Retrospective Cohort Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2025.
World J Gastroenterol. Mar 7, 2025; 31(9): 103068
Published online Mar 7, 2025. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v31.i9.103068
Table 1 Clinical baseline data sheet, n (%)
Variable
Statistics
Age, year, mean ± SD52.6 ± 13.0
Sex
    Male582 (66.36)
    Female295 (33.63)
Etiology
    HBV-related cirrhosis407 (46.41)
    Alcoholic cirrhosis156 (17.79)
    Autoimmune cirrhosis109 (12.43)
    Hepatic veno-occlusive disease79 (9.01)
    HCV-related cirrhosis46 (5.25)
    Cirrhosis of unknown cause29 (3.31)
    Drug-induced cirrhosis27 (3.08)
    Arteriovenous fistula and Wilson's disease, etc.13 (1.48)
    Idiopathic portal hypertension11 (1.25)
Clinical sign
    Gastrointestinal bleeding453 (51.7)
    Ascites189 (21.6)
    Gastrointestinal bleeding + ascites158 (18.0)
    Others (hepatorenal syndrome, hepatic congestion, etc.)77 (8.8)
Child-Pugh
    A354 (40.4)
    B443 (50.5)
    C80 (9.1)
Group
    Hepatic right vein-middle hepatic venous angiography group (group A)306 (34.9)
    Hepatic right vein-accessory hepatic venous angiography group (group B)219 (25.0)
    Hepatic right vein-portal venous angiography group (group C)177 (20.2)
    Hepatic right vein-nonangiography group (group D)175 (19.9)
Table 2 Comparison of the wedged hepatic venous pressure and portal venous pressure among different types of anatomical hepatic venous communication
Variable
PVP
WHVP
U value
P value
Group A36 (32%-41%)19 (16%-24%)3645< 0.001
Group B33 (29%-37%)27 (22%-31%)11590< 0.001
Group C31 (28%-36%)32 (28%-36%)164400.419
Group D30 (27%-34%)36 (32%-40%)22330< 0.001
Table 3 Regression analysis of the wedged hepatic venous pressure and portal venous pressure in different hepatic venous anatomic shunt groups
Group
Adjusted R2
Constant
Regression equation
P value
Group A0.34424.359Y = 0.6384X + 24.36< 0.001
Group B0.72111.185Y = 0.8266X + 11.18< 0.001
Group C0.8841.435Y = 0.9404X + 1.435< 0.001
Group D0.29315.172Y = 0.4209X + 15.17< 0.001