Clinical outcome comparison between TIPS and EBL in patients with cirrhosis and portal vein thrombosis

Preventing variceal rebleeding in cirrhotic patients with portal vein thrombosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Preventing rebleeding is crucial, but the best prevention technique for patients with cirrhosis and portal vein thrombosis (PVT) remains debatable. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis compared a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) with endoscopic therapy (ET) plus nonselective beta-blockers (NSBBs) for preventing variceal rebleeding in this patient population.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched from their inception until May 18, 2023. The studies were screened using predetermined criteria, relevant data were extracted, and pooled analyses were performed using the Reviewer Manager 5.4.1 software.

RESULTS

We retrieved 1032 studies, of which 5 studies comprising a total of 272 patients were included. The postoperative variceal rebleeding rate was significantly lower in the TIPS group than in the ET + NSBBs group (odds ratio [OR] = 0.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.11-0.35, P < 0.05, I2 = 0%), but the portal vein recanalization rate was higher (OR = 7.92, 95% CI = 3.04-20.67, P < 0.05, I2 = 0%). The rates of hepatic encephalopathy (HE) and mortality did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that TIPS prevents variceal rebleeding without increasing the hepatic encephalopathy risk more effectively than ET plus NSBBs, but this benefit did not translate into improved survival. Thus, it may be preferable to ET plus NSBBs for preventing variceal rebleeding in patients with cirrhosis and PVT. However, more large-scale and multicenter randomized controlled trials involving other patient populations are required to verify the clinical efficacy of both these treatments and ensure generalizability.

Safety and efficacy of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts vs endoscopic band ligation plus propranolol in patients with cirrhosis with portal vein thrombosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPS) against the combined treatment of endoscopic band ligation (EBL) and propranolol in managing patients with cirrhosis diagnosed with portal vein thrombosis (PVT).

METHODS

A literature search from inception to September 2023 was performed using MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus. Independent screening, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed. The main measured outcomes were the incidence and recurrence of variceal bleeding (VB), hepatic encephalopathy, and overall survival.

RESULTS

A total of 5 studies were included. For variceal eradication, there was initially no significant difference between the groups; however, after sensitivity analysis, a significant effect emerged (risk ratio [RR], 1.55; P < .0001). TIPS was associated with a significant decrease in the incidence of VB (RR, 0.34; P < .0001) and a higher probability of remaining free of VB in the first 2 years after the procedure (first year: RR, 1.41; P < .0001; second year: RR, 1.58; P < .0001). TIPS significantly reduced the incidence of death due to acute GI bleeding compared with EBL + propranolol (RR, 0.37; P = .05).

CONCLUSION

TIPS offers a comprehensive therapeutic advantage over the combined EBL and propranolol regimen, especially for patients with cirrhosis with PVT. Its efficacy in variceal eradication, reducing rebleeding, and mitigating death risks due to acute GI bleeding is evident.

Portal vein thrombosis in cirrhosis: A literature review

Portal Vein Thrombosis (PVT), a common complication of advanced liver disease, is defined as an obstruction of the portal vein due to thrombus formation that can extend to the superior mesenteric and splenic veins. It was believed that PVT occurred predominantly due to prothrombotic potential. However, recent studies have shown that decreased blood flow related to portal hypertension appears to increase PVT risk as per Virchow's triad. It is well known that there is a higher incidence of PVTs in cirrhosis with a higher MELD and Child Pugh score. The controversy for management of PVTs in cirrhotics lies in the individualized assessment of risks versus benefits of anticoagulation, since these patients have a complex hemostatic profile with both bleeding and procoagulant propensities. In this review, we will systematically compile the etiology, pathophysiology, clinical features, and management of portal vein thrombosis in cirrhosis.

The effects and safety of anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy following TIPS in cirrhotic patients with portal hypertension: A meta-analysis

Introduction: Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is an effective way to improve portal hypertension, however, the role of anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy following TIPS remains controversial. We conducted this study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy following TIPS. Methods: A literature search was conducted on anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy after TIPS using Pubmed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane. The retrieval period was from the earliest accessible date in the database to 31 October 2022. We collected information on the incidence of stent dysfunction, bleeding, hepatic encephalopathy, the new occurrence of portal vein thrombosis, and the survival rate. Stata was analyzed in RevMan. Results: 1. Four studies received anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy after TIPS without control groups. According to the single-group rate meta-analysis, stent dysfunction occurred at 27% [95% CI (0.19, 0.38)], bleeding occurred at 21% [95% CI (0.14, 0.29)], new portal vein thrombosis occurred at 17% [(95%CI(0.04.0.71)], hepatic encephalopathy occurred at 47% [95%CI (0.34, 0.63)], and death occurred at 31% [95% CI (0.22, 0.42)]. 2. Eight studies, including 1025 patients, compared anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy after TIPS to TIPS alone. In terms of stent dysfunction, bleeding, and hepatic encephalopathy, there were no significant differences between the two groups. The use of anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy may result in a significant decrease in the incidence of new portal vein thrombosis and mortality over 1 year. Discussion: Anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy may not improve the patency rate of TIPS, but may effectively prevent new portal vein thrombosis after TIPS. Following TIPS, the use of anticoagulants or antiplatelet drugs does not lead to an increase in bleeding or death.

