypertension (PH). The primary research questions it seeks to address are as follows: - What is the correlation between the liver STVi index and Portal Venous Pressure Gradient (HVPG)? - Is STVi an available tool to non-invasively predict PH in patients with liver cirrhosis? And the effectiveness and practicality of STVi will be validated. - To establish a predictive model for Clinically Significant Portal Hypertension (CSPH) utilizing liver STVi index as the primary indicator. The HVPG is considered as the gold standard in our study and STVi was employed to quantify the STVi index of the liver in patients with liver cirrhosis. Researchers will compare the two patients groups, HVPG≥10 mmHg and HVPG<10 mmHg, to see the usage of STVi in the noninvasive prediction of PH.
The prevalence of gastric varices is approximately 20%. It is important to note that gastric varices tend to bleed more severely, have a higher morbidity and mortality rate, and have a 35% to 90% risk of rebleeding after the cessation of acute hemorrhage. Because of the relatively low prevalence of gastric varices, the existing clinical studies have many deficiencies, and there is much controversy in the academic community, the optimal treatment and prevention strategies for gastric varices have not yet been fully defined. In the last few years, important advances have been made in the treatment and prevention of gastric variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis. Experts agree that the combination of pharmacological and endoscopic injection of tissue adhesives should be the first line of therapy in the acute bleeding episode from isolated gastric varices (IGV1) or type 2 gastroesophageal varices (GOV2) varices; whereas transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is considered a rescue therapy. TIPS has been shown to effectively prevent variceal rebleeding but with a potential increase in the incidence of hepatic encephalopathy and/or liver failure. In this sense, a recent randomized controlled trial (RCT) in fundal variceal bleeding showed that an early TIPS, performed during the first 5 days after patient admission resulted in a significant decrease in failure to control bleeding and early and late rebleeding. However, the study was conducted for 4 years and only included 25 patients. Due to insufficient sample size, it was unable to reflect whether priority TIPS can bring survival benefits to patients with gastric variceal bleeding. Therefore, there is an urgent need for multi-center clinical studies with large samples to provide high-quality evidence in the field of prioritizing TIPS for the treatment of acute gastric variceal bleeding. The present study aims to compare the preemptive TIPS (performed during the first 72 hours after endoscopy) with standard second prophylaxis (endoscopic injection of tissue adhesives plus carvedilol) for patients with acute bleeding from gastric varices (IGV1 or GOV2). The primary outcome will be a 6-week mortality from inclusion.
Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) can lead to a further increase in portal venous pressure and increase the risk of rebleeding. Whether patients with acute esophagogastric variceal bleeding with occlusive PVT benefit from preemptive TIPS is still controversial. The present study is directed at comparing the outcome of patients with acute variceal bleeding with occlusive PVT treated by standard therapy (vasoactive drugs + endoscopic variceal ligation) with or without preemptive TIPS (performed during the first 1-3 days after endoscopic procedure). The primary outcome is survival free of variceal rebleeding at 6 weeks from inclusion.
The objective of the study is to collect and evaluate clinical data on patients of the Lifetech Cera™ Vascular Plug System to: - confirm the performance - confirm the safety - identify previously unknown side-effects - monitor the identified side-effects (related to the procedures or to the medical devices) - identify and analyse emergent risks
Portal hypertension is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in children with chronic liver disease and portal vein obstruction. It results in severe complications such as ascites, hepatic encephalopathy and gastrointestinal variceal bleeding. (Sutton et. al., 2018). Esophageal varices is an important manifestation of portal hypertension that develops over time in children with chronic liver disease. The risk of esophageal varices hemorrhage increases depending on the underlying disease as well as the duration of the disease and the mortality rate as high as 5% - 20 % during patient follow up. Invasive procedures such as gastroscopy are performed repeatedly to detect the presence and progression of esophageal varices. Many non-invasive methods have been investigated to their efficacy in determining the presence of esophageal varices and the risk of complications in the presence of portal hypertension. (Taşkın et.al., 2023). Early diagnosis of portal hypertension is often difficult as it can be asymptomatic. During this stage, the patient may feel nothing except for mild fatigue or abdominal discomfort and therefore, patients mostly go undiagnosed (Hartl et.al., 2021). (Selicean et.al., 2021). However, it is worth noting that some of the results from medical investigation may be abnormal during this stage. These include abnormal liver function, abnormal routine blood examination (thrombocytopenia), and changes in the stiffness of the liver which can be found during ultrasound despite the patient being asymptomatic. ( Mohanty et al., 2021). Though the gold standard to diagnose portal hypertension is hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) and a value more than 10 mmHg defines clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH) ( Man Zhang et.al., 2022). Since HVPG measurement is scarcely available and invasive, several non-invasive tests are used as surrogate markers of CSPH. Amongst them, elastography techniques measuring liver stiffness (LS) and spleen stiffness (SS) are the extensively studied ones which can be done by elastography machines that can be attached to conventional ultrasound (USG) machines . Amongst them, 2D-shear wave elastography (2D-SWE) is the most recent one, and it assesses stiffness and related parameters by tracking shear waves propagated through a media. (Sattanathan et.al., 2023).
Porto-sinusoidal vascular disorder (PSVD) is considered a rare cause of portal hypertension (PH), resulting from specific histological alterations that essentially affect the small portal branches and sinusoids, in the absence of cirrhosis. In recent years, the recognition and importance of PSVD has increased, notably due to the widespread use of transient elastography (TE). However, the definitive diagnosis of PSVD can only be established through liver biopsy. Recent data show that PSVD should be suspected in patients with PH and TE ≤ 20 kPa and liver biopsy should be considered in this context. The investigators hypothesize that hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) and magnetic resonance liver elastography (MRE) may help in the selection of liver biopsy candidates for the diagnosis of PSVD. The primary objective of the study is to describe HVPG and MRE values and liver biopsy findings in patients with PH and TE ≤ 20 kPa. The search for serum markers that can distinguish these patients from those with cirrhotic portal hypertension without the need for liver biopsy will also be the object of this study. 50 patients will be included, prospectively and retrospectively, in a comparative study between diagnostic methods, with a cross-sectional design.
This randomized controlled trial was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of carvedilol versus propranolol, combined with routine endoscopic treatment, in the secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis.
The aim of this study is to explore whether using endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) to assess gastric varices (GV) and giving additional treatment according to the diameter and blood flow of residual after endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection for GV can reduce the rate of GV rebleeding, mortality, the risk of adverse events, and cost-effectiveness. This study is a multicenter prospective, open-label, randomized controlled study, including 5 study centers: Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, The Southwest Hospital of Army Medical University, Affiliated Hospital of Zunyi Medical University and Shanxi Coal Center Hospital. The total sample size is 150 patients, with 75 patients in the EUS evaluation group and 75 patients in the control group, respectively. The patients who meet the inclusion and exclusion criteria are randomly assigned to EUS evaluation group and control group by using block randomization. The EUS evaluation group uses EUS to observe the diameter and blood flow of residual variceal veins after endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection for GV to evaluate the embolization effect. Endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection is performed again if the diameter of variceal vein is larger than 5 mm and with blood flow signal. After the injection, the blood flow signal is confirmed disappear by EUS. The control group return to the ward after endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection, without EUS evaluation. During the study, the patients are followed up for at least 12 months, and they are requested to return to the hospital for follow-up at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months after the treatment, respectively. The data of baseline, treatment, postoperative and follow-up of the two groups are need to collect. The primary outcome of this study is rebleeding rate. Secondary outcomes are eradication rate of GV, mortality rate, retreatment, and cost-effectiveness.