TIPS versus drug therapy in preventing variceal rebleeding in advanced cirrhosis: a randomized controlled trial

Prevention of variceal rebleeding is mandatory in cirrhotic patients. We compared the efficacy, safety, and cost of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) versus pharmacologic therapy in preventing variceal rebleeding in patients with advanced cirrhosis. A total of 91 Child-Pugh class B/C cirrhotic patients surviving their first episode of variceal bleeding were randomized to receive TIPS (n = 47) or drug therapy (propranolol + isosorbide-5-mononitrate) (n = 44) to prevent variceal rebleeding. Mean follow-up was 15 months. Rebleeding occurred in 6 (13%) TIPS-treated patients versus 17 (39%) drug-treated patients (P =.007). The 2-year rebleeding probability was 13% versus 49% (P =.01). A similar number of reinterventions were required in the 2 groups; these were mainly angioplasty +/- restenting in the TIPS group (90 of 98) and endoscopic therapy for rebleeding in the medical group (45 of 62) (not significant). Encephalopathy was more frequent in TIPS than in drug-treated patients (38% vs. 14%, P =.007). Child-Pugh class improved more frequently in drug-treated than in TIPS-treated patients (72% vs. 45%; P =.04). The 2-year survival probability was identical (72%). The identified cost of therapy was double for TIPS-treated patients. In summary, medical therapy was less effective than TIPS in preventing rebleeding. However, it caused less encephalopathy, identical survival, and more frequent improvement in Child-Pugh class with lower costs than TIPS in high-risk cirrhotic patients. This suggests that TIPS should not be used as a first-line treatment, but as a rescue for failures of medical/endoscopic treatments (first-option therapies).     

Clinical outcomes of transcatheter selective superior mesenteric artery urokinase infusion therapy vs transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in patients with cirrhosis and acute portal vein thrombosis

AIM To compare the outcomes of transcatheter superior mesenteric artery(SMA) urokinase infusion and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt(TIPS) for acute portal vein thrombosis(PVT) in cirrhosis.METHODS From January 2013 to December 2014, patients with liver cirrhosis and acute symptomatic PVT who met the inclusion criteria were randomly assigned to either an SMA group or a TIPS group. The two groups accepted transcatheter selective SMA urokinase infusion therapyand TIPS, respectively. The total follow-up time was24 mo. The primary outcome measure was the change in portal vein patency status which was evaluated by angio-computed tomography or Doppler ultrasound.Secondary outcomes were rebleeding and hepatic encephalopathy.RESULTS A total of 40 patients were enrolled, with 20 assigned to the SMA group and 20 to the TIPS group. The symptoms of all patients in the two groups improved within 48 h. PVT was improved in 17(85%) patients in the SMA group and 14(70%) patients in the TIPS group. The main portal vein(MPV) thrombosis was significantly reduced in both groups(P 0.001), and there was no significant difference between them(P= 0.304). In the SMA group, superior mesenteric vein(SMV) thrombosis and splenic vein(SV) thrombosis were significantly reduced(P = 0.048 and P = 0.02),which did not occur in the TIPS group. At 6-, 12-,and 24-mo follow-up, in the SMA group and the TIPS group, the cumulative rates free of the first episode of rebleeding were 80%, 65%, and 45% vs 90%, 80%,and 60%, respectively(P = 0.320); the cumulative rates free of the first episode of hepatic encephalopathy were 85%, 80%, and 65% vs 50%, 40%, and 35%,respectively(P = 0.022).CONCLUSION Transcatheter selective SMA urokinase infusion and TIPS are safe and effective for acute symptomatic PVT in cirrhosis.     

