Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_3591_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
29.08.2026
Размер:
89 Мб
Скачать
22 Interventions oftheHepatic Veins, Inferior Vena Cava, andPortal Vein
275
https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.9060. Erratum in: AJR Am J
Roentgenol 2013 Jan;200(1):232. PMID: 22997362.
26. Monescillo A, Martínez-Lagares F, Ruiz-del-Arbol L, Sierra A, Guevara C, Jiménez E, Marrero JM, Buceta E, Sánchez J, Castello A, Peñate M, Cruz A, Peña E.Inuence of portal hypertension and its early decompression by TIPS placement on the outcome of variceal bleeding. Hepatology. 2004;40(4):793–801. https://doi.
org/10.1002/hep.20386. PMID: 15382120.
27. García-Pagán JC, Caca K, Bureau C, Laleman W, Appenrodt B, Luca A, Abraldes JG, Nevens F, Vinel JP, Mössner J, Bosch J, Early TIPS (Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt) Cooperative Study Group. Early use of TIPS in patients with cir­rhosis and variceal bleeding. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(25):2370–9.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0910102. PMID: 20573925.
28. Lv Y, Yang Z, Liu L, Li K, He C, Wang Z, Bai W, Guo W, Yu T, Yuan X, Zhang H, Xie H, Yao L, Wang J, Li T, Wang Q, Chen H, Wang E, Xia D, Luo B, Li X, Yuan J, Han N, Zhu Y, Niu J, Cai H, Xia J, Yin Z, Wu K, Fan D, Han G, AVB-TIPS Study Group. Early TIPS with covered stents versus standard treatment for acute vari­ceal bleeding in patients with advanced cirrhosis: a randomized controlled trial. Lancet. Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;4(8):587–98.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468- 1253(19)30090- 1. Epub 2019 May
29. PMID: 31153882.
29. Bureau C, Thabut D, Oberti F, Dharancy S, Carbonell N, Bouvier A, Mathurin P, Otal P, Cabarrou P, Péron JM, Vinel JP.Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts with covered stents increase transplant-free survival of patients with cirrhosis and recur­rent ascites. Gastroenterology. 2017;152(1):157–63. https://doi.
org/10.1053/j.gastro.2016.09.016. Epub 2016 Sep 20. Erratum in:
Gastroenterology. 2017 Sep;153(3):870. PMID: 27663604.
30. Campbell MS, Brensinger CM, Sanyal AJ, Gennings C, Wong F, Kowdley KV, McCashland T, Reddy KR.Quality of life in refrac­tory ascites: transjugular intrahepatic portal-systemic shunting versus medical therapy. Hepatology. 2005;42(3):635–40. https://
doi.org/10.1002/hep.20840. PMID: 16108073.
31. Allard JP, Chau J, Sandokji K, Blendis LM, Wong F.Effects of asci­tes resolution after successful TIPS on nutrition in cirrhotic patients with refractory ascites. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001;96(8):2442–7.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572- 0241.2001.04051.x. PMID:
11513188.
32. Liu J, Wehrenberg-Klee EP, Bethea ED, Uppot RN, Yamada K, Ganguli S. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt placement for portal hypertension: meta-analysis of safety and efcacy of 8 mm vs. 10 mm stents. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2020;17(2020):9149065. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/9149065. PMID: 33123192; PMCID: PMC7586157.
33. Huang Z, Yao Q, Zhu J, He Y, Chen Y, Wu F, Hua T. Efcacy and safety of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) created using covered stents of different diameters: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2021;102(5):279–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diii.2020.11.004. Epub 2020 Dec 7. PMID: 33303394.
34. Sarin SK, Lahoti D, Saxena SP, Murthy NS, Makwana UK. Prevalence, classication and natural history of gastric varices: a long-term follow-up study in 568 portal hypertension patients. Hepatology. 1992;16(6):1343–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/
hep.1840160607. PMID: 1446890.
35. Lakhoo J, Bui JT, Lokken RP, Ray CE Jr, Gaba RC.Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt creation and variceal coil or plug embolization ineffectively attain gastric variceal decompression or occlusion: results of a 26-patient retrospective study. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2016;27(7):1001–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jvir.2016.02.019. Epub 2016 Apr 19. PMID: 27106732.
36. Tatsumi A, Maekawa S, Osawa L, Katoh R, Komiyama Y, Nakakuki N, Takada H, Matsuda S, Muraoka M, Suzuki Y, Sato M, Takahashi E, Miura M, Amemiya F, Takano S, Fukasawa M,
Yamaguchi T, Nakayama Y, Inoue T, Okada H, Araki T, Onishi H, Enomoto N.Spontaneous portosystemic shunt diameter predicts liver function after balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous oblit­eration. JGH Open. 2022;6(2):139–47. https://doi.org/10.1002/
jgh3.12712. PMID: 35155824; PMCID: PMC8829100.
37. Park JW, Yoo JJ, Kim SG, Jeong SW, Jang JY, Lee SH, Kim HS, Lee JM, Shim JJ, Kim YD, Cheon GJ, Jun BG, Kim YS.Change in portal pressure and clinical outcome in cirrhotic patients with gastric varices after plug-assisted retrograde transvenous oblit­eration. Gut Liver. 2020;14(6):783–91. https://doi.org/10.5009/
gnl19293. PMID: 32050751; PMCID: PMC7667928.
38. Yamamoto A, Nishida N, Morikawa H, Jogo A, Kageyama K, Sohgawa E, Hamamoto S, Takeshita T, Sakai Y, Matsuoka T, Kawada N, Miki Y. Prediction for improvement of liver func­tion after balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration for gastric varices to manage portosystemic shunt syndrome. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2016;27(8):1160–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jvir.2016.03.031. Epub 2016 May 24. PMID: 27234486.
39. Kobayakawa M, Ohnishi S, Suzuki H. Recent develop­ment of balloon- occluded retrograde transvenous oblitera­tion. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;34(3):495–500. https://doi.
org/10.1111/jgh.14463. Epub 2018 Sep 17. PMID: 30170340.
40. Saad WE. Balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration of gastric varices: concept, basic techniques, and outcomes. Semin Intervent Radiol. 2012;29(2):118–28. https://doi.org/10.1055/s- -
0032- 1312573. PMID: 23729982; PMCID: PMC3444869.
41. Kiyosue H, Mori H, Matsumoto S, Yamada Y, Hori Y, Okino Y. Transcatheter obliteration of gastric varices. Part 1. Anatomic classication. Radiographics. 2003;23(4):911–20. https://doi.
org/10.1148/rg.234025044.
42. Kim DJ, Darcy MD, Mani NB, Park AW, Akinwande O, Ramaswamy RS, Kim SK. Modied Balloon-Occluded Retrograde Transvenous Obliteration (BRTO) Techniques for the Treatment of Gastric Varices: Vascular Plug-Assisted Retrograde Transvenous Obliteration (PARTO)/Coil-Assisted Retrograde Transvenous Obliteration (CARTO)/Balloon-Occluded Antegrade Transvenous Obliteration (BATO). Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2018;41(6):835–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270- 018- 1896- 1. Epub 2018 Feb 7. PMID: 29417267.
43. Al-Osaimi AM, Sabri SS, Caldwell SH.Balloon-occluded retro­grade transvenous obliteration (BRTO): preprocedural evaluation and imaging. Semin Intervent Radiol. 2011;28(3):288–95. https://
doi.org/10.1055/s- 0031- 1284455. PMID: 22942546; PMCID:
PMC3312157.
44. Cho SK, Shin SW, Lee IH, Do YS, Choo SW, Park KB, Yoo BC.Balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration of gas­tric varices: outcomes and complications in 49 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189(6):W365–72. https://doi.org/10.2214/
AJR.07.2266. PMID: 18029851.
45. Mukund A, Rajesh S, Arora A, Patidar Y, Jain D, Sarin SK.Efcacy of balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration of large spontaneous lienorenal shunt in patients with severe recur­rent hepatic encephalopathy with foam sclerotherapy: initial experience. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2012;23(9):1200–6. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2012.05.046. Epub 2012 Jul 24. PMID:
22832139.
46. Mukund A, Deogaonkar G, Rajesh S, Shasthry SM, Sarin SK.Safety and efcacy of sodium tetradecyl sulfate and lipiodol foam in balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) for large porto-systemic shunts. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2017;40(7):1010–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270- 017-
1593- 5. Epub 2017 Feb 8. PMID: 28180928.
47. Park JK, Saab S, Kee ST, Busuttil RW, Kim HJ, Durazo F, Cho SK, Lee EW. Balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous oblit­eration (BRTO) for treatment of gastric varices: review and meta- analysis. Dig Dis Sci. 2015;60(6):1543–53. https://doi.
276
R. K. Patel and A. Mukund
org/10.1007/s10620- 014- 3485- 8. Epub 2014 Dec 18. PMID:
25519690.
48. Borghei P, Kim SK, Zuckerman DA. Balloon occlusion retro­grade transvenous obliteration of gastric varices in two non­cirrhotic patients with portal vein thrombosis. Korean J Radiol. 2014;15(1):108–13. https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2014.15.1.108. Epub 2014 Jan 8. PMID: 24497799; PMCID: PMC3909841.
49. Furuichi Y, Abe M, Yoshimasu Y, Takeuchi H, Itoi T. Liver and spleen stiffness on ultrasound elastography are predictors of the occurrence of esophagogastric varices after balloon-occluded ret­rograde transvenous obliteration. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2022;29:713. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhbp.1136. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 35301809.
50. Wang ZW, Liu JC, Zhao F, Zhang WG, Duan XH, Chen PF, Yang SF, Li HW, Chen FW, Shi HS, Ren JZ.Comparison of the effects of TIPS versus BRTO on bleeding gastric varices: a meta- analysis. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;2020:5143013. https://
doi.org/10.1155/2020/5143013. PMID: 32104670; PMCID:
PMC7036113.
51. Paleti S, Nutalapati V, Fathallah J, Jeepalyam S, Rustagi T.Balloon­occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) versus tran­sjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) for treatment of gastric varices because of portal hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2020;54(7):655–60.
https://doi.org/10.1097/MCG.0000000000001275. PMID:
31688366.
52. Yu Q, Liu C, Raissi D. Balloon-occluded retrograde trans­venous obliteration versus transjugular intrahepatic porto­systemic shunt for gastric varices: a meta-analysis. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2021;55(2):147–58. https://doi.org/10.1097/
MCG.0000000000001305. PMID: 31876839.
53. Senzolo M, Garcia-Tsao G, García-Pagán JC.Current knowledge and management of portal vein thrombosis in cirrhosis. J Hepatol. 2021;75(2):442–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2021.04.029. Epub 2021 Apr 27. PMID: 33930474.
54. Loffredo L, Pastori D, Farcomeni A, Violi F. Effects of antico­agulants in patients with cirrhosis and portal vein thrombo­sis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterology. 2017;153(2):480–487.e1. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gas-
tro.2017.04.042. Epub 2017 May 4. PMID: 28479379.
55. Yerdel MA, Gunson B, Mirza D, Karayalçin K, Olliff S, Buckels J, Mayer D, McMaster P, Pirenne J.Portal vein thrombosis in adults undergoing liver transplantation: risk factors, screening, man­agement, and outcome. Transplantation. 2000;69(9):1873–81.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00007890- 200005150- 00023. PMID:
10830225.
56. Klinger C, Riecken B, Schmidt A, De Gottardi A, Meier B, Bosch J, Caca K. Transjugular portal vein recanalization with the cre­ation of intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (PVR-TIPS) in patients with chronic non-cirrhotic, non-malignant portal vein thrombosis. Z Gastroenterol. 2018;56(3):221–37. https://doi.org/10.1055/s- -
0043- 121348. English. Epub 2017 Nov 7. PMID: 29113006.
57. Thornburg B, Desai K, Hickey R, Kulik L, Ganger D, Baker T, Abecassis M, Lewandowski RJ, Salem R.Portal vein recanaliza­tion and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt creation for chronic portal vein thrombosis: technical considerations. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol. 2016;19(1):52–60. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.
tvir.2016.01.006. Epub 2016 Feb 6. PMID: 26997089.
58. Han G, Qi X, He C, Yin Z, Wang J, Xia J, Yang Z, Bai M, Meng X, Niu J, Wu K, Fan D.Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for portal vein thrombosis with symptomatic portal hyper­tension in liver cirrhosis. J Hepatol. 2011;54(1):78–88. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2010.06.029. Epub 2010 Aug 27. PMID:
20932597.
59. Yeoh SW, Kok HK.Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts in portal vein thrombosis: a review. J Dig Dis. 2021;22(9):506–19.
60. Citron SJ. Re: “Portal vein recanalization-Transjugular intra­hepatic portosystemic shunt using the Transsplenic approach to achieve transplant candidacy in patients with chronic portal vein thrombosis”. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2015;26(11):1750. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jvir.2015.07.015. PMID: 26505946.
61. Seijo S, Plessier A.Noncirrhotic nontumoral portal vein throm­bosis. Clin Liver Dis (Hoboken). 2014;3(6):118–21. https://doi.
org/10.1002/cld.336. PMID: 30992903; PMCID: PMC6448716.
62. Llop E, Seijo S. Actuación ante la trombosis portal no cirrótica no tumoral [Treatment of non-cirrhotic, non-tumoural portal vein thrombosis]. Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;39(6):403–10. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.gastrohep.2015.09.007. Spanish. Epub 2015
Nov 4. PMID: 26547613.
63. Turnes J, García-Pagán JC, González M, Aracil C, Calleja JL, Ripoll C, Abraldes JG, Bañares R, Villanueva C, Albillos A, Ayuso JR, Gilabert R, Bosch J.Portal hypertension-related complications after acute portal vein thrombosis: impact of early anticoagula­tion. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008;6(12):1412–7. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cgh.2008.07.031. PMID: 19081529.
64. Taunk A, Mukund A.IR management of nonmalignant portal vein thrombosis. In: Basics of hepatobiliary interventions. Springer, Singapore; 2021. p.119–29.
65. Shukla A, Shreshtha A, Mukund A, Bihari C, Eapen CE, Han G, Deshmukh H, Cua IHY, Lesmana CRA, Al Meshtab M, Kage M, Chaiteeraki R, Treeprasertsuk S, Giri S, Punamiya S, Paradis V, Qi X, Sugawara Y, Abbas Z, Sarin SK. Budd-Chiari syndrome: consensus guidance of the Asian Pacic Association for the study of the liver (APASL). Hepatol Int. 2021;15(3):531–67. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s12072- 021- 10189- 4. Epub 2021 Jul 8. PMID:
34240318.
66. Hernández-Gea V, De Gottardi A, Leebeek FWG, Rautou PE, Salem R, Garcia-Pagan JC. Current knowledge in pathophysi­ology and management of Budd-Chiari syndrome and non­cirrhotic non-tumoral splanchnic vein thrombosis. J Hepatol. 2019;71(1):175–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2019.02.015. Epub 2019 Feb 26
67. Mukund A, Biradar B.IR Management of Budd–Chiari Syndrome. In: Basics of hepatobiliary interventions. Springer, Singapore;
2021. p.107–18.
68. Wang Q, Li K, He C, Yuan X, Luo B, Qi X, Guo W, Bai W, Yu T, Fan J, Wang Z, Yuan J, Li X, Zhu Y, Han N, Niu J, Lv Y, Liu L, Li J, Tang S, Guo S, Wang E, Xia D, Wang Z, Cai H, Wang J, Yin Z, Xia J, Fan D, Han G.Angioplasty with versus without routine stent placement for Budd-Chiari syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;4(9):686–97.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468- 1253(19)30177- 3. Epub 2019 Jul
3. PMID: 31279647.
69. Han G, Qi X, Zhang W, He C, Yin Z, Wang J, Xia J, Xu K, Guo W, Niu J, Wu K, Fan D.Percutaneous recanalization for Budd­Chiari syndrome: an 11-year retrospective study on patency and survival in 177 Chinese patients from a single center. Radiology. 2013;266(2):657–67. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12120856. Epub 2012 Nov 9. PMID: 23143028.
70. Zhang CQ, Fu LN, Xu L, Zhang GQ, Jia T, Liu JY, Qin CY, Zhu JR.Long-term effect of stent placement in 115 patients with Budd­Chiari syndrome. World J Gastroenterol. 2003;9(11):2587–91.
https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v9.i11.2587. PMID: 14606103;
PMCID: PMC4656547.
71. Huang Q, Shen B, Zhang Q, Xu H, Zu M, Gu Y, Wei N, Cui Y, Huang R. Comparison of long-term outcomes of endovascular management for membranous and segmental inferior vena cava obstruction in patients with primary Budd-Chiari Syndrome. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9(3):e003104. https://doi.org/10.1161/
CIRCINTERVENTIONS.115.003104. PMID: 26908849.
