Hemodynamic changes in portal circulation after portosystemic shunts: use of duplex sonography in 43 patients

Forty-five patients with 46 surgical portosystemic shunts were examined by duplex Doppler sonography, and the results were compared with those of esophageal endoscopy, angiography, surgery, and clinical follow-up. Thirty-eight shunts were patent, and in 33 of these, the shunt was directly visualized and flow was observed with Doppler sonography. Eight shunts were obstructed. After a successful portosystemic shunt procedure, flow in the shunted splanchnic vein was directed toward the shunt and the systemic vein. We studied the intrahepatic portal venous circulation in all of the patients; we found that in the presence of patent portosystemic shunt, portal flow is hepatofugal. This reversal of blood flow occurred in all but four patients. In the end-to-side portacaval shunt, where the portal vein is ligated, blood in intrahepatic portal branches presumably reaches the shunt through perihepatic collaterals. In the presence of a thrombosed shunt, intrahepatic portal venous flow was hepatopetal. To our knowledge, this is the first noninvasive in vivo study of intrahepatic portal circulation after portosystemic shunt surgery. The duplex Doppler evaluation of portosystemic shunts appears to be reliable and should be the method of choice for shunt patency assessment in patients with recurrent signs of portal hypertension. In addition to demonstrating flow at the site of the anastomosis, the Doppler study may yield an easy and reliable sign of shunt patency: reversed flow (hepatofugal flow) in the intrahepatic portal veins probably signals a patent shunt, even if the site of the anastomosis cannot be visualized directly by sonography.
CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. H. Wachsberg, P. Bahramipour, C. T. Sofocleous, and A. Barone Hepatofugal Flow in the Portal Venous System: Pathophysiology, Imaging Findings, and Diagnostic Pitfalls RadioGraphics, January 1, 2002; 22(1): 123 - 140. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]