经颈静脉肝内门腔静脉分流术治疗肝癌合并门静脉高压的临床研究

目的 探讨经颈静脉肝内门腔静脉分流术(TIPS)治疗肝癌合并门静脉高压的有效性、安全性和临床价值.方法 收集肝癌合并门静脉高压患者95例,其中63例行TIPS治疗(TIPS组),观察术后情况并随访生存期资料,其余32例(对照组)行内科支持治疗,随访生存期资料.评估TIPS组术后情况、术后肝性脑病、再出血、死亡原因等.行Kaplan-Meier生存分析比较两组中位生存时间,分析Child-Pugh分级及终末期肝病评估模式(MELD)评分与术后生存时间的关系.结果 TIPS组术后门静脉压力梯度平均降低13.6 cmH2O(1 cmH2O-0.098 kPa),术后6个月肝性脑病和再出血的累积发生率分别为20.6%和26.3%,截至随访结束死亡56例,其中最终死于门静脉高压破裂出血者12例.TIPS组中位生存期较对照组延长.TIPS组中MELD评分≤13分者中位生存时间大于评分>13分者(x2=4.71,P=0.03),Child-Pugh分级A到C级中位生存时间依次缩短(x2=15.6,P=0.00).结论 TIPS是治疗肝癌合并门静脉高压及其并发症安全有效的方法 ,应根据术前肝功能状况选择手术患者.     

Distal splenorenal shunt versus transjugular intrahepatic portal systematic shunt for variceal bleeding: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Variceal bleeding refractory to medical treatment with beta-blockers and endoscopic therapy can be managed by variceal decompression with either surgical shunts or transjugular intrahepatic portal systemic shunts (TIPS). This prospective randomized trial tested the hypothesis that patients receiving distal splenorenal shunts (DSRS) would have significantly lower rebleeding and encephalopathy rates than TIPS in management of refractory variceal bleeding. METHODS: A prospective randomized controlled clinical trial at 5 centers was conducted. One hundred forty patients with Child-Pugh class A and B cirrhosis and refractory variceal bleeding were randomized to DSRS or TIPS. Protocol and event follow-up for 2-8 years (mean, 46 +/- 26 months) for primary end points of variceal bleeding and encephalopathy and secondary end points of death, ascites, thrombosis and stenosis, liver function, need for transplant, quality of life, and cost were evaluated. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in rebleeding (DSRS, 5.5%; TIPS, 10.5%; P = .29) or first encephalopathy event (DSRS, 50%; TIPS, 50%). Survival at 2 and 5 years (DSRS, 81% and 62%; TIPS, 88% and 61%, respectively) were not significantly different (P = .87). Thrombosis, stenosis, and reintervention rates (DSRS, 11%; TIPS, 82%) were significantly (P < .001) higher in the TIPS group. Ascites, need for transplant, quality of life, and costs were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: DSRS and TIPS are similarly efficacious in the control of refractory variceal bleeding in Child-Pugh class A and B patients. Reintervention is significantly greater for TIPS compared with DSRS. Because both procedures have equivalent outcomes, the choice is dependent on available expertise and ability to monitor the shunt and reintervene when needed.     

Cost analysis for the prevention of variceal rebleeding: a comparison between transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt and endoscopic sclerotherapy in a selected group of Italian cirrhotic patients

The aim of the present study was to compare the cumulative cost of the first 18-month period in a selected group of Italian cirrhotic patients treated with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) versus endoscopic sclerotherapy (ES) to prevent variceal rebleeding. Thirty-eight patients enrolled in a controlled trial were considered (18 TIPS and 20 sclerotherapy). The number of days spent in the hospital for the initial treatment and during the follow-up period were defined as the costs of hospitalization. ES sessions, TIPS procedures, angioplasty or addition of a second stent to maintain the shunt patency, were defined as the costs of therapeutic procedures. The two groups were comparable for age, sex, and Child-Pugh score. During the observation period 4 patients died in the TIPS group, and 2 died and 1 was transplanted in the sclerotherapy group. The rebleeding rate was significantly higher in the sclerotherapy group. Despite this, the number of days spent in the hospital was similar in the two groups. This was because of a higher number of hospital admissions for the treatment of hepatic encephalopathy and shunt insufficiency in the TIPS group. The therapeutic procedures were more expensive for TIPS. Consequently, the cumulative cost was higher for patients treated with TIPS than for those treated with sclerotherapy. The extra cost was because of the initial higher cost of the procedure and the difference was still maintained at the end of the 18-month follow-up. When the cumulative costs were expressed per month free of rebleeding, the disadvantage of TIPS disappeared. In conclusion, a program of prevention of variceal rebleeding with TIPS, despite the longer interval free of rebleeding, is not a cost-saving strategy in comparison with sclerotherapy.     