72. Garcia-Pagán JC, Heydtmann M, Raffa S, Plessier A, Murad S, Fabris F, Vizzini G, Gonzales Abraldes J, Olliff S, Nicolini
22 Interventions oftheHepatic Veins, Inferior Vena Cava, andPortal Vein
277
A, Luca A, Primignani M, Janssen HL, Valla D, Elias E, Bosch J, Budd-Chiari Syndrome-Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt Group. TIPS for Budd-Chiari syn­drome: long-term results and prognostics factors in 124 patients. Gastroenterology. 2008;135(3):808–15. https://doi.
org/10.1053/j.gastro.2008.05.051. Epub 2008 May 21. PMID:
18621047.
73. Tripathi D, Macnicholas R, Kothari C, Sunderraj L, Al-Hilou H, Rangarajan B, Chen F, Mangat K, Elias E, Olliff S.Good clini­cal outcomes following transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent-shunts in Budd-Chiari syndrome. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2014;39(8):864–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.12668. Epub 2014 Feb 24. PMID: 24611957.
74. Shalimar GSR, Patel AH, Kedia S, Nayak B, Gunjan D, Ranjan G, Paul SB, Acharya SK. Long-term outcomes of the transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in Indian patients with Budd-Chiari syndrome. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;29(10):1174–82. https://doi.org/10.1097/
MEG.0000000000000945. PMID: 28763339.
75. Mukund A, Mittal K, Mondal A, Sarin SK. Anatomic recana­lization of hepatic vein and inferior vena cava versus direct intrahepatic portosystemic shunt creation in Budd-Chiari syn­drome: overall outcome and midterm transplant-free survival. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2018;29(6):790–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jvir.2018.01.781. Epub 2018 Apr 25. PMID: 29705227.
76. May BJ, Madoff DC. Portal vein embolization: rationale, technique, and current application. Semin Intervent Radiol. 2012;29(2):81–9. https://doi.org/10.1055/s- 0032- 1312568. PMID: 23729977; PMCID: PMC3444878.
77. Fausto N, Campbell JS, Riehle KJ.Liver regeneration. Hepatology. 2006;43(2 Suppl 1):S45–53. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.20969. PMID: 16447274.
78. Vauthey JN, Abdalla EK, Doherty DA, Gertsch P, Fenstermacher MJ, Loyer EM, Lerut J, Materne R, Wang X, Encarnacion A, Herron D, Mathey C, Ferrari G, Charnsangavej C, Do KA, Denys A.Body surface area and body weight predict total liver volume in Western adults. Liver Transpl. 2002;8(3):233–40. https://doi.
org/10.1053/jlts.2002.31654. PMID: 11910568.
79. Ribero D, Abdalla EK, Madoff DC, Donadon M, Loyer EM, Vauthey JN. Portal vein embolization before major hepatectomy and its effects on regeneration, resectability, and outcome. Br J Surg. 2007;94(11):1386–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.5836. PMID: 17583900.
80. Abdalla EK, Barnett CC, Doherty D, Curley SA, Vauthey JN.Extended hepatectomy in patients with hepatobiliary malig­nancies with and without preoperative portal vein emboliza­tion. Arch Surg. 2002;137(6):675–80; discussion 680–1. PMID:
12049538. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.137.6.675.
81. McCormack L, Petrowsky H, Jochum W, Furrer K, Clavien PA. Hepatic steatosis is a risk factor for postoperative compli­cations after major hepatectomy: a matched case-control study. Ann Surg. 2007;245(6):923–30. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.
sla.0000251747.80025.b7. PMID: 17522518; PMCID:
PMC1876953.
82. Farges O, Belghiti J, Kianmanesh R, Regimbeau JM, Santoro R, Vilgrain V, Denys A, Sauvanet A. Portal vein emboliza­tion before right hepatectomy: a prospective clinical trial. Ann Surg. 2003;237(2):208–17. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.
SLA.0000048447.16651.7B. PMID: 12560779; PMCID:
PMC1522143.
83. Kubota K, Makuuchi M, Kusaka K, Kobayashi T, Miki K, Hasegawa K, Harihara Y, Takayama T. Measurement of liver volume and hepatic functional reserve as a guide to decision­making in resectional surgery for hepatic tumors. Hepatology. 1997;26(5):1176–81. https://doi.org/10.1053/jhep.1997.v26.
pm0009362359. PMID: 9362359.
84. Huang SY, Aloia TA. Portal vein embolization: state-of-the-art technique and options to improve liver hypertrophy. Visc Med. 2017;33(6):419–25. https://doi.org/10.1159/000480034. Epub 2017 Nov 24. PMID: 29344515; PMCID: PMC5757523.
85. Mondal A, Mukund A. Preoperative interventions: portal vein embolization. In: Basics of hepatobiliary interventions. Springer, Singapore; 2021. p.131–40.
86. Ali A, Ahle M, Björnsson B, Sandström P. Portal vein embo­lization with N-butyl cyanoacrylate glue is superior to other materials: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol. 2021;31(8):5464–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330- 020-
07685- w. Epub 2021 Jan 26. PMID: 33501598.
87. de Baere T, Roche A, Elias D, Lasser P, Lagrange C, Bousson V. Preoperative portal vein embolization for extension of hepa­tectomy indications. Hepatology. 1996;24(6):1386–91. https://
doi.org/10.1053/jhep.1996.v24.pm0008938166. PMID: 8938166.
88. Brouquet A, Abdalla EK, Kopetz S, Garrett CR, Overman MJ, Eng C, Andreou A, Loyer EM, Madoff DC, Curley SA, Vauthey JN.The high survival rate after two-stage resection of advanced colorectal liver metastases: response-based selection and complete resection dene an outcome. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(8):1083–90.
https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.32.6132. Epub 2011 Jan 24.
PMID: 21263087; PMCID: PMC3068054.
