| 11. Portal
Hypertension / S.S. Lee |
|
Portal hypertension is
defined as increased pressure in the portal vein. With the right atrial
pressure as a zero reference, normal portal venous pressure is
approximately 4-8 mm Hg. The portal vein is formed by the confluence of
the splenic and superior mesenteric veins. Its flow rate normally averages
about 1-1.2 L/min. The simple phenomenon of increased pressure in this
venous circulation unleashes a wide array of hemodynamic and metabolic
consequences, including some of the most lethal and distressing
complications of chronic liver disease.
The causes of portal
hypertension are diverse (Table
16). Since portal pressure is the product of portal blood
flow and intrahepatic resistance, any condition causing an increase in
flow or resistance will increase portal pressure. An example of a
"pure" flow increase is postsurgical or traumatic splenic
arteriovenous fistula. The marked increase in splenic and thus portal
venous flow leads to the development of portal hypertension. Almost all
other causes of portal hypertension are mediated predominantly by
increasing resistance, although evidence indicates that most
high-resistance syndromes are also accompanied by increases in portal
venous flow. In many conditions, the cause of the increased resistance
is evident: inflammation and fibrosis lead to vascular distortion,
architectural disturbance and impingement of the intravascular spaces.
Other less evident factors are predominant in other conditions. For
example, in acute alcoholic hepatitis, hepatocyte cell swelling and
collagen deposition in the space of Disse lead to narrowing and
distortion of sinusoidal spaces. The reasons for the increased
mesenteric (and thus portal venous) blood flow in high-resistance states
remain unclear. One theory postulates that a circulating vasodilatory
humoral factor that would normally be inactivated by the liver escapes
into the systemic circulation through shunts or hepatocellular
insufficiency.
TABLE
16. Causes of portal hypertension
 |
|
There are two separate
and sometimes overlapping classification systems for the causes of
portal hypertension, using either the liver or the hepatic sinusoid as
the reference point. The former classifies conditions into pre-hepatic,
intrahepatic and posthepatic causes, while the latter divides conditions
into presinusoidal, sinusoidal and postsinusoidal causes (Table 16).
However, the exact site of increased resistance in many intrahepatic
causes of portal hypertension has recently been questioned, and it is
likely that the predominant resistance sites could change according to
the stage of some disease processes. For example, early primary biliary
cirrhosis is thought to produce mainly presinusoidal hypertension, but
as dense cirrhosis supervenes, sinusoidal hypertension becomes more
important. Similarly, an early lesion of alcoholic liver disease, the
central or terminal hyaline sclerosis, characterized by zone 3 fibrosis,
would cause postsinuoidal hypertension, with sinusoidal hypertension
predominating as cirrhosis becomes established. In practical terms,
there are reasons for trying to correctly classify resistance sites. One
is for predicting responses to surgical shunting procedures:
presinusoidal conditions generally have well-preserved hepatocellular
function and thus respond well to diversion of portal blood, whereas
sinusoidal and postsinusoidal conditions tend to be associated with
varying degrees of hepatic insufficiency. Another is that ascites
generally occurs only with sinusoidal and postsinusoidal hypertension.
| 11.2
Pathophysiology |
page
526 |
Portal pressure can be
measured by several methods. A catheter inserted into a hepatic vein
and then wedged provides a good estimate of the upstream portal venous
pressure, unless the site of resistance is proximal to the
intrahepatic portal vein (as in portal vein thrombosis wherein the
wedged hepatic vein pressure will be normal in the presence of
significant portal hypertension). The spleen, liver or portal vein can
be directly percutaneously punctured by small-gauge (19-22 gauge)
needles to obtain reliable estimates of portal pressure. Measurement
of portal pressure is mostly used for research purposes, as its
invasiveness precludes wide clinical use.
Portal hypertension leads to many clinical complications. Ascites is
directly related to the development of sinusoidal or postsinusoidal
hypertension. Portal-systemic collateral vessels form in an attempt to
decompress the portal hypertension (Table
17). The most troublesome site of collateral formation is
around the proximal stomach and distal esophagus (gastroesophageal
varices). Bleeding from such varices (or the gastric mucosa) and
hepatocellular failure are the two commonest causes of death in
cirrhosis. Indeed the mortality rates for variceal bleeding range from
15-50% depending on the degree of hepatic function: Child-Pugh class
A, B and C patients have, respectively, 15%, 20-30% and 40-50%
mortality rates when their varices bleed.