Second prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients with a high HVPG

Objective: The hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) could be used to stratify patients in different risk groups. No studies have reported the role of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) placement in a subgroup of patients with a high HVPG (≥20?mmHg) for secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding. This study was designed to evaluate the benefit of TIPS in cirrhotic patients with a high HVPG (≥20?mmHg) for rebleeding and survival.

Material and methods: We included 46 cirrhotic patients with a history of variceal bleeding and a high HVPG (≥20?mmHg) admitted to our hospital between January 2013 and June 2014 (TIPS group). Patients were matched by Child-Pugh scores to patients in our historical cohort hospitalized for prophylaxis of variceal rebleeding between April 2011 and December 2012 (propranolol?+?EVL group). The end points included time to significant rebleeding from portal hypertensive sources, 1-year survival, and time to the occurrence of hepatic encephalopathy (HE).

Results: The 1-year actuarial probability of remaining free of variceal rebleeding was significantly higher in the TIPS group than in the propranolol?+?EVL group (85% vs. 54%, p?=?0.01). The 1-year survival rates were not different between the two groups (85% vs. 89%, p?=?0.591). The 1-year actuarial probability of remaining free of HE was significantly lower in the TIPS group than in the propranolol?+?EVL group (67% vs. 91%, p?=?0.003).

Conclusions: TIPS was more effective than propranolol?+?EVL in preventing variceal rebleeding in cirrhotic patients with a high HVPG (≥20?mmHg). During the limited follow-up, survival was similar in the two groups.     

经颈静脉肝内门体分流术后早期肝性脑病的危险因素

目的 研究经颈静脉肝内门体分流术(TIPS)术后早期肝性脑病(HE)的危险因素,并观察术后HE与患者长期生存情况的相关性.方法 收集2003年1月-2008年12月接受TIPS治疗食管胃底静脉曲张出血或顽固性腹水的患者.对术后3个月内有HE(术后早期HE组)和术后3个月内无HE(无术后早期HE组)的两组患者的临床特征进行单因素分析和多因素logistic回归分析,并对两组患者的生存情况进行分析比较.结果 共收集190例患者资料,中位随访时间为30.5个月(四分位间距为30个月).术前血清纤维蛋白酶原(OR=0.414,P=0.023)及Child-Pugh评分(OR=1.744,P=0.024)与术后早期HE相关.并且术后早期HE组患者与无术后早期HE组患者的3年累积生存率分别为44.9%(95%可信区间为53.5%～36.3%)和79.5%(95%可信区间为83.2%～75.7%).结论 TIPS术前高Child-Pugh评分及低血清纤维蛋白酶原的患者术后3个月内发生HE的可能性大.发生术后早期HE的患者比不发生术后早期HE患者长期累积生存率低.

Abstract：

Objective To identify the risk factors of early post-TIPS hepatic encephalopathy (HE) and the long-time survival of patients with or without early post-TIPS HE. Methods Consecutive cirrhotic patients who underwent TIPS for variceal rebleeding or refractory ascites in our center from January 2003 to December 2008 were included in this study. More than 60 clinical characteristics were enrolled in univariate analysis and logistic regression analysis to define the risk factors of HE in 3 months after TIPS procedure (early post-TIPS HE). The long-time survival of patients with or without early post-TIPS HE was compared by Cox regression with several covariates. Results According to our inclusion criteria, 190 patients were included. The median follow-up was 30.5 months. Lower serum concentration of fibrinogen and higher Child-Pugh score were the independent risk factors for suffering early post-TIPS HE. Patients without early post-TIPS HE after TIPS showed better prognosis than those with early post-TIPS HE after TIPS (P = 0.044). Conclusion Patients with lower serum fibrinogen and higher Child-Pugh score before TIPS might be more probably attacked by early post-TIPS HE which indicated worse long-term survival.     

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) versus endoscopic variceal ligation in the prevention of variceal rebleeding in patients with cirrhosis: a randomised trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is a new therapeutic modality for variceal bleeding. In this study we compared the two year survival and rebleeding rates in cirrhotic patients treated by either variceal band ligation or TIPS for variceal bleeding. METHODS: Eighty cirrhotic patients (Pugh score 7-12) with variceal bleeding were randomly allocated to TIPS (n=41) or ligation (n=39), 24 hours after control of bleeding. RESULTS: Mean follow up was 581 days in the ligation group and 678 days in the TIPS group. The two year survival rate was 57% in the TIPS group and 56% in the ligation group (NS); the incidence of variceal rebleeding after two years was 18% in the TIPS group and 66% in the ligation group (p<0.001). Uncontrolled rebleeding occurred in 11 patients in the ligation group (eight were rescued by emergency TIPS) but in none of the TIPS group. The incidence of encephalopathy at two years was 47% in the TIPS group and 44% in the ligation group (NS). CONCLUSIONS: TIPS did not increase the two year survival rate compared with variceal band ligation after variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients with moderate or severe liver failure. It significantly reduced the incidence of variceal rebleeding without increasing the rate of encephalopathy.     

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunting versus paracentesis plus albumin for refractory ascites in cirrhosis

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) has been shown to be more effective than repeated paracentesis plus albumin in the control of refractory ascites. However, its effect on survival and healthcare costs is still uncertain. METHODS: Seventy patients with cirrhosis and refractory ascites were randomly assigned to TIPS (35 patients) or repeated paracentesis plus intravenous albumin (35 patients). The primary endpoint was survival without liver transplantation. Secondary endpoints were complications of cirrhosis and costs. RESULTS: Twenty patients treated with TIPS and 18 treated with paracentesis died during the study period, whereas 7 patients in each group underwent liver transplantation (mean follow-up 282 +/- 43 vs. 325 +/- 61 days, respectively). The probability of survival without liver transplantation was 41% at 1 year and 26% at 2 years in the TIPS group, as compared with 35% and 30% in the paracentesis group (P = 0.51). In a multivariate analysis, only baseline blood urea nitrogen levels and Child-Pugh score were independently associated with survival. Recurrence of ascites and development of hepatorenal syndrome were lower in the TIPS group compared with the paracentesis group, whereas the frequency of severe hepatic encephalopathy was greater in the TIPS group. The calculated costs were higher in the TIPS group than in the paracentesis group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with refractory ascites, TIPS lowers the rate of ascites recurrence and the risk of developing hepatorenal syndrome. However, TIPS does not improve survival and is associated with an increased frequency of severe encephalopathy and higher costs compared with repeated paracentesis plus albumin.     

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunting is not superior to endoscopic variceal band ligation for prevention of variceal rebleeding in cirrhotic patients: a randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to compare the transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) with variceal band ligation (VBL) in the prophylaxis of variceal rebleeding in patients with cirrhosis of the liver. METHODS: Fifty-four cirrhotic patients (21 Child-Pugh class A, 27 class B, 6 class C) were randomized to TIPS (n = 28) or VBL (n = 26) within 2 months after control of esophageal variceal hemorrhage. Statistical analysis was performed on the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: Mean follow-up was 2 years. Mortality risk at 1 and 2 years of follow-up was 7.8% +/- 5.3% and 19.9% +/- 8.8% in the TIPS group and 16.5% +/- 7.6% and 16.5% +/- 7.6% in the VBL group, respectively (n.s.); actuarial probability of remaining free from rebleeding was 83.7% +/- 77.4% and 71.4% +/- 10.4% in the TIPS group and 83.9% +/- 7.3% and 78.1% +/- 8.8% in the VBL group at 1 and 2 years, respectively (n.s.). Hepatic encephalopathy within 1 month after randomization was observed in 2 patients in the TIPS group and in 1 in the VBL group. CONCLUSION: TIPS is not superior to VBL in the prevention of variceal rebleeding. Furthermore, similar mortality rates in patients treated with TIPS or VBL negate TIPS as the preferred strategy for prevention of variceal rebleeding.     

EVS vs TIPS shunt for gastric variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis:A meta-analysis

AIM: To evaluate the clinical effects of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) vs endoscopic variceal sclerotherapy (EVS) in the management of gastric variceal (GV) bleeding in terms of variceal rebleeding, hepatic encephalopathy (HE), and survival by meta-analysis.METHODS: Medline, Embase, and CNKI were searched. Studies compared TIPS with EVS in treating GV bleeding were identified and included according to our predefined inclusion criteria. Data were extracted independently by two of our authors. Studies with prospective randomized design were considered to be of high quality. Hazard ratios (HRs) or odd ratios(ORs) were calculated using a fixed-effects model when there was no inter-trial heterogeneity. Oppositely, a random-effects model was employed.RESULTS: Three studies with 220 patients who had at least one episode of GV bleeding were included in the present meta-analysis. The proportions of patients with viral cirrhosis and alcoholic cirrhosis were 39% (range 0%-78%) and 36% (range 12% to 41%), respectively. The pooled incidence of variceal rebleeding in the TIPS group was significantly lower than that in the EVS group (HR = 0.3, 0.35, 95% CI: 0.17-0.71, P = 0.004). However, the risk of the development of any degree of HE was significantly increased in the TIPS group (OR = 15.97, 95% CI: 3.61-70.68). The pooled HR of survival was 1.26(95% CI: 0.76-2.09, P = 0.36). No inter-trial heterogeneity was observed among these analyses. CONCLUSION: The improved effect of TIPS in the prevention of GV rebleeding is associated with an increased risk of HE. There is no survival difference between the TIPS and EVS groups. Further studies are needed to evaluate the survival benefit of TIPS in cirrhotic patients with GV bleeding.     

A ten-year prospective study on gallbladder stone recurrence after successful extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy

Background: The aim of the present study was to compare the transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) with variceal band ligation (VBL) in the prophylaxis of variceal rebleeding in patients with cirrhosis of the liver. Methods: Fifty-four cirrhotic patients (21 Child-Pugh class A, 27 class B, 6 class C) were randomized to TIPS ( n = 28) or VBL ( n = 26) within 2 months after control of esophageal variceal hemorrhage. Statistical analysis was performed on the intention-to-treat principle. Results: Mean follow-up was 2 years. Mortality risk at 1 and 2 years of follow-up was 7.8% ± 5.3% and 19.9% ± 8.8% in the TIPS group and 16.5% ± 7.6% and 16.5% ± 7.6% in the VBL group, respectively (n.s.); actuarial probability of remaining free from rebleeding was 83.7% ± 7.4% and 71.4% ± 10.4% in the TIPS group and 83.9% ± 7.3% and 78.1% ± 8.8% in the VBL group at 1 and 2 years, respectively (n.s.). Hepatic encephalopathy within 1 month after randomization was observed in 2 patients in the TIPS group and in 1 in the VBL group. Conclusion: TIPS is not superior to VBL in the prevention of variceal rebleeding. Furthermore, similar mortality rates in patients treated with TIPS or VBL negate TIPS as the preferred strategy for prevention of variceal rebleeding.     

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt vs endoscopic therapy in preventing variceal rebleeding

AIM:To compare early use of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt(TIPS) with endoscopic treatment(ET) for the prophylaxis of recurrent variceal bleeding.METHODS:In-patient data were collected from 190 patients between January 2007 and June 2010 who suffured from variceal bleeding.Patients who were older than 75 years;previously received surgical treatment or endoscopic therapy for variceal bleeding;and complicated with hepatic encephalopathy or hepatic cancer,were excluded from this research.Thirty-five cases lost to follow-up were also excluded.Retrospective analysis was done in 126 eligible cases.Among them,64 patients received TIPS(TIPS group) while 62 patients received endoscopic therapy(ET group).The relevant data were collected by patient review or telephone calls.The occurrence of rebleeding,hepatic encephalopathy or other complications,survival rateand cost of treatment were compared between the two groups.RESULTS:During the follow-up period(median,20.7 and 18.7 mo in TIPS and ET groups,respectively),rebleeding from any source occurred in 11 patients in the TIPS group as compared with 31 patients in the ET group(Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank test,P = 0.000).Rebleeding rates at any time point(6 wk,1 year and 2 year) in the TIPS group were lower than in the ET group(Bonferroni correction α' = α/3).Eight patients in the TIPS group and 16 in the ET group died with the cumulative survival rates of 80.6% and 64.9%(Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank test c2 = 4.864,P = 0.02),respectively.There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to 6-wk survival rates(Bonferroni correction α' = α/3).However,significant differences were observed between the two groups in the 1-year survival rates(92% and 79%) and the 2-year survival rates(89% and 64.9%)(Bonferroni correction α' = α/3).No significant differences were observed between the two treatment groups in the occurrence of hepatic encephalopathy(12 patients in TIPS group and 5 in ET group,KaplanMeier analysis and log-rank test,c2 = 3.103,P = 0.08).The average total cost for the TIPS group was higher than for ET group(Wilcxon-Mann Whitney test,52 678 RMB vs 38 844 RMB,P 0.05),but hospitalization frequency and hospital stay during follow-up period were lower(Wilcxon-Mann Whitney test,0.4 d vs 1.3 d,P = 0.01;5 d vs 19 d,P 0.05).CONCLUSION:Early use of TIPS is more effective than endoscopic treatment in preventing variceal rebleeding and improving survival rate,and does not increase occurrence of hepatic encephalopathy.     

Effects of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt treatment of patients with liver cirrhosis and portal hypertension: Case series

Rationale:Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is well established as an effective treatment tool for portal hypertension. However, the effects of TIPS in patients with liver cirrhosis and portal hypertension have not been adequately verified in clinical trials.Patient Concerns:To evaluate the effects of TIPS in patients with liver cirrhosis and portal hypertension with or without portal vein thrombosis (PVT).Interventions:A total of 55 patients with liver cirrhosis and portal hypertension received TIPS treatment from December 2014 to April 2018 were enrolled. Clinical data, including portal pressure, Child-Pugh score, and relevant complications were recorded.Outcomes:TIPS was successfully performed in 54 patients. The overall technical success rate was 98.19% without serious technical complications. After TIPS treatment, portal pressure was significantly reduced from 38.13 ± 4.00 cmH₂O to 24.14 ± 3.84 cmH₂O (P < 0.05). In addition, symptoms including gastrointestinal bleeding and ascites were improved after TIPS treatment. During the 6 to 21-month follow up, hepatic encephalopathy in 15 patients (27.8%), shunt dysfunction in 5 patients (9.3%), rebleeding in 12 patients (22.2%) and deterioration of liver function in 2 patients (3.7%) were recorded. Moreover, there were no significant differences in the rates of rebleeding and hepatic encephalopathy between patients with PVT and the non-PVT group, whereas the occurrence rate of TIPS dysfunction was higher in the PVT group, but not statistically significant.Lessons:TIPS treatment could alleviate the symptoms of liver cirrhosis and portal hypertension in individuals with or without PVT. However, complications during follow-up should be appropriately noted and addressed with corresponding treatments.     

Polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stent grafts for TIPS procedure: 1-year patency and clinical results

OBJECTIVES: Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)-covered stent grafts appear to have the potential to improve TIPS patency, but data available are few and controversial. The aim of this prospective nonrandomized trial was to assess TIPS safety and 1-yr patency with a new commercially available PTFE-covered stent graft in comparison with a group of historical controls treated with conventional stents. METHODS: Between July 1992 and December 1999, 87 consecutive cirrhotics underwent TIPS with conventional stents, while from January 2000 to November 2001, 32 consecutive cirrhotics were treated with PTFE-covered stent grafts. All patients were followed by the same medical team according to a prospective protocol for a diagnostic work-up and a surveillance strategy. RESULTS: The two groups were comparable for age, sex, etiology, and severity of cirrhosis. The 1-yr probability of remaining free of shunt dysfunction tended to be higher in the covered stent group: 76.3% (95% CI = 58.7-93.9%) versus 57.5% (95% CI = 46.6-68.4%); log rank test: p = 0.055. However, stenoses inside the stent were significantly higher in patients with bare stents (88% vs 17%), while stenoses at the hepatic or portal vein were more frequent in PTFE-covered stent-graft group (50% vs 9% and 33% vs 3%, respectively), (chi2 = 15.42; df = 2.0; p = 0.0004). Stenoses inside the covered portion of the stent did not occur. One-year cumulative rebleeding, encephalopathy, and survival were similar. CONCLUSIONS: PTFE-covered stents are able to solve pseudointimal hyperplasia within the stent tract, but have a high incidence of hepatic or portal vein stenosis. Improvements in stent design and insertion techniques are necessary to fully achieve the potential benefit of this new device.     

