Background: We previously showed that embolization of portal inflow and hepatic vein (I-IV) outflow (liver venous deprivation, LVD) promotes future liver remnant (FLR) volume (FLR-V) and function (FLR-F) gain. Here, we compared FLR-V and FLR-F changes after portal vein embolization (PVE) and LVD. Methods: This study included all patients referred for liver preparation before major hepatectomy over 26 months. Exclusion criteria were: unavailable baseline/follow-up imaging, cirrhosis, Klatskin tumor, two-stage hepatectomy. 99mTc-mebrofenin SPECT-CT was performed at baseline and at day 7, 14 and 21 after PVE or LVD. FLR-V and FLR-F variations were compared using multivariate generalized linear mixed models (joint modelling) with/without missing data imputation. Results: Baseline FLR-F was lower in the LVD (n=29) than PVE group (n=22) (P<0.001). Technical success was 100% in both groups without any major complication. Changes in FLR-V at day 14 and 21 (+14.2% vs. +50%, P=0.002; and +18.6% vs. +52.6%, P=0.001), and in FLR-F at day 7, 14 and 21 (+23.1% vs. +54.3%, P=0.02; +17.6% vs. +56.1%, P=0.006; and +29.8% vs. +63.9%, P<0.001) differed between PVE and LVD group. LVD (P=0.009), age (P=0.027) and baseline FLR-V (P=0.001) independently predicted FLR-V variations, whereas only LVD (P=0.01) predicted FLR-F changes. After missing data handling, LVD remained an independent predictor of FLR-V and FLR-F variations. Conclusions: LVD is safe and provides greater FLR-V and FLR-F increase than PVE. These results are now evaluated in the HYPERLIV-01 multicenter randomized trial.
Liver venous deprivation versus portal vein embolization before major hepatectomy: future liver remnant volumetric and functional changes
Panaro F;
2020-01-01
Abstract
Background: We previously showed that embolization of portal inflow and hepatic vein (I-IV) outflow (liver venous deprivation, LVD) promotes future liver remnant (FLR) volume (FLR-V) and function (FLR-F) gain. Here, we compared FLR-V and FLR-F changes after portal vein embolization (PVE) and LVD. Methods: This study included all patients referred for liver preparation before major hepatectomy over 26 months. Exclusion criteria were: unavailable baseline/follow-up imaging, cirrhosis, Klatskin tumor, two-stage hepatectomy. 99mTc-mebrofenin SPECT-CT was performed at baseline and at day 7, 14 and 21 after PVE or LVD. FLR-V and FLR-F variations were compared using multivariate generalized linear mixed models (joint modelling) with/without missing data imputation. Results: Baseline FLR-F was lower in the LVD (n=29) than PVE group (n=22) (P<0.001). Technical success was 100% in both groups without any major complication. Changes in FLR-V at day 14 and 21 (+14.2% vs. +50%, P=0.002; and +18.6% vs. +52.6%, P=0.001), and in FLR-F at day 7, 14 and 21 (+23.1% vs. +54.3%, P=0.02; +17.6% vs. +56.1%, P=0.006; and +29.8% vs. +63.9%, P<0.001) differed between PVE and LVD group. LVD (P=0.009), age (P=0.027) and baseline FLR-V (P=0.001) independently predicted FLR-V variations, whereas only LVD (P=0.01) predicted FLR-F changes. After missing data handling, LVD remained an independent predictor of FLR-V and FLR-F variations. Conclusions: LVD is safe and provides greater FLR-V and FLR-F increase than PVE. These results are now evaluated in the HYPERLIV-01 multicenter randomized trial.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
