Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts for hepatorenal syndrome

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts for adults with hepatorenal syndrome

BACKGROUND

Hepatorenal syndrome is a condition that occurs in people with chronic liver disease (such as alcoholic hepatitis, advanced cirrhosis, or fulminant liver failure) and portal hypertension. The prognosis is dismal, often with a survival of weeks to months. Hepatorenal syndrome is characterised by the development of intense splanchnic vasodilation favouring ascites and hypotension leading to renal vasoconstriction and acute renal failure. Therefore, treatment attempts focus on improving arterial pressure through the use of vasopressors, paracentesis, and increasing renal perfusion pressure. Several authors have reported that the placement of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPS) may be a therapeutic option because it decreases portal pressure and improves arterial and renal pressures. However, the evidence is not clearly documented and TIPS may cause adverse events. Accordingly, it is necessary to evaluate the evidence of the benefits and harms of TIPS to assess its value in people with hepatorenal syndrome.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPS) in adults with hepatorenal syndrome compared with sham, no intervention, conventional treatment, or other treatments.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 2 June 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials with a parallel-group design, which compared the TIPS placement with sham, no intervention, conventional therapy, or other therapies, in adults aged 18 years or older, regardless of sex or ethnicity, diagnosed with chronic liver disease and hepatorenal syndrome. We excluded trials of adults with kidney failure due to causes not related to hepatorenal syndrome, and we also excluded data from quasi-randomised, cross-over, and observational study designs as we did not design a separate search for such studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. all-cause mortality, 2. morbidity due to any cause, and 3. serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were 1. health-related quality of life, 2. non-serious adverse events, 3. participants who did not receive a liver transplant, 4. participants without improvement in kidney function, and 5. length of hospitalisation. We performed fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analyses using risk ratio (RR) or Peto odds ratio (Peto OR), with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for the continuous outcomes. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two randomised clinical trials comparing TIPS placement (64 participants) versus conventional treatment (paracentesis plus albumin 8 g/L of removed ascites) (66 participants). The co-interventions used in the trials were dietary treatment (sodium less than 60 mmoL/day), spironolactone (300 mg/day to 400 mg/day), and furosemide (120 mg/day). Follow-up was up to 24 months. Both were multicentre trials from Spain and the USA, and Germany, conducted between 1993 and 2002. Most participants were men (aged 18 to 75 years). We are uncertain about the effect of TIPS placement compared with conventional treatment, during the first 24 months of follow-up, on all-cause mortality (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.38; 2 trials, 130 participants; I2 = 58%; very low-certainty evidence) and on the development of any serious adverse event (RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.10 to 24.59; 2 trials, 130 participants; I2 = 78%; very low-certainty evidence). The use of TIPS may or may not result in a decrease in overall morbidity such as bacterial peritonitis, encephalopathy, or refractory ascites, during the first 24 months of follow-up, compared with the conventional treatment (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.18; 2 trials, 130 participants; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of TIPS placement versus conventional treatment on the number of people who did not receive a liver transplant (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.14; 2 trials, 130 participants; I2 = 0%; very low-certainty evidence) or on the length of hospitalisation (MD -20.0 days, 95% CI -39.92 to -0.08; 1 trial, 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Kidney function may improve in participants with TIPS placement (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.02; 1 trial, 70 participants; low-certainty evidence). No trials reported health-related quality of life, non-serious adverse events, or number of participants with improvement in liver function associated with the TIPS placement. Funding No trials reported sources of commercial funding or conflicts of interest between researchers. Ongoing studies We found one ongoing trial comparing TIPS with conventional therapy (terlipressin plus albumin) and listed one study as awaiting classification as no full-text article could be found.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

TIPS placement was compared with conventional treatment, with a follow-up of 24 months, in adults with hepatorenal syndrome type 2. Based on two trials with insufficient sample size and trial limitations, we assessed the overall certainty of evidence as low or very low. We are unsure if TIPS may decrease all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, the number of people who did not receive a liver transplant, and the days of hospitalisation because of the very low-certainty evidence. We are unsure if TIPS, compared with conventional treatment, has better effects on overall morbidity (bacterial peritonitis, encephalopathy, or refractory ascites). TIPS may improve kidney function, but the certainty of evidence is low. The trials included no data on health-related quality of life, non-serious adverse events, and liver function associated with the TIPS placement. We identified one ongoing trial and one study awaiting classification which may contribute to the review when information becomes available.