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in refractory ascites: a meta-analysis.

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is a more effective treatment for refractory ascites than large volume paracentesis (LVP), but the magnitude of its effect in terms of control of ascites, encephalopathy and survival has not been established. AIM: This meta-analysis compare TIPS to LVP in terms of control of ascites at 4 and 12 months, encephalopathy and survival at 1 and 2 years. RESULTS: Five randomized controlled trials involving 330 patients were included. In the TIPS group, control of ascites was more frequently achieved at 4 months (66% vs 23.8%, mean difference: 41.4%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 29.5-53.2%, P < 0.001) and 12 months (54.8% vs 18.9%, mean difference: 35%, 95% CI: 24.9-45.1%, P < 0.001), whereas encephalopathy was higher (54.9% vs 38.1%, mean difference: 17%, 95% CI: 7.3-26.6%, P < 0.001). Survival at 1 year (61.7% vs 56.5%, mean difference: 3.2%, 95% CI: -14.7 to 21.9%) and 2 years (50% vs 42.8%, mean difference: 6.8%, 95% CI: -10 to 23.6%) were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: TIPS is a more effective treatment for refractory ascites than LVP. However, TIPS increase encephalopathy and does not improve survival.     

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt combined with esophagogastric variceal embolization in the treatment of a large gastrorenal shunt

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt(TIPS) combined with stomach and esophageal variceal embolization(SEVE) in cirrhotic patients with a large gastrorenal vessel shunt(GRVS).METHODS: Eighty-one cirrhotic patients with gastric variceal bleeding(GVB) associated with a GRVS were enrolled in the study and accepted TIPS combined with SEVE(TIPS + SEVE), by which portosystemic pressuregradient(PPG), biochemical, TIPS-related complications, shunt dysfunction, rebleeding, and death were evaluated. RESULTS: The PPGs before TIPS were greater than 12 mmH g in 81 patients. TIPS + SEVE treatment caused a significant decrease in PPG(from 37.97 ± 6.36 mmH g to 28.15 ± 6.52 mm Hg, t = 19.22, P 0.001). The percentage of reduction in PPG was greater than 20%from baseline. There were no significant differences in albumin, alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, bilirubin, prothrombin time, or Child-Pugh score before and after operation. In all patients, rebleeding rates were 3%, 6%, 12%, 18%, and 18% at 1,3, 6, 12, and 18 mo, respectively. Five patients(6.2%)were diagnosed as having hepatic encephalopathy. The rates of shunt dysfunction were 0%, 4%, 9%, 26%,and 26%, at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 18 mo, respectively. The cumulative survival rates in 1, 3, 6, 12, and 18 mo were100%, 100%, 95%, 90%, and 90%, respectively.CONCLUSION: Our preliminary results indicated that the efficacy and safety of TIPS + SEVE were satisfactory in cirrhotic patients with GVB associated with a GRVS(GVB + GRVS).     

Portacaval shunt versus endoscopic sclerotherapy in the elective treatment of variceal hemorrhage

