Journal of Veterinary Science

The Korean Society of Veterinary Science (대한수의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Computed tomographic evaluation of portal vein indices in cats with the extrahepatic portosystemic shunts

  • Eunji Jeong (College of Veterinary Medicine and Institute of Veterinary Science, Kangwon National University) ;
  • Jin-Young Chung (College of Veterinary Medicine and Institute of Veterinary Science, Kangwon National University) ;
  • Jin-Ok Ahn (College of Veterinary Medicine and Institute of Veterinary Science, Kangwon National University) ;
  • Hojung Choi (College of Veterinary Medicine, Chungnam National University) ;
  • Youngwon Lee (College of Veterinary Medicine, Chungnam National University) ;
  • Kija Lee (College of Veterinary Medicine, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Sooyoung Choi (College of Veterinary Medicine and Institute of Veterinary Science, Kangwon National University)
  • Received : 2024.01.30
  • Accepted : 2024.04.17
  • Published : 2024.05.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Importance: The portal vein to aorta (PV/Ao) ratio is used to assess the clinical significance of extrahepatic portosystemic shunt (EHPSS). Previous studies using computed tomography (CT) were conducted in dogs but not in cats. Objective: This study aimed to establish normal reference values for PV indices (PV/Ao ratio and PV diameter) in cats and determine the usefulness of these for predicting symptomatic EHPSS. Methods: This study included 95 dogs and 114 cats that underwent abdominal CT. The canine normal (CN) group included dogs without EHPSS. The cats were classified into feline normal (FN, 88/114), feline asymptomatic (FA, 16/114), and feline symptomatic (FS, 10/114) groups. The PV and Ao diameters were measured in axial cross-sections. Results: The group FN had a higher PV/Ao ratio than the group CN (p < 0.001). Within the feline groups, the PV indices were in the order FN > FA > FS (both p < 0.001). The mean PV diameter and PV/Ao ratio for group FN were 5.23±0.77 mm and 1.46±0.19, respectively. The cutoff values between groups FN and FS were 4.115 mm for PV diameter (sensitivity, 100%; specificity, 97.7%) and 1.170 for PV/Ao ratio (90%, 92.1%). The cutoff values between group FA and FS were 3.835 mm (90%, 93.8%) and 1.010 (70%, 100%), respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: The results demonstrated significant differences in PV indices between dogs and cats. In cats, the PV/Ao ratio demonstrated high diagnostic performance for symptomatic EHPSS. The PV diameter also performed well, in contrast to dogs.