Treatment for hepatorenal syndrome in people with decompensated liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hepatorenal syndrome is defined as renal failure in people with cirrhosis in the absence of other causes. In addition to supportive treatment such as albumin to restore fluid balance, the other potential treatments include systemic vasoconstrictor drugs (such as vasopressin analogues or noradrenaline), renal vasodilator drugs (such as dopamine), transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), and liver support with molecular adsorbent recirculating system (MARS). There is uncertainty over the best treatment regimen for hepatorenal syndrome.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of different treatments for hepatorenal syndrome in people with decompensated liver cirrhosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trial registers until December 2018 to identify randomised clinical trials on hepatorenal syndrome in people with cirrhosis.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) in adults with cirrhosis and hepatorenal syndrome. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had previously undergone liver transplantation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently identified eligible trials and collected data. The outcomes for this review included mortality, serious adverse events, any adverse events, resolution of hepatorenal syndrome, liver transplantation, and other decompensation events. We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and calculated the odds ratio (OR), rate ratio, hazard ratio (HR), and mean difference (MD) 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 25 trials (1263 participants; 12 interventions) in the review. Twenty-three trials (1185 participants) were included in one or more outcomes. All the trials were at high risk of bias, and all the evidence was of low or very low certainty. The trials included participants with liver cirrhosis of varied aetiologies as well as a mixture of type I hepatorenal syndrome only, type II hepatorenal syndrome only, or people with both type I and type II hepatorenal syndrome. Participant age ranged from 42 to 60 years, and the proportion of females ranged from 5.8% to 61.5% in the trials that reported this information. The follow-up in the trials ranged from one week to six months. Overall, 59% of participants died during this period and about 35% of participants recovered from hepatorenal syndrome. The most common interventions compared were albumin plus terlipressin, albumin plus noradrenaline, and albumin alone.There was no evidence of a difference in mortality (22 trials; 1153 participants) at maximal follow-up between the different interventions. None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. There was no evidence of differences in the proportion of people with serious adverse events (three trials; 428 participants), number of participants with serious adverse events per participant (two trials; 166 participants), proportion of participants with any adverse events (four trials; 402 participants), the proportion of people who underwent liver transplantation at maximal follow-up (four trials; 342 participants), or other features of decompensation at maximal follow-up (one trial; 466 participants). Five trials (293 participants) reported number of any adverse events, and five trials (219 participants) reported treatment costs. Albumin plus noradrenaline had fewer numbers of adverse events per participant (rate ratio 0.51, 95% CrI 0.28 to 0.87). Eighteen trials (1047 participants) reported recovery from hepatorenal syndrome (as per definition of hepatorenal syndrome). In terms of recovery from hepatorenal syndrome, in the direct comparisons, albumin plus midodrine plus octreotide and albumin plus octreotide had lower recovery from hepatorenal syndrome than albumin plus terlipressin (HR 0.04; 95% CrI 0.00 to 0.25 and HR 0.26, 95% CrI 0.07 to 0.80 respectively). There was no evidence of differences between the groups in any of the other direct comparisons. In the network meta-analysis, albumin and albumin plus midodrine plus octreotide had lower recovery from hepatorenal syndrome compared with albumin plus terlipressin.

FUNDING

two trials were funded by pharmaceutical companies; five trials were funded by parties who had no vested interest in the results of the trial; and 18 trials did not report the source of funding.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on very low-certainty evidence, there is no evidence of benefit or harm of any of the interventions for hepatorenal syndrome with regards to the following outcomes: all-cause mortality, serious adverse events (proportion), number of serious adverse events per participant, any adverse events (proportion), liver transplantation, or other decompensation events. Low-certainty evidence suggests that albumin plus noradrenaline had fewer 'any adverse events per participant' than albumin plus terlipressin. Low- or very low-certainty evidence also found that albumin plus midodrine plus octreotide and albumin alone had lower recovery from hepatorenal syndrome compared with albumin plus terlipressin.Future randomised clinical trials should be adequately powered; employ blinding, avoid post-randomisation dropouts or planned cross-overs (or perform an intention-to-treat analysis); and report clinically important outcomes such as mortality, health-related quality of life, adverse events, and recovery from hepatorenal syndrome. Albumin plus noradrenaline and albumin plus terlipressin appear to be the interventions that should be compared in future trials.