UNASSIGNED: EUS-guided portal pressure gradient (PPG) is a novel technique that permits a true, direct measure of portal vein pressure and hepatic vein pressure. This article details our experience and lessons learned from 20 consecutive outpatient EUS-PPG procedures performed at a single center, along with simultaneous EUS-guided liver biopsy, variceal screening, and variceal banding.
UNASSIGNED: Data on the first 20 patients who underwent EUS-PPG at a single center were retrospectively viewed and analyzed. The effects of various liver diseases or other patient-related factors on the clinical and technical success of EUS-PPG measurements, as well as EUS-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB), were evaluated. During the procedure, if esophageal varices were encountered, they were assessed, and if felt to be clinically indicated, endoscopic variceal ligation was performed.
UNASSIGNED: The 20 patients included 10 male and 10 female patients. All procedures were technically successful. In all patients, the portal vein and hepatic veins could be easily identified. One adverse event of bleeding occurred during the EUS-PPG measuring procedure. All 20 EUS-LBs were technically successful and yielded adequate samples for histological evaluations, with an average of 25 complete portal tracts per sample. Among patients with esophageal varices, 40% of patients underwent banding. The mean EUS-PPG among 5 patients with esophageal varices was 11.6 mm Hg, compared with 3.2 mm Hg among 15 patients without esophageal varices.
UNASSIGNED: This study demonstrates that EUS-PPG is a novel, safe, reproducible, and effective technique. Also, the fact that EUS-PPG, EUS-LB, variceal screening, and variceal banding could be performed in 1 session and on an outpatient basis speaks to the growing relevance and impact of the nascent field of endohepatology.

UNASSIGNED: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided portal pressure gradient measurement (EUS-PPG) is a new modality where the portal pressure is measured by directly introducing a needle into the hepatic vein and portal vein. This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of EUS-PPG.
UNASSIGNED: A comprehensive literature search was performed to identify pertinent studies. The primary outcomes assessed were the technical and clinical success of EUS-PPG. Technical success was defined as successful introduction of the needle into the desired vessel, while clinical success was defined as the correlation of the stage of fibrosis on the liver biopsy to EUS-PPG, or concordance of HVPG and EUS-PPG. The secondary outcomes were pooled rates for total and individual adverse events related to EUS-PPG. Pooled estimates were calculated using random-effects models with a 95% confidence interval (CI).
UNASSIGNED: Eight cohort studies with a total of 178 patients were included in our analysis. The calculated pooled rates of technical success and clinical success were 94.6% (95%CI 88.5-97.6%; P=<0.001; I2=0) and 85.4% (95%CI 51.5-97.0%; P=0.042; I2=70), respectively. The rate of total adverse events was 10.9% (95%CI 6.5-17.7%; P=<0.001; I2=4), and 93.7% of them were mild, as defined by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Abdominal pain (11%) was the most common adverse event, followed by bleeding (3.6%). There were no cases of perforation or death reported in our study.
UNASSIGNED: EUS-PPG is a safe and effective modality for diagnosing portal hypertension. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to validate our findings.

This is a retrospective study focused on recompensation after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) procedure. The authors confirmed TIPS could be a treatment for recompensation of patients with cirrhosis according to Baveno VII. The paper identified age and post-TIPS portal pressure gradient as independent predictors of recompensation in patients with decompensated cirrhosis after TIPS. These results need to be validated in a larger prospective cohort.