89. Guiu B, Chevallier P, Denys A, Delhom E, Pierredon-Foulongne MA, Rouanet P, Fabre JM, Quenet F, Herrero A, Panaro F, Baudin G, Ramos J.Simultaneous trans-hepatic portal and hepatic vein embolization before major hepatectomy: the liver venous depri­vation technique. Eur Radiol. 2016;26(12):4259–67. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00330- 016- 4291- 9. Epub 2016 Apr 18. PMID:
27090112.
90. Le Roy B, Perrey A, Fontarensky M, Gagnière J, Abergel A, Pereira B, Lambert C, Boyer L, Pezet D, Chabrot P, Buc E. Combined preoperative portal, and hepatic vein embolization (biemboliza­tion) to improve liver regeneration before major liver resection: a preliminary report. World J Surg. 2017;41(7):1848–56. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s00268- 017- 4016- 5.
91. Fürst G, Schulte am Esch J, Poll LW, Hosch SB, Fritz LB, Klein M, Godehardt E, Krieg A, Wecker B, Stoldt V, Stockschläder M, Eisenberger CF, Mödder U, Knoefel WT.Portal vein embolization and autologous CD133+ bone marrow stem cells for liver regen­eration: initial experience. Radiology. 2007;243(1):171–9. https://
doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2431060625. Epub 2007 Feb 20. PMID:
17312278.
92. Isfordink CJ, Samim M, Braat MNGJA, Almalki AM, Hagendoorn J, Borel Rinkes IHM, Molenaar IQ. Portal vein ligation versus portal vein embolization for induction of hypertrophy of the future liver remnant: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Oncol. 2017;26(3):257–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sur-
onc.2017.05.001. Epub 2017 May 9. PMID: 28807245.
93. Pandanaboyana S, Bell R, Hidalgo E, Toogood G, Prasad KR, Bartlett A, Lodge JP. A systematic review and meta-analysis of portal vein ligation versus portal vein embolization for elec­tive liver resection. Surgery. 2015;157(4):690–8. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.surg.2014.12.009. Epub 2015 Feb 20. PMID:
25704417.
94. Cao YL, Wang GJ, Li W. [Meta-analysis of the outcomes of asso­ciating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatec­tomy versus portal vein embolization for the treatment of liver cancer with insufcient future liver remnant]. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2019;57(7):540–8. Chinese. https://doi.org/10.3760/
CMA.j.issn.0529- 5815.2019.07.012. PMID: 31269618.
95. See TC, Thompson BC, Howie AJ, Karamshi M, Papadopoulou AM, Davies N, Tibballs J.Transjugular renal biopsy: our experi­ence and technical considerations. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2008;31(5):906–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270- 008- 9308- 6. Epub 2008 Feb 12.
278
R. K. Patel and A. Mukund
96. St Jeor JD, Reisenauer CJ, Andrews JC, Fleming CJ, Misra S, Takahashi EA. Transjugular renal biopsy bleeding risk and diagnostic yield: a systematic review. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2020;31(12):2106–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2020.07.016. Epub 2020 Oct 3. PMID: 33023806.
97. Thompson BC, Kingdon E, Johnston M, Tibballs J, Watkinson A, Jarmulowicz M, Burns A, Sweny P, Wheeler DC.Transjugular kidney biopsy. Am J Kidney Dis. 2004;43(4):651–62. https://doi.
org/10.1053/j.ajkd.2004.01.001. PMID: 15042542.
98. DeYoung E, Minocha J. Inferior vena cava lters: guidelines, best practice, and expanding indications. Semin Intervent Radiol. 2016;33(2):65–70. https://doi.org/10.1055/s- 0036- 1581088. PMID: 27247472; PMCID: PMC4862857.
99. Kaufman JA, Barnes GD, Chaer RA, Cuschieri J, Eberhardt RT, Johnson MS, Kuo WT, Murin S, Patel S, Rajasekhar A, Weinberg I, Gillespie DL. Society of Interventional Radiology Clinical Practice Guideline for Inferior Vena Cava Filters in the Treatment of Patients with Venous Thromboembolic Disease: Developed in collaboration with the American College of Cardiology, American College of Chest Physicians, American College of Surgeons
Committee on Trauma, American Heart Association, Society for Vascular Surgery, and Society for Vascular Medicine. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2020;31(10):1529–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jvir.2020.06.014. Epub 2020 Sep 9. PMID: 32919823.
100. Jacobs DL, Motaganahalli RL, Peterson BG.Bedside vena cava lter placement with intravascular ultrasound: a simple, accurate, single venous access method. J Vasc Surg. 2007;46(6):1284–6.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2007.09.015. PMID: 18155009.
101. Gunn AJ, Iqbal SI, Kalva SP, Walker TG, Ganguli S, Salazar GM, Oklu R, Wicky S. Intravascular ultrasound-guided inferior vena cava lter placement using a single-puncture technique in 99 patients. Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2013;47(2):97–101. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1538574412473186. Epub 2013 Jan 10. PMID:
23315196.
102. Amankwah KS, Seymour K, Costanza M, Berger J, Gahtan V. Transabdominal duplex ultrasonography for bedside infe­rior vena cava lter placement: examples, technique, and review. Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2009;43(4):379–84. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1538574409332000. Epub 2009 Apr 7. PMID:
19351650.
Interventions ofRenal Vessels
PriyaJagia, ReshamSingh, andSravanNagulkonda
23
Key Messages
1. Percutaneous renal vascular interventions are minimally invasive techniques, which offer faster recovery at low complication rates.
2. Different renal arterial interventions include PTRA and stenting, embolization, and renal denervation procedures.
3. Indications for renal arterial interventions include arte­rial pathologies like renal artery stenosis, renal AVM, and renal aneurysms.