TABLE
17. Common sites of portal-systemic collateral formation
|
| Location |
Portal
circulation |
Systemic
circulation |
Clinical
consequence |
|
| Proximal
stomach and distal esophagus |
Coronary
vein of stomach |
Azygos
vein |
Submucosal
gastroesophageal varices |
| Anterior
abdominal wall |
Umbilical
vein in falciform ligament |
Epigastric
abdominal wall veins |
Caput
medusae |
| Retroperitoneal |
Splenic
vein branch
Sappey's veins (around liver and diaphragm) |
Left
renal vein
Retzius's vein |
Usually
none
Usually none |
| Anorectal |
Middle
and superior hemorrhoidal veins |
Inferior
hemorrhoidal vein |
May be
mistaken for hemorrhoids |
|
The risk of bleeding
from gastroesophageal varices is related to several factors. First, a
threshold minimum level of portal pressure of approximately 12 mm Hg
appears necessary for varices to form. However, above this level it is
unclear whether absolute height of portal pressure affects the
bleeding risk. Factors such as intrathoracic pressure gradients
induced by coughing, straining or sneezing, and damage to the variceal
wall by acid reflux into the esophagus appear not to play a role. The
two factors most important in determining bleeding risk are variceal
size and local variceal wall characteristics. Several studies have
shown that small varices almost never bleed, while the bleeding risk
of medium-sized varices is approximately 10-15% over two years, and
that of large varices, approximately 20-30% over the same period.
During the past decade, it has become clear that certain varix wall
characteristics that are visible through an endoscope are also
predictive of high bleeding risk. These are the red and blue color
signs. Small localized wall defects such as thin-walled blebs or sacs
in the wall look like red spots or streaks and have variously been
termed "red wale markings," "cherry-red spots" or
"red streaks," while a diffuse pronounced blue color
indicates a large varix (vein) with a stretched mucosa covering it.
Approximately 30-50% of upper GI bleeding episodes
in patients with portal hypertension originate from nonvariceal
sources. Cirrhotic patients have an increased incidence of acid-peptic
disease, mostly erosive gastritis. This is probably due to the alcohol
abuse that is common in this population. However, it has recently
become clear that the majority of nonvariceal upper GI bleeding in
cirrhosis is due to a peculiar form of gastropathy seen in the stomach
in portal hypertension. Several features distinguish this portal
hypertensive gastropathy from the erosive or inflammatory gastritis
seen in nonhypertensive patients (Table
18). The major symptom of portal hypertensive gastropathy
is bleeding. Pain or dyspepsia is uncommon as a presenting feature of
this type of gastropathy. The appropriate treatment for this condition
is still unclear, but it probably responds to measures to decrease
portal pressure, although a possible role for cytoprotective agents
has also been suggested.
TABLE
18. Comparison of portal hypertensive gastropathy and
inflammatory gastritis
|
|
Portal
hypertensive gastropathy |
Inflammatory
gastritis |
|
| Endoscopic
appearance |
Mosaic
pattern, speckled red spots |
Discrete
red erosive lesions |
| Site |
Predominantly
fundus |
Predominantly
antrum |
| Histology |
Scant
inflammatory cell infiltrate, prominent
vascular dilatation, mucosal and submucosal lesions |
Heavy
inflammatory cell mucosal lesions |
| Treatment |
Surgery,
? beta blockers, ?cytoprotective agents |
Acid
suppression, cytoprotective agents |
|
Diagnosing portal
hypertension is usually easy. The patient often has concomitant
ascites and splenomegaly, along with the stigmata of chronic liver
disease. However, it should be remembered that all the prehepatic and
many of the presinusoidal conditions have well-preserved liver
function and no ascites. Abdominal wall collaterals radiate outward
from the umbilicus; when they are very prominent, it is easy to see
why this condition is termed "caput medusae," after the
fearsome creature in Greek mythology with the serpentine hairdo.
Dilated abdominal wall veins, especially in the upper abdomen, are
common, but caput medusae is rare. Another diagnostic clue may be the
presence of anorectal varices masquerading as hemorrhoids.
Gastroesophageal variceal bleeding produces large-volume, brisk
bleeding with hematemesis and, later, melena or hematochezia. Portal
hypertensive gastropathy may also produce brisk bleeding, but can
occasionally cause low-volume oozing manifested only by melena.
Managing the acute
bleeding episode consists of the general resuscitative measures such
as volume and blood replacement, and specific measures to stop the
bleeding. Various pharmacological, mechanical and surgical modes of
arresting hemorrhage are used, usually in that order. Vasoconstrictive
drugs to stop bleeding include vasopressin and somatostatin or their
longer-acting analogues such as glypressin and octreotide,
respectively. Vasopressin infusions induce generalized arteriolar and
venous constriction, with resultant decreased portal venous flow and
thus pressure, and at least temporary cessation of bleeding in 50-80%
of cases. However, the generalized vasoconstriction also may result in
peripheral vascular ischemia, myocardial ischemia or infarction and
renal tubular damage. Concurrent nitrate administration has been
suggested to attenuate some of these side effects, but whether it
actually does so is still unproven. A safer alternative may be
somatostatin or octreotide. Their mechanism of action is still unclear
but probably relates to a suppressive effect on the release of
vasodilatory hormones such as glucagon, leading to a net
vasoconstrictive effect. Side effects are minimal. Whatever drug is
used, it is generally inadvisable to continue drug therapy for more
than one to two days.