Colonic varices typically occur in the setting of portal hypertension, and patients may present with rectal bleeding or occult anemia. Idiopathic colonic varices occur infrequently in the absence of cirrhosis and can involve the entire colon. We present a case of a 54-year-old Eastern European woman who had undergone diagnostic colonoscopy for newly diagnosed sigmoid adenocarcinoma and was incidentally found to have colonic varices with normal portal pressure gradients. Her 38-year-old daughter was found to have similar varices, raising concerns for hereditary etiology.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the correlation and agreement between hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) and portal pressure gradient (PPG) in patients with autoimmune liver diseases (ALD) and portal hypertension, and to investigate the extent to which hepatic vein collateralization affects the accuracy of this assessment.
METHODS: Ninety-eight patients with ALD between 2017 and 2021 who underwent transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt with conventional and innovative 15 mL pressurized contrast were selected to measure wedged hepatic venous pressure (WHVP) and portal venous pressure and to calculate the HVPG and PPG. Pearson\'s correlation was used for correlation analysis between the two groups. Bland-Altman plots were plotted to estimate the agreement between paired pressures.
RESULTS: The r values of PPG and HVPG in the early, middle, late, and portal venous visualization were 0.404, 0.789, 0.807, and 0.830, respectively, and the R2 values were 0.163, 0.622, 0.651, and 0.690, respectively. The p value for the r and R2 values in the early group was 0.015, and the p values in the remaining groups were less than 0.001. Bland-Altman plots showed that patients in the portal venous visualization group had the narrowest 95% limits of agreement. The mean value of the difference was close to the zero-scale line.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ALD, the correlation between the HVPG and PPG was good, and the later the collateral development, the better the correlation. Hepatic vein collateral was an essential factor in underestimating WHVP and HVPG, and the earlier the collateral appeared, the more obvious the underestimation.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has numerous advanced applications as a diagnostic and therapeutic modality in contemporary medicine. Through intraluminal placement, EUS offers a real-time Doppler-guided endoscopic visualization and access to intra-abdominal vasculature, which were previously inaccessible using historical methods. We aim to provide a comprehensive review of key studies on both current and future EUS-guided vascular applications. This review details EUS-based vascular diagnostic techniques of portal pressure measurements in the prognostication of liver disease and portal venous sampling for obtaining circulating tumor cells in the diagnosis of cancer. From an interventional perspective, we describe effective EUS-guided treatments via coiling and cyanoacrylate injections of gastric varices and visceral artery pseudoaneurysms. Specific attention is given to clinical studies on efficacy and procedural techniques described by investigators for each EUS-based application. We explore novel and future emerging EUS-based interventions, such as liver tumor ablation and intrahepatic portosystemic shunt placement.

BACKGROUND: The evidence in Portal pressure gradient (PPG) < 12 mmHg after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) for preventing rebleeding mostly comes from observations in uncovered stents era. Moreover, association between Child-Pugh classes and post-TIPS hepatic encephalopathy (HE) has indicated that tolerance of PPG reduction depends on liver function. This study aimed to investigate the optimal PPG for covered TIPS and explore the optimal threshold tailored to the Child-Pugh classes to find individualized PPG to balance rebleeding and overt HE.
METHODS: This multicenter retrospective study analyzed rebleeding, OHE, and mortality of patients associated with post-TIPS PPGs (8, 10, 12, and 14 mmHg) in the entire cohort and among different Child-Pugh classes. Propensity score matching (PSM) and competing risk analyses were performed for sensitivity analyses.
RESULTS: We included 2100 consecutively screened patients undergoing TIPS. In all patients, PPG < 12 mmHg reduced rebleeding after TIPS (p = 0.022). In Child-Pugh class A, none of the PPG thresholds were discriminative of clinical outcomes. In Child-Pugh class B, 12 mmHg (p = 0.022) and 14 mmHg (p = 0.037) discriminated rebleeding, but 12 mmHg showed a higher net benefit. In Child-Pugh class C, PPG < 14 mmHg had a lower rebleeding incidence (p = 0.017), and exhibited more net benefit than 12 mmHg.
CONCLUSIONS: Different PPG standards may be required for patients with different liver function categories. A PPG threshold < 12 mmHg might be suitable for patients in Child-Pugh class B, while < 14 mmHg might be optimal for patients in Child-Pugh class C.

Endoscopic ultrasound guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) has emerged as a minimally-invasive alternative to the traditional (percutaneous or transjugular) liver biopsy techniques for the diagnosis of liver parenchymal diseases. Po-tentially, EUS-LB combines the advantages of percutaneous and transjugular liver biopsy in addressing focused sampling in addition to measuring portal pressure. Additionally, EUS-LB facilitates access to both the lobes of the liver which is not considered with the traditional percutaneous liver biopsy. Multiple studies have compared EUS-LB with conventional liver biopsy and reported comparable diagnostic yield, increased acquisition of complete portal tracts, and longer specimen length as compared to the traditional approaches. EUS-LB is associated with lesser post-procedural pain and shorter recovery time, while providing lower risk of complications when compared to traditional liver biopsy. Innovations in needle types, needle sizes and suction techniques have aimed at further optimizing the EUS-LB technique. This review article updates current literature with focus on the variations in the technique and equipment used for EUS-LB, and compares EUS-LB with traditional methods of liver biopsy.