Comparison of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic with endoscopic treatment plus anticoagulation for esophageal variceal bleeding and portal vein thrombosis in liver cirrhosis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The optimal management of esophageal variceal bleeding (EVB) and portal vein thrombosis (PVT) in liver cirrhosis has not been well-established. The aim of the present study was to compare the efficacy and safety of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) and endoscopic treatment (ET) plus anticoagulation in cirrhotic patients with EVB and PVT.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 66 cirrhotic patients with PVT and EVB (31 in the TIPS group and 35 in the ET plus anticoagulation group) were evaluated retrospectively between January 2016 and January 2022.

RESULTS

During the follow-up period, 85.5% of patients in the TIPS group achieved complete recanalization of the portal vein, as compared with 19.6% in the ET plus anticoagulation group (p < .001). The cumulative 5-year rate of variceal rebleeding in the TIPS group was significantly lower than that in the ET plus anticoagulation group (31.0 vs. 50.1%; p = .017). The TIPS group exhibited a significantly higher incidence of overt hepatic encephalopathy (HE) than the ET plus anticoagulation group (25.8 vs. 5.7%; p = .037). No difference in the 5-year survival rate (74.1 vs. 85.7%; p = .692) and probability of other complications was observed between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

TIPS was superior to ET plus anticoagulation in preventing variceal rebleeding and achieving recanalization of PVT but increased the incidence of overt HE without improving the survival rate.

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for the prevention of rebleeding in patients with cirrhosis and portal vein thrombosis: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) has been performed on patients with cirrhosis and portal vein thrombosis (PVT) to prevent rebleeding; however, the associated evidence is scarce. Hence, the study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of TIPS in patients with cirrhosis and PVT and promote personalized treatment in such patients.

Methods: Literature was systematically obtained from PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Data from the included studies were extracted, and meta-analyses by the random effects model were used to pool data across studies. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran’s Q and I² statistics. The source of heterogeneity was explored using subgroup analyses and meta-regressions.

Results: A total of 11 studies comprising 703 patients with cirrhosis and portal vein thrombosis (PVT: complete, 32.2%; chronic, 90.2%; superior mesenteric vein or splenic vein involvement, 55.2%; cavernous transformation, 26.8%) were included. TIPS showed feasibility in 95% of the cases (95% confidence interval [CI]: 89%–99%) with heterogeneity (I² = 84%, p < 0.01) due to cavernous transformation. The pooled rebleeding rate was 13% (95% CI: 7%–20%) with heterogeneity (I² = 75%, p < 0.01) explained by chronic PVT and anticoagulation (AC) therapy. Hepatic encephalopathy occurred in 32% of patients. The survival rate, portal vein recanalization rate, and shunt patency rate were 80%, 82%, and 77%, respectively.

Conclusion: TIPS is feasible and effectively prevents rebleeding in patients with cirrhosis and PVT, regardless of cavernous transformation of the portal vein. Due to a potentially high risk of rebleeding and no apparent benefits of AC, post-TIPS AC must be employed cautiously.

Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=258765], identifier [CRD42021258765].

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts in portal vein thrombosis: A review

The presence of portal vein thrombosis (PVT) has previously been considered a contraindication to the insertion of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPSS). However, patients with PVT may have portal hypertension complications and may thus benefit from TIPSS to reduce portal venous pressure. There is an increasing body of literature that discusses the techniques and outcomes of TIPSS in PVT. This review summarizes the techniques, indications and outcomes of TIPSS in PVT in published case reports, case series and comparative trials, especially regarding the reduction in portal hypertensive complications such as variceal bleeding. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using MEDLINE and PubMed databases. Manuscripts published in English between 1 January 1990 and 1 March 2021 were used. Abstracts were screened and data from potentially relevant articles analyzed. TIPSS in PVT has been reported with high levels of technical success, short-term portal vein recanalization and long-term PV patency and TIPSS patency outcomes. Several comparative studies, including randomized controlled trials, have shown favