Surgical portosystemic shunts versus transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for variceal haemorrhage in people with cirrhosis

The Portosystemic Shunt for the Control of Variceal Bleeding in Cirrhotic Patients: Past and Present

Based on an experience of more than 50 years in the treatment of portal hypertension (PHT), the authors review and analyze the evolution of the surgical portocaval shunt (PCS). We would like to provide an insight into the past of PCS, in order to compare it with the current state of the treatment of PHT complications. As a landmark of the past, we shall present statistics of more than 500 cases of PHT operated between 1968 and 1983. From this group, 238 patients underwent surgical portocaval shunting during a fifteen-year period. The behavior of the portal hemodynamics following PCS was studied and the postoperative decrease in portal pressure (PP), as well as the residual PP, were recorded. The portal manometric determinations were made by electronic recordings using the Hellige device and direct intraoperative recordings through the catheterization of a ramus in the portal area. The results of PCS are superposable, in terms of hemodynamic efficiency, with those of the intrahepatic shunt (TIPS-transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt). The authors discuss the current place of PCS, in obvious decline in comparison with the situation 50 years ago. The current methods of controlling variceal bleeding represent obvious progress. PCS remains with very limited indications, in specific situations when the other therapeutic methods have failed or are not recommended.

Current Indications and Long-Term Outcomes of Surgical Portosystemic Shunts in Adults

BACKGROUND

Surgical portosystemic shunts are rare. We reviewed indications, operative details, and outcomes of patients undergoing surgical portosystemic shunt procedures.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed clinical data of consecutive patients between 1997 and 2018 from a single institution. Clinical characteristics and outcomes were compared between two groups: patients with portomesenteric venous thrombosis (PMVT) vs those with cirrhosis. Endpoints included 30-day mortality, shunt-related complications, patency, and survival.

RESULTS

There were 99 patients, 45 male and 54 female, with a mean age of 46 ± 18 years, enrolled in the study. There were 63 patients (63%) with PMVT and 36 patients (36%) with cirrhosis. Both groups had similar demographics, cardiovascular risk factors, and aneurysm extent, except for more diabetes among those with cirrhosis (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in procedural metrics and intra-procedure complications between groups, except that patients with PMVT underwent more non-selective shunts than those with cirrhosis (63% vs. 30%, p < 0.001). There were two 30-day deaths (2%), with no difference in mortality and MAEs between groups. On univariate analysis, cholangiopathy and PMVT were associated with graft thrombosis (HR = 9.22, 95% CI 1.22-70.27) while race, smoking, cardiac comorbidity, type of operative shunt, configuration of the shunt, and use of conduit were not (p > 0.05). Patients with PMVT had significantly lower 1-, 5-, and 10-year primary (77%, 71%, and 71% vs. 97%, p = 0.009) and secondary patency (88%, 76%, and 72% vs. 96%, p = 0.027) compared with those with cirrhosis. The 1-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates were 94%, 84%, and 61% for patients with PMVT compared with 88%, 58%, and 26% for those with cirrhosis (non-adjusted HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.19-0.84, p = 0.01, age-adjusted HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.24-1.09, p = 0.08). The survival of patients with PMVT without liver disease trended higher than those with liver disease; however, when adjusted for age, the survival gap narrowed, and the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.19), survival being lowest for those with PMVT and liver disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical portosystemic shunts are safe and effective for symptom relief in selected patients with portal hypertension. The odds of graft thrombosis is 9 times higher in patients with PMVT. Overall survival is similar in patients with PMVT or cirrhosis.