Keywords

References

  1. Watson PJ, Herrtage ME. Medical management of congenital portosystemic shunts in 27 dogs--a retrospective study. J Small Anim Pract. 1998;39(2):62-68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-5827.1998.tb03595.x
  2. Winkler JT, Bohling MW, Tillson DM, Wright JC, Ballagas AJ. Portosystemic shunts: diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of 64 cases (1993-2001). J Am Anim Hosp Assoc. 2003;39(2):169-185. https://doi.org/10.5326/0390169
  3. Payne JT, Martin RA, Constantinescu GM. The anatomy and embryology of portosystemic shunts in dogs and cats. Semin Vet Med Surg Small Anim. 1990;5(2):76-82.
  4. Cabassu J, Seim HB 3rd, MacPhail CM, Monnet E. Outcomes of cats undergoing surgical attenuation of congenital extrahepatic portosystemic shunts through cellophane banding: 9 cases (2000-2007). J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2011;238(1):89-93. https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.238.1.89
  5. Hunt GB. Effect of breed on anatomy of portosystemic shunts resulting from congenital diseases in dogs and cats: a review of 242 cases. Aust Vet J. 2004;82(12):746-749. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-0813.2004.tb13233.x
  6. Lipscomb VJ, Jones HJ, Brockman DJ. Complications and long-term outcomes of the ligation of congenital portosystemic shunts in 49 cats. Vet Rec. 2007;160(14):465-470. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.160.14.465
  7. Tillson DM, Winkler JT. Diagnosis and treatment of portosystemic shunts in the cat. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 2002;32(4):881-899. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-5616(02)00019-0
  8. Berent AC, Tobias KM. Portosystemic vascular anomalies. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 2009;39(3):513-541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cvsm.2009.02.004
  9. Center SA, Magne ML. Historical, physical examination, and clinicopathologic features of portosystemic vascular anomalies in the dog and cat. Semin Vet Med Surg (Small Anim). 1990;5(2):83-93.
  10. Ruland K, Fischer A, Hartmann K. Sensitivity and specificity of fasting ammonia and serum bile acids in the diagnosis of portosystemic shunts in dogs and cats. Vet Clin Pathol. 2010;39(1):57-64. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-165X.2009.00178.x
  11. Kim SE, Giglio RF, Reese DJ, Reese SL, Bacon NJ, Ellison GW. Comparison of computed tomographic angiography and ultrasonography for the detection and characterization of portosystemic shunts in dogs. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2013;54(6):569-574. https://doi.org/10.1111/vru.12059
  12. Zwingenberger AL, Schwarz T, Saunders HM. Helical computed tomographic angiography of canine portosystemic shunts. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2005;46(1):27-32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8261.2005.00005.x
  13. d'Anjou MA, Penninck D, Cornejo L, Pibarot P. Ultrasonographic diagnosis of portosystemic shunting in dogs and cats. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2004;45(5):424-437. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8261.2004.04076.x
  14. Choi SY, Lee I, Choi HJ, Lee YW. Diagnostic imaging features of asymptomatic extrahepatic portosystemic shunt detected by CT in dogs. J Vet Clin. 2013;30(4):273-277.
  15. Fukushima K, Kanemoto H, Ohno K, Takahashi M, Fujiwara R, Nishimura R, et al. Computed tomographic morphology and clinical features of extrahepatic portosystemic shunts in 172 dogs in Japan. Vet J. 2014;199(3):376-381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2013.11.013
  16. Rossanese M, Ferreira A, Maddox TW. Morphometric evaluation of the portal vein by means of abdominal computed tomographic angiography in dogs free of vascular anomalies. Am J Vet Res. 2019;80(1):69-73. https://doi.org/10.2460/ajvr.80.1.69
  17. Kraun MB, Nelson LL, Hauptman JG, Nelson NC. Analysis of the relationship of extrahepatic portosystemic shunt morphology with clinical variables in dogs: 53 cases (2009-2012). J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2014;245(5):540-549. https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.245.5.540
  18. Brown JC Jr, Chanoit G, Reeder J. Complex extrahepatic portocaval shunt with unusual caval features in a cat: computed tomographic characterisation. J Small Anim Pract. 2010;51(4):227-230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-5827.2009.00903.x
  19. Martin RA, Freeman LE. Identification and surgical management of portosystemic shunts in the dog and cat. Semin Vet Med Surg Small Anim. 1987;2(4):302-306.
  20. Burton CA, White RN. Portovenogram findings in cases of elevated bile acid concentrations following correction of portosystemic shunts. J Small Anim Pract. 2001;42(11):536-540. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-5827.2001.tb06023.x
  21. Palerme JS, Brown JC, Marks SL, Birkenheuer AJ. Splenosystemic shunts in cats: a retrospective of 33 cases (2004-2011). J Vet Intern Med. 2013;27(6):1347-1353. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvim.12188
  22. Ricciardi M. Unusual haemodynamics in two dogs and two cats with portosystemic shunt - implications for distinguishing between congenital and acquired conditions. Open Vet J. 2017;7(2):86-94. https://doi.org/10.4314/ovj.v7i2.2
  23. Bertolini G. Acquired portal collateral circulation in the dog and cat. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2010;51(1):25-33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8261.2009.01616.x
  24. Specchi S, Panopoulos I, Adrian AM, Spattini G, Morabito S, Paek M. A "spaghetti sign" in feline abdominal radiographs predicts spleno-systemic collateral circulation. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2018;59(1):13-17. https://doi.org/10.1111/vru.12555
  25. Kyles AE, Hardie EM, Mehl M, Gregory CR. Evaluation of ameroid ring constrictors for the management of single extrahepatic portosystemic shunts in cats: 23 cases (1996-2001). J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2002;220(9):1341-1347. https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.2002.220.1341
  26. Nelson NC, Nelson LL. Anatomy of extrahepatic portosystemic shunts in dogs as determined by computed tomography angiography. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2011;52(5):498-506. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8261.2011.01827.x
  27. Konstantinidis AO, Patsikas MN, Papazoglou LG, Adamama-Moraitou KK. Congenital portosystemic shunts in dogs and cats: classification, pathophysiology, clinical presentation and diagnosis. Vet Sci. 2023;10(2):160.
  28. Valiente P, Trehy M, White R, Nelissen P, Demetriou J, Stanzani G, et al. Complications and outcome of cats with congenital extrahepatic portosystemic shunts treated with thin film: thirty-four cases (2008-2017). J Vet Intern Med. 2020;34(1):117-124. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvim.15649
  29. White RN, Parry AT. Morphology of congenital portosystemic shunts emanating from the left gastric vein in dogs and cats. J Small Anim Pract. 2013;54(9):459-467. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsap.12116
  30. White RN, Shales C, Parry AT. New perspectives on the development of extrahepatic portosystemic shunts. J Small Anim Pract. 2017;58(12):669-677. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsap.12728