4. In carefully selected patients of RAS, PTRA offers immediate improvement in blood ow and long-term benets for blood pressure control and kidney function.
5. Endovascular intervention has a high technical success rate in excluding renal artery aneurysms by plug, or stent-assisted coiling.
6. In renal AVM, endovascular embolization with glue is highly effective for nidus exclusion to alleviate symptoms.
7. Selective renal artery embolization in angiomyolipoma is effective for reducing tumor volume and preventing future risk of hemorrhagic complications.
8. Renal vein interventions include stenting for nutcracker syndrome and catheter-directed thrombectomy (CDT) with or without thrombolysis for renal vein thrombosis.
9. In nutcracker syndrome, endovascular management with renal vein stenting offer good results comparable to surgery.
10. CDT in acute renal vein thrombosis is reserved for cases with deteriorating renal function tests.
P. Jagia (*) · R. Singh · S. Nagulkonda Department of Cardiovascular Radiology and Endovascular Interventions, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi, India

23.1 Introduction

The role of interventional radiology in disease management is expanding rapidly and is already established in the management of different renovascular diseases. Renal interventions can be broadly classied into vascular and non-vascular subtypes. The array of endovascular procedures performed by interventional radiologists includes different techniques like renal artery stent­ing, percutaneous transluminal renal angioplasty (PTRA), renal artery embolization, thrombolysis, and thrombectomy, and some new emerging modalities like renal denervation for resis­tant hypertension. This chapter includes a brief discussion of different renal vascular interventions with an emphasis on their indications, procedural details, and complications.

23.2 Anatomy

23.2.1 Arterial Anatomy
In normal individuals, there is a single main renal artery (RA) on each side which originates from the abdominal aorta (AA) at L1-L2 lumbar vertebral level. The right renal artery (RRA) arises from the anterolateral aspect of AA, having a long downward course, whereas the left renal artery (LRA) originates from the lateral aspect and has a relatively short and horizontal course.
Main RA divides into a larger anterior division (~75% blood) and a smaller posterior division (~25% blood) before entering the renal hilum and further divides into segmental and lobar arteries [1]. Single renal artery is seen in ~65% of the population, and multiple renal arteries are seen in 35% of individuals which usually arise from the aorta or iliac arter­ies [2]. These vessels can reach the renal parenchyma either by the renal hilum (accessory renal artery) or through extra hilar penetration of the renal capsule (aberrant renal artery). Accessory renal arteries are very common and found in ~30% of individuals unilaterally and in 10% of individuals bilaterally [2].
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2024 S. H. Chandrashekhara (ed.), Textbook of Interventional Radiology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-9601-4_23
279
280
P. Jagia et al.
23.2.2 Venous Anatomy
Each kidney drains the deoxygenated blood into the inferior vena cava (IVC) via the renal vein (RV). Renal veins are situ­ated anterior to the ipsilateral renal artery. Left RV is longer and receives tributaries such as the left adrenal vein, gonadal vein, and phrenic vein. Right RV, on the contrary, is shorter and receives no tributary veins [2].

23.3 Arterial Interventions

Different renal arterial interventions include procedures that augment the renal blood ow like percutaneous renal angio­plasty and stenting in renal artery stenosis (RAS) or proce­dures that occlude/embolize the renal artery with various embolization agents. The indication of renal artery emboli­zation includes the presence of an aneurysm, AV shunts, neo­plasms, and traumatic injury to the kidney.
23.3.1 Renovascular Hypertension
Renovascular hypertension (RVH) is a potentially treatable cause of secondary hypertension. It refers to clinical sequelae (i.e., hypertension and nephropathy) of hemodynamically signicant renal artery stenosis (RAS) owing to atheroscle­rotic and non-atherosclerotic causes. The exact prevalence of RAS is unknown in normal population. RVH is known to occur in 1–5% of individuals those who have hypertension [3].
23.3.2 Atherosclerotic Renal Artery Stenosis
Atherosclerosis is the most common cause of RAS [4] and is reported to account for ~90% of the renovascular cause of RAS [5]. Age, diabetes mellitus (DM), peripheral arterial disease (PAD), coronary artery disease (CAD), hypertension (HTN), and dyslipidemia all raise the likelihood of athero­sclerotic RAS (ARAS) [6]. According to epidemiological data, atherosclerotic RAS is a relatively common clinical nding, affecting more than 6.8% of patients over the age of 65years [7]. The treatment of ARAS remains somewhat con­tentious, owing to the apparent inconsistency in outcomes between observational cohorts indicating a treatment advan­tage and randomized trials failing to discover such differ­ences in treatment outcome [8].
Since ARAS is typically caused by thick aorta-ostial
plaques, balloon angioplasty alone is generally ineffectual
due to the accompanying recoil, making renal artery stenting the preferred therapy [9]. Stenting has higher primary and secondary patency rates than angioplasty alone [10] and is associated with signicantly lower restenosis rates and a sig­nicant drop in blood pressure [11].
23.3.3 Non-atherosclerotic RAS
Non-atherosclerotic cause of RAS accounts for a wide spec­trum of etiologies. This includes Takayasu arteritis (most common in India) and bromuscular dysplasia (FMD) (most common in the West), vasculitis, neurobromatosis, trauma, congenital bands, post-radiative therapies, tumor dissection, and compression [5]. The two most common causes of non­atherosclerotic RAS, viz. Takayasu arteritis and FMD, are discussed in details here.
