Skip to main content

Table 1 Patient, pre-interventional and procedural characteristics

From: Transsplenic tract closure after transsplenic portalvenous access using gelfoam-based tract plugging

Patient characteristics

 Number of patients

24

 Age (years)

56 (29;71)

 Gender (male / female)

11 / 13

 Liver disease (cirrhotic / non-cirrhotic)

15 / 9

  Ethyltoxic liver cirrhosis

8

  Cryptogenic liver cirrhosis

1

  Liver fibrosis

1

  SCC

1

  Post-LTx

1

  PVT

4

  CTPV

3

  CCC

3

  PCA

1

  FNH

1

Pre-interventional characteristics

 Number of interventions

26

 MELD

9 (6;25)

 INR

1.15 (0.86;1.51)

 aPTT (s)

33 (26;52)

 PLT (1*100/uL)

88 (31;273)

 Anti-aggregation or -coagulation pre-interventionally (no. of patients)

10

 Transfusion pre-interventionally (no. of patients)

7

 Ascites pre-interventionally (present / none)

20 / 6

 Spleen diameter (cm)

17 (10;25)

Procedural characteristics

 Number of interventions

26

 Indication

 

  TIPS placement*

16

  TIPS revision

2

  PVS

5^

  VE

3°

 Splenic access success rate (successful / unsuccessful)

26 / 0

 Interventional success rate (successful / unsuccessful)

22 / 4

 Splenic access time (min)

33 (10;133)

 Total procedure time (min)

208 (110;429)

 Splenic access route (subcostal / intercostal)

11 / 15

 Sheath size (F)

4 (4;8)

 No. of gelfoam cubes

2 (1;5)

 Clinical significant complications (no. of complications)

4

  1. Abbreviaion: aPTT activated partial thromboplastin time, INR International normalized ratio, FNH Focal nodular hyperplasia, MELD Model for end-stage liver disease, PLT Platelet count, PCA Pancreatic carcinoma, post-LTx Post-transplantation liver fibrosis, PVT Portal vein thrombosis, CTPV Cavernous transformation of the portal vein, CCC Cholangiocellular carcinoma, TIPS Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt, PVS Portal vein stent, VE Variceal embolization and SSC Secondary sclerosing cholangitis
  2. *In one case an extrahepatic portosystemic shunt was established between liver and portal vein
  3. ^In one case no portal vein stent was placed, because the postoperative stenosis of the portal vein did not increase the portal pressure > 12 mmHg as expected from pre-interventional computed tomography. °In one case no embolization was performed, because no active bleeding and no potential feeders from the portal system could be identified