Secondary prevention of variceal bleeding in adults with previous oesophageal variceal bleeding due to decompensated liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Approximately 40% to 95% of people with cirrhosis have oesophageal varices. About 15% to 20% of oesophageal varices bleed in about one to three years of diagnosis. Several different treatments are available, which include endoscopic sclerotherapy, variceal band ligation, beta-blockers, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), and surgical portocaval shunts, among others. However, there is uncertainty surrounding their individual and relative benefits and harms.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of different initial treatments for secondary prevention of variceal bleeding in adults with previous oesophageal variceal bleeding due to decompensated liver cirrhosis through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the different treatments for secondary prevention according to their safety and efficacy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers until December 2019 to identify randomised clinical trials in people with cirrhosis and a previous history of bleeding from oesophageal varices.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and previous history of bleeding from oesophageal varices. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had no previous history of bleeding from oesophageal varices, previous history of bleeding only from gastric varices, those who failed previous treatment (refractory bleeding), those who had acute bleeding at the time of treatment, and those who had previously undergone liver transplantation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and calculated the differences in treatments using hazard ratios (HR), odds ratios (OR) and rate ratios with 95% credible intervals (CrI) based on an available-case analysis, according to National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 48 randomised clinical trials (3526 participants) in the review. Forty-six trials (3442 participants) were included in one or more comparisons. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies. The follow-up ranged from two months to 61 months. All the trials were at high risk of bias. A total of 12 interventions were compared in these trials (sclerotherapy, beta-blockers, variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy, no active intervention, TIPS (transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt), beta-blockers plus nitrates, portocaval shunt, sclerotherapy plus variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus nitrates plus variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy plus nitrates). Overall, 22.5% of the trial participants who received the reference treatment (chosen because this was the commonest treatment compared in the trials) of sclerotherapy died during the follow-up period ranging from two months to 61 months. There was considerable uncertainty in the effects of interventions on mortality. Accordingly, none of the interventions showed superiority over another. None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. Based on low-certainty evidence, variceal band ligation may result in fewer serious adverse events (number of people) than sclerotherapy (OR 0.19; 95% CrI 0.06 to 0.54; 1 trial; 100 participants). Based on low or very low-certainty evidence, the adverse events (number of participants) and adverse events (number of events) may be different across many comparisons; however, these differences are due to very small trials at high risk of bias showing large differences in some comparisons leading to many differences despite absence of direct evidence. Based on low-certainty evidence, TIPS may result in large decrease in symptomatic rebleed than variceal band ligation (HR 0.12; 95% CrI 0.03 to 0.41; 1 trial; 58 participants). Based on moderate-certainty evidence, any variceal rebleed was probably lower in sclerotherapy than in no active intervention (HR 0.62; 95% CrI 0.35 to 0.99, direct comparison HR 0.66; 95% CrI 0.11 to 3.13; 3 trials; 296 participants), beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy than sclerotherapy alone (HR 0.60; 95% CrI 0.37 to 0.95; direct comparison HR 0.50; 95% CrI 0.07 to 2.96; 4 trials; 231 participants); TIPS than sclerotherapy (HR 0.18; 95% CrI 0.08 to 0.38; direct comparison HR 0.22; 95% CrI 0.01 to 7.51; 2 trials; 109 participants), and in portocaval shunt than sclerotherapy (HR 0.21; 95% CrI 0.05 to 0.77; no direct comparison) groups. Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers alone and TIPS might result in more, other compensation, events than sclerotherapy (rate ratio 2.37; 95% CrI 1.35 to 4.67; 1 trial; 65 participants and rate ratio 2.30; 95% CrI 1.20 to 4.65; 2 trials; 109 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions including those related to beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation in the remaining comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions on mortality. Variceal band ligation might result in fewer serious adverse events than sclerotherapy. TIPS might result in a large decrease in symptomatic rebleed than variceal band ligation. Sclerotherapy probably results in fewer 'any' variceal rebleeding than no active intervention. Beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy and TIPS probably result in fewer 'any' variceal rebleeding than sclerotherapy. Beta-blockers alone and TIPS might result in more other compensation events than sclerotherapy. The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in the remaining comparisons. Accordingly, high-quality randomised comparative clinical trials are needed.

Portosystemic shunt surgery in the era of TIPS: imaging-based planning of the surgical approach

PURPOSE

With the spread of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPS), portosystemic shunt surgery (PSSS) has decreased and leaves more complex patients with great demands for accurate preoperative planning. The aim was to evaluate the role of imaging for predicting the most suitable PSSS approach.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Forty-four patients who underwent PSSS (2002 to 2013) were examined by contrast-enhanced CT (n = 33) and/or MRI (n = 15) prior to surgery. Imaging was analyzed independently by two observers (O1 and O2) with different levels of experience (O1 > O2). They recommended two shunting techniques (vessels and anastomotic variant) for each patient and ranked them according to their appropriateness and complexity. Findings were compared with the actually performed shunt procedure and its outcome.

RESULTS

The first two choices taken together covered the performed PSSS regarding vessels in 88%/100% (CT/MRI, O1) and 76%/73% (O2); and vessels + anastomosis in 79%/73% (O1) and 67%/60% (O2). The prediction of complex surgical procedures (resection of interposing structures, additional thrombectomy, use of a collateral vessel, and use of a graft interposition) was confirmed in 87%, resulting in 80% sensitivity and 96% specificity. Larger shunt vessel distances were associated with therapy failure (p = 0.030) and a vessel distance of ≥ 20 mm was identified as optimal cutoff, in which a graft interposition was used. There was no significant difference between MRI and CT in predicting the intraoperative decisions (p = 0.294 to 1.000).

CONCLUSION

Preoperative imaging and an experienced radiologist can guide surgeons in PSSS. CT and MRI provide the information necessary to identify technically feasible variants and complicating factors.