23.3.4 Takayasu Arteritis (TA)
Takayasu arteritis is a chronic, nonspecic, inammatory vasculitis that primarily affects young females [12], and involves the aorta and its major branches. The frequency of renal artery involvement and subsequent hypertension in TA is reported to range from 34% to 85% [13]. PTRA (Fig.23.1) is a well-established endovascular intervention for hemody­namically signicant non-atherosclerotic RAS [14]. Before performing PTRA, adequate anti-inammatory treatment and disease activity control are crucial since active disease is linked to an increased risk of procedure-related complica­tions and a higher risk of restenosis if revascularization is performed in an active disease state [15]. Balloon angio­plasty has demonstrated greater long-term patency and an equivalent clinical outcome compared with the surgery and stenting in hemodynamically signicant RAS caused by Takayasu’s arteritis [16]. It has been found that the results of PTRA are heavily impacted by the lesions length and resid­ual stenosis rate. Restenosis rates reported in literature are up to 9% by angioplasty and 62.5% in the setting of a stent [16]. Hence, stenting is avoided in TA unless there is a vessel recoil with signicant residual stenosis or a ow-limiting dissection ap following balloon dilation.
23.3.5 Fibromuscular Dysplasia (FMD)
FMD is a rare non-atherosclerotic and non-inammatory vascular condition that affects the renal, carotid, and verte­bral arteries in young girls and is most commonly associated
23 Interventions ofRenal Vessels
281
Fig. 23.1 An 18-year-old female, who was a known case of non-specic aortoarteritis presented with uncontrolled hypertension. A ush angiogram of the abdominal aorta revealed complete occlusion of the right renal artery and signicant stenosis (70–80%) in the most proximal segment of the left main renal artery (*) with post-stenotic dilatation (a). 0.014 guide wire was placed across the stenosis (b) followed by balloon angioplasty with
3.5×15mm and 5×20mm balloons (Sterling, BS) (c). Post-angioplasty angiogram showed mild residual stenosis (~30%) with a good left nephrogram (d). Note: suboptimal angioplasty was done in view of active disease
a
c
b
d
with hypertension or cerebrovascular episodes [17]. In FMD, the renal arteries are the most commonly affected vessel (60–70% of all FMD cases), with bilateral renal involvement found in 35% of cases [18]. The most common symptom of renal artery FMD is hypertension, which varies in severity and onset [19]. The majority of FMD patients (66%) have a characteristic angiographic appearance of a “string of beads,” typically in the distal 2/3 of the renal artery, although a minority may have a more localized stenosis (“atypical FMD”).
PTRA is the most commonly used revascularization tech­nique in FMD (Fig.23.2), and stenting should be considered if ow-limiting dissection occurs or balloon angioplasty fails [20]. PTRA has a higher rate of technical success, signi­cantly greater BP rate reductions [21], and less complications as compared to surgical method of revascularization. This makes it the preferred method of treatment for RAS second­ary to FMD [22].
282
P. Jagia et al.
Fig. 23.2 A 33-year-old female presented with uncontrolled hypertension and Doppler nding of signicant renal artery stenosis on the left side. Abdominal angiogram showed distal tight stenosis of LRA with alternative stenosis and dilation (black asterisk) s/o bromuscular dysplasia (a and b). The lower pole segmental artery showed 40–50% stenosis (blue asterisk). RRA shows no signicant disease. Angioplasty was done using a 4×20 balloon (Sterling, Bostin Scientic) at a maximum of 6atm pressure (c). Mild residual stenosis (<20%) is seen post-balloon dilation (d)
a
c
b
d
23.4 Imaging inRAS
Renal Doppler sonography is the rst-line imaging modality done in patients with suspected RAS.If Doppler ndings are equivocal or suggestive of RAS, subsequently CTA/MRI should be done to conrm RAS and plan revascularization. Non-contrast MR angiography may be useful for evaluating RAs in patients with renal dysfunction. In case the Doppler is negative and clinical suspicion is high, catheter angiogra­phy should be considered for the diagnosis of RAS which is the gold standard investigation to diagnose RAS, especially involving peripheral renal arteries.
23.5 Revascularization inRAS
The endovascular method of revascularization is preferred over surgery in RAS (Fig.23.3). It is signicantly less costly, minimally invasive, has lower morbidity, may frequently be done without an inpatient stay, and has a shorter recovery period. Consequently, PTRA is the procedure of choice for
RAS in an appropriately selected cohort of patients meeting the criteria for an endovascular method of revascularization in hemodynamically signicant RAS [23]. Surgical method of revascularization is indicated if the endovascular interven­tion fails or if there is early primary branching of the main renal artery or if simultaneous reconstruction of the perirenal aorta is necessary. As discussed earlier, in the case of ostial­atherosclerotic RAS, primary renal artery stenting is indi­cated (Class I Recommendation, LOE-B). If the lesion is non-ostial—either atherosclerotic or non-atherosclerotic, balloon angioplasty with bailout stenting is indicated (Class I Recommendation, LOE-B) [24].
23.5.1 Indications andGuidelines
forEndovascular Revascularization inRAS
Percutaneous revascularization is indicated in patients with hemodynamically signicant RAS, unexplained congestive heart failure (CHF), or abrupt unexplained pulmonary
cd
23 Interventions ofRenal Vessels
283
Fig. 23.3 Case of a 65-year-old with uncontrolled hypertension due to atherosclerotic left renal artery stenosis. (a) Selective left renal artery angiogram showing signicant ostioproximal stenosis; (b) balloon angioplasty using 4×25mm monorail balloon (Sterling, Boston Scientic), across the stenotic segment; (c) check angiogram showing no signicant residual stenosis; (d) angiogram post stent (balloon mounted stent 5×15mm) deployment
a
b
edema (Class I Recommendation, LOE-B) and should be considered in patients with hemodynamically signicant
23.5.2 Percutaneous Transluminal
Angioplasty (PTRA) andStenting
RAS and accelerated hypertension, resistant hypertension, unexplained unilateral small kidney, medication-intolerant hypertension, or unstable angina (Class IIa, Evidence level B). The endovascular method of revascularization should be considered in patients with hemodynamically signicant bilateral RAS or RAS of single functioning kidney and pro­gressive chronic kidney disease (CKD) (Class IIa, Evidence level B).
