论文部分内容阅读
AIM:To study the changes of portal blood flow incongestive heart failure.METHODS:We studied the congestion index(CI)andportal vein pulsatility index(PI)in patients with varieddegrees of congestive heart failure using ultrasonicDoppler.Ten patients with mean right atrial pressure(RA)<10 mmHg were classified as group 1 and theremaining 10 patients with RA(?)10 mmHg as group 2.RESULTS:There were no difference on cardiac index(HI,P=0.28),aortic pressure(An,P=0.78),left ventricularend-diastolic pressure(LVED,P=0.06),maximum portalblood velocity(V_(max),P=0.17),mean portal blood velocity(V_(mean),P=0.15)and portal blood flow volume(PBF,P=0.95)between the two groups.Group 2 patients hadhigher pulmonary wedge pressure(PW,29.9±9.3 mmHgvs 14.6±7.3 mmHg,P=0.002),pulmonary arterialpressure(PA,46.3±13.2 mmHg vs 25.0±8.2 mmHg,P=0.004),RA(17.5±5.7 mmHg vs 4.7±2.4 mmHg,P<0.001),right ventricular end-diastolic pressure(RVED,18.3±5.6 mmHg vs 6.4±2.7 mmHg,P<0.001),CI(8.7±2.4 vs 5.8±1.2,P=0.03),and PI(87.8±32.3% vs27.0±7.4%,P<0.001)than Group 1.CI was correlatedwith PI(P<0.001),PW(P<0.001),PA(P<0.001),RA(P=0.043),RVED(P=0.005),HI(P<0.001),AO(P<0.001),CO(P<0.001),LVED(P<0.001),V_(max)(P<0.001),V_(mean)(P<0.001),cross-sectional area ofthe main portal vein(P<0.001)and PBF(P<0.001).CIcould be as high as 8.3 in patients with RA<10 mmHgand as low as 5.9 in those with RA(?)10 mmHg. CONCLUSION:Our data show that RI is a moresignificant indicator than CI in the clinical evaluation ofhigh RA(?)10 mmHg,whereas CI is better than PI in theassessment of left heart function.
AIM: To study the changes of portal blood flow incongestive heart failure. METHODS: We studied the congestion index (CI) and portal vein pulsatility index (PI) in patients with varied degrees of congestive heart failure using ultrasonic Doppler. Ten patients with mean right atrial pressure ( RA) <10 mmHg were classified as group 1 and there was 10 patients with RA (?) 10 mmHg as group 2.RESULTS: There were no difference on cardiac index (HI, P = 0.28), aortic pressure (An, P = , portal venous pressure (LVED, P = 0.06), maximum portal blood velocity (V max, P = 0.17), mean portal blood velocity , P = 0.95) between the two groups. Group 2 patients hadhigher pulmonary wedge pressure (PW, 29.9 ± 9.3 mmHg vs 14.6 ± 7.3 mmHg, P = 0.002), pulmonary arterial pressure (PA, 46.3 ± 13.2 mmHg vs 25.0 ± 8.2 mmHg, P (RVED, 18.3 ± 5.6 mmHg vs 6.4 ± 2.7 mmHg, P <0.001), CI (8.7 ± 2.4 mmHg, P <0.001), RA (17.5 ± 5.7 mmHg vs 4.7 ± 2.4 mmHg, vs 5.8 ± 1.2, P = 0.03), (P <0.001), PA (P <0.001), RA (P = 0.001) and PI (87.8 ± 32.3% vs 27.0 ± 7.4% (P <0.001), VED (P <0.001), VED (P <0.001), VED (P <0.001) and PBF (P <0.001) .CIcould be as high as 8.3 in patients with RA <10 mmHgand as low as 5.9 in those with RA (P <0.001), cross-sectional area of the main portal vein (?) 10 mmHg. CONCLUSION: Our data show that RI is a more significant indicator than CI in the clinical evaluation of high RA (?) 10 mmHg, CI was better than PI in the assessment of left heart function.