Mechanical modes of
therapy include inflatable balloons for direct tamponade. The
Sengstaken-Blakemore tube has both an esophageal and a small gastric
balloon; the Linton-Nachlas tube, with only a large gastric balloon,
is attached to a small weight to stanch the cephalad flow of blood in
the varices. Both tubes carry significant complication rates (15%),
especially in inexperienced hands. The most common complications of
esophageal balloon therapy for varices include aspiration, esophageal
perforation and ischemic (pressure) necrosis of the mucosa.
The most common and
probably the most effective nonsurgical therapies are endoscopic
variceal sclerotherapy and ligation. Highly irritant solutions such as
ethanolamine, polidocanol or even absolute ethanol are injected
through endoscopic direct vision into and around the bleeding varix.
The subsequent inflammation leads to eventual thrombosis and fibrosis
of the varix lumen. Possible complications include chest pain,
dysphagia, and esophageal ulceration and stricturing. The injection of
irritant solutions that eventually lodge in the pulmonary circulation
can result in lung function abnormalities, although these tend to be
subclinical. A newer and probably safer method of endoscopic therapy
is ligation or banding, similar to the rubber band ligations used to
fibrose anorectal hemorrhoids. Initial studies suggest that its
efficacy is similar to sclerotherapy, with fewer esophageal
complications. The combination of endoscopic therapy and either
balloon tamponade or drug therapy to control actively bleeding varices
is successful in 80-95% of cases.
When all the above
measures fail, emergency surgery may be tried. Emergency portacaval
shunt surgery has been abandoned because of a 30-50% operative
mortality rate. The simplest and probably best choice in the emergency
situation is esophageal transection, in which a mechanical device
transects and removes a ring of esophageal tissue, and then staples
the ends together. Another type of "surgery" is the
transjugular intrahepatic portal-systemic shunt (TIPS). In this
procedure, an intrahepatic shunt between branches of the hepatic and
portal veins is made by balloon dilation of liver tissue, and then an
expandable metal stent of approximately 1 cm diameter is lodged into
the fistula. The procedure can be done by a radiologist using
fluoroscopy- guided catheterization, and requires only light sedation
and local anesthesia.
Once the acute bleeding
episode has been treated, how do we reduce the risk of future
rebleeding? Before considering any other therapy, some obvious
common-sense measures should be taken. For example, patients with
cirrhosis caused by alcohol (the cause of approximately 50-60% of
cirrhosis in Canada) absolutely must stop drinking; the rebleeding and
mortality rates in patients who continue their alcohol use are much
higher than in those who remain abstinent.
Prophylactic therapy to
prevent bleeding may be divided into primary (to prevent the first
bleed in a patient with varices who has never bled) and secondary
prophylaxis (to prevent rebleeds). There is still much conflicting
literature on these two topics, but for now, the following preliminary
recommendations can be made. First, patients with large varices that
have never bled should be started on beta blocker therapy at doses
sufficient to reduce the resting heart rate by 20-25%. Beta-adrenergic
antagonists are thought to produce arteriolar and venous constriction
and significantly reduce blood flow through portal-systemic
collaterals while modestly reducing portal pressure. Endoscopic
sclerotherapy/banding, TIPS and surgery are ineffective and too risky
for primary prophylaxis.
The appropriate secondary prophylaxis regimes
remain controversial. There is probably a minority subgroup who
respond favorably to beta blocker therapy, but they cannot be easily
identified. One approach is to perform enough endoscopic sclerotherapy/banding
sessions (usually 3-6) to obliterate varices or reduce them to small
size. Treatment failures on this regime (e.g., those with recurrent
bleeding) could be considered either for TIPS or surgery. TIPS should
not be done in patients with a history of, or active, encephalopathy.
Prehepatic causes of
portal hypertension such as portal vein thrombosis generally respond
well to some type of portal-mesenteric diversion procedure such as
mesocaval or portacaval shunting. In these cases, normal liver
function protects against the development of encephalopathy or hepatic
insufficiency when portal blood is diverted away from the liver.
Of course the definitive treatment for most of the
complications of end- stage liver disease, including recurrent GI
bleeding due to severe portal hypertension, is orthotopic liver
transplantation. Since the presence of a surgical portacaval or
mesocaval shunt greatly complicates the transplantation procedure, we
have generally abandoned these types of shunting operations in
patients with cirrhosis. |