BACKGROUND: The liver is one of the most important organs in the human body, with functions such as detoxification, digestion, and blood coagulation. In terms of vascular anatomy, the liver is divided into the left and the right liver by the main portal vein, and there are three hepatic efferent veins (right, middle, and left) and two portal branches. Patients with impaired liver function have increased intrahepatic vascular resistance and splanchnic vasodilation, which may lead to an increase in the portal pressure gradient (PPG) and cause portal hypertension (PHT). In order to measure the increased pressure gradient of portal vein, the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) can be measured to reflect it in clinical practice. The accuracy of PPG measurements is directly related to patient prognosis.
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the correlation between HVPG of three hepatic veins and PPG in patients with PHT.
METHODS: From January 2017 to December 2019, 102 patients with PHT who met the inclusion criteria were evaluated during the transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt procedure and analyzed.
RESULTS: The mean HVPG of the middle hepatic vein was 17.47 ± 10.25 mmHg, and the mean HVPG of the right and left hepatic veins was 16.34 ± 7.60 and 16.52 ± 8.15 mmHg, respectively. The average PPG was 26.03 ± 9.24 mmHg. The correlation coefficient and coefficient of determination of the right hepatic vein, middle hepatic vein, and left hepatic vein were 0.15 and 0.02 (P = 0.164); 0.25 and 0.05 (P = 0.013); and 0.14 and 0.02 (P = 0.013), respectively. The mean wedged hepatic vein/venous pressure (WHVP) of the middle and left hepatic veins was similar at 29.71 ± 12.48 and 29.1 ± 10.91 mmHg, respectively, and the mean WHVP of the right hepatic vein was slightly lower at 28.01 ± 8.95 mmHg. The mean portal vein pressure was 34.11 ± 8.56 mmHg. The correlation coefficient and coefficient of determination of the right hepatic vein, middle hepatic vein, and left hepatic vein were 0.26 and 0.07 (P = 0.009); 0.38 and 0.15 (P < 0.001); and 0.26 and 0.07 (P = 0.008), respectively. The average free hepatic venous pressure (FHVP) of the right hepatic vein was lowest at 11.67 ± 5.34 mmHg, and the average FHVP of the middle and left hepatic veins was slightly higher at 12.19 ± 4.88 and 11.67 ± 5.34 mmHg, respectively. The average inferior vena cava pressure was 8.27 ± 4.04 mmHg. The correlation coefficient and coefficient of determination of the right hepatic vein, middle hepatic vein, and left hepatic vein were 0.30 and 0.09 (P = 0.002); 0.18 and 0.03 (P = 0.078); and 0.16 and 0.03 (P = 0.111), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Measurement of the middle hepatic vein HVPG could better represent PPG. Considering the high success rate of clinical measurement of the right hepatic vein, it can be the second choice.

Clinical and experimental advances related to the detection, magnitude and pathobiology of subclinical portal hypertension in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), primarily observed in the presence of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), prompt us to revisit current disease paradigms. Hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) has been reported to underestimate portal pressure in NASH-related cirrhosis, while inaccuracy is more likely in non-cirrhotic livers, indicating a potential need for new and preferably non-invasive methods of measurement. Although clinically significant portal hypertension (HVPG ≥10 mmHg) retains its prognostic significance in NASH, subclinical portal hypertension (HVPG 6.0-9.5 mmHg) has been repeatedly detected in patients with NAFLD in the absence of cirrhosis or even significant fibrosis whereas the impact of these findings on disease outcomes remains unclear. Mechanocrine signalling pathways in various types of liver cell reveal a molecular basis for the adverse effects of subclinical portal hypertension and suggest a bidirectional relationship between portal pressure and fibrosis. These findings may guide efforts to improve risk assessment and identify novel therapeutic targets in NAFLD.