Percutaneous revascularization may be considered in symptomatic B/L or single-functioning kidneys with hemo­dynamically signicant RAS and in patients with u/l RAS and CKD (Class IIb, Evidence level C) [24].
23.5.2.1 Preprocedural Evaluation
Thorough preprocedural workup should be done before tak­ing the patient for endovascular intervention, which includes biochemical evaluation (Hb, platelet count, renal function test (RFT), and coagulation proles), and CTA/MRA should be reviewed for evaluation of access vessels (caliber and course) and renal artery for number, origin, caliber, stenosis site, severity, and length.
Usual hardware needed for PTRA includes puncture nee­dle, arterial access sheath, guidewires (0.014 balanced mid­dle weight (BMW) wire, 0.035 hydrophilic wire with J tip,
284
P. Jagia et al.
catheters (Pigtail, Cobra, Renal guiding catheter), balloons (0.014 monorail balloons), balloon-expandable stents, and drugs (heparin and nitroglycerin).
23.5.2.2 Preprocedural Instructions
The patient is advised to start aspirin and clopidogrel 75mg OD for 5days prior to the procedure. Antihypertensive medi­cation can be continued on the day of the procedure. If the patient is diabetic and is on oral hypoglycemics (OHAs), he is advised not to take the morning dose of the OHAs.
23.5.2.3 Procedure
Almost all renal interventions can be performed through femoral access. Ipsilateral femoral arterial access allows the guidewire-catheter combination to rest against the con­tralateral wall of the neighboring aorta. This makes selec­tive cannulation of the renal artery, easier advancement of balloon catheters, and stent delivery devices. Brachial access can be used to achieve selective cannulation, partic­ularly when there is acute angulation of the ostioproximal renal artery. Left brachial access is preferred over right bra­chial as this avoids crossing across the undersurface of the arch.
23.5.2.4 Angiography
A ush angiogram of the aorta should be done by placing the pigtail catheter’s side holes at L1/L2 vertebral disc level. Ostia of both renal arteries can be proled by a single run by placing the imaging tube in shallow LAO (~15-degrees) in most cases. In the case of bilateral RAS, angioplasty on the side with a larger kidney should be attempted rst. Selective catheterization of the renal arteries should be done with a
0.035 wire. Once the ostium of the renal artery is hooked, a
0.035 guidewire should be exchanged for a 0.014 BMW wire. Subsequently, the diagnostic catheter should be replaced with a guide catheter, the tip of which should be positioned near the ostium of the renal artery. Selective angi­ography of the renal artery is done in I/L anterior oblique view to prole the entire renal artery better.
If the severity of the stenosis is not evaluated previously, the length and severity of the stenosis are assessed from the angiogram, and stenosis is considered signicant if the lumi­nal diameter is reduced by 70% (~90% CSA reduction). However, when diameter reduction is between 50 and 75%, the pressure gradient is assessed across the stenosis to deter­mine hemodynamic signicance. The pressure difference across the lesion equal to 10% peak systolic pressure and an absolute gradient of 10–20mm of Hg is considered hemody­namically signicant [25].
23.5.2.5 Balloon Angioplasty
The tip of the 0.014 BMW guidewire is advanced across the lesion and parked preferentially in the inferior segmental
artery. This provides greater support for the balloon catheter during angioplasty. Pre-dilatation with a 3-mm monorail bal­loon may be done in case of tight stenosis. A balloon catheter with a diameter equivalent to the size of the normal artery adjacent to the lesion should be used for primary balloon angioplasty. The length of the balloon should be selected such that it covers the entire length of the stenosis from nor­mal to normal segment. The 0.014 compatible monorail balloon catheters are advanced through the guide catheters. Once balloon markers are placed across the lesion, the bal­loon should be inated fully or until it reaches nominal pres­sure for 1min. The balloon should be deated if the patient experiences severe pain. After deation, a check angiogram should be obtained to look for any residual stenosis. In case, there is residual stenosis, angioplasty should be done using a balloon of a diameter 1mm smaller than the previous one. If there is still persistent waist or recoil, stenting should be considered.
23.5.2.6 Cutting Balloon Angioplasty
In conventional PTRA, even a suitably sized balloon may not be enough to overcome the degree of stenosis, particularly in non-atherosclerotic RAS with severe stenosis [26]. While a typical balloon rips the stenotic artery wall, a cutting balloon features 3–4 microsurgical blades positioned longitudinally on the outer balloon surface, causing sharp longitudinal inci­sions which are directed radially into the media and lead to dilation of refractory stenosis. As a result, a cutting balloon can cause a controlled and safe dilatation of the vessel wall. The use of a cutting balloon to overcome tight stenosis that is recalcitrant to standard angioplasty is widely established in non-atherosclerotic RAS, particularly in bromuscular dysplasia.
23.5.2.7 Stenting
Balloon-mounted stents are preferred over self-expandable stents for ostial atherosclerotic lesions due to their greater radial force and precise deployment. The stent should be oversized by 10% or 1mm above the diameter of the refer­ence normal artery. The length of the stent should be selected such that it covers the length of the lesion and ostium of the renal artery. The stent’s proximal end must protrude out into the aorta by at least 2mm. Instant balloon angioplasty should be done after deployment of the stent if a check angiogram shows incomplete expansion.
Despite the result of CORAL and ASTRAL trials show­ing no signicant difference between medical management and renal artery stenting in terms of BP reduction and renal and cardiovascular outcomes, the persistent benet of renal artery stenting in BP reduction has been found on long-term follow-up in a properly chosen cohort of patient with signi­cant stenosis >70% and uncontrolled hypertension which is not responding to multiple drugs [27].