Eighty-two consecutive Child-Campbell class A and B cirrhotic patients were included in a prospective controlled trial to assess the efficacy and safety of portacaval anastomosis vs. endoscopic sclerotherapy as elective treatment of variceal hemorrhage. Forty-one patients were randomized to portacaval anastomosis and 41 to sclerotherapy. After excluding dropouts, 34 patients were treated with portacaval anastomosis and 35 with sclerotherapy. The incidence of variceal rebleeding during follow-up (mean +/- SD, 20.6 +/- 14.2 months) was significantly higher in the sclerotherapy than in the portacaval groups, either considering the overall treated group or only patients completing sclerotherapy (40% and 25% vs. 2.9%; P = 0.0002 and P = 0.01, respectively). The 2-year probability of suffering from at least one episode of hepatic encephalopathy was significantly higher in patients submitted to portacaval anastomosis than in those treated with endoscopic sclerotherapy (40% vs. 12%; P = 0.04). However, disabling encephalopathy only appeared in 3 of 34 patients who underwent surgery (8.8%). Early and long-term mortality did not differ between the therapeutic groups; 2-year survival rates were 83% for portacaval anastomosis and 79% for sclerotherapy. It is concluded that portacaval anastomosis is more effective than endoscopic sclerotherapy in preventing variceal rebleeding in spite of the greater incidence of hepatic encephalopathy. The role of portacaval anastomosis in the elective treatment of variceal rebleeding should be reassessed.     

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt is effective in patients with chronic portal vein thrombosis and variceal bleeding

Background: Studies about treatment of patients with chronic portal vein thrombosis(CPVT) are still limited, especially in different types of CPVT. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt(TIPS) in all types of CPVT with variceal bleeding. Methods: Patients with CPVT who received TIPS treatment between January 2011 and June 2019 were divided into four types according to the extent of thrombosis. All patients had a history of variceal bleeding. The characteristics and clinical parameters were collected and recorded. Data on procedure success rate, variation in portal vein pressure, rebleeding, hepatic encephalopathy(HE), stent stenosis, and overall mortality were analyzed. Results: A total of 189 patients were included in this study(39 in type 1, 84 in type 2, 48 in type 3, 18 in type 4). The TIPS procedure success rate was 86.2%. The success rate was significantly different among the four types(89.7% vs. 88.1% vs. 83.3% vs. 77.8%, P = 0.001). In the TIPS success group, portal vein pressure was significantly reduced from 27.15 ± 6.59 to 19.74 ± 6.73 mm Hg after the procedure( P 0.001) and the rebleeding rate was significantly lower than that of the fail group(14.7% vs. 30.8%, P = 0.017). In addition, there were no significant differences in HE rate(30.7% vs. 26.9%, P = 0.912) or overall mortality(12.9% vs. 19.2%, P = 0.403) between the TIPS success group and the fail group. In the TIPS success group, we found that the occurrence of HE was significantly different( P = 0.020) among the four types, while there were no significant differences in rebleeding rate( P = 0.669), stent stenosis rate( P = 0.056), or overall mortality( P = 0.690). Conclusions: TIPS was safe and effective in decreasing portal vein pressure and rebleeding rate in patients with CPVT.     

Differences in long-term survival after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for refractory ascites and variceal bleed

OBJECTIVE: To compare the survival after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) for refractory ascites and variceal bleed, and to identify the factors predictive of survival. METHODS: Single tertiary center, retrospective-prospective study. Chart review was performed on all patients who underwent TIPS between 1993 and 2000 and prospective follow-up to determine survival. Pre- and post-TIPS clinical parameters were compared and Kaplan-Meier analysis was applied to compare the survival of both groups. Cox regression was used to identify predictors of survival after TIPS. RESULTS: A total of 163 patients were included, 62 with refractory ascites and 101 with variceal bleed. Both groups had similar age (48.2 vs 48.9 year; P = 0.65) and consisted of predominantly Caucasians (51%) and Mexican-Americans (39%). More than 75% had chronic hepatitis C, alcoholic liver disease or both. Overall, the median survival was significantly better for variceal bleed (2 years) compared with refractory ascites (6 months) (P < 0.001). This survival advantage persisted in patients with Mayo risk score greater than 1.17. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt improved severe ascites in 45% of patients (P = 0.03). Mayo risk score was highly predictive of survival after TIPS with a hazard ratio of 2.3, followed by Child-Pugh score, creatinine, albumin and ethnicity, with better survival among Mexican-Americans. Shunt dysfunction (31%) and hepatic encephalopathy (27%) were the most common complications of TIPS. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received TIPS for variceal bleed had significantly longer survival compared with those for refractory ascites. Mexican-Americans had an improved long-term survival compared with Caucasians. The reason for this ethnic difference in survival is unclear and warrants further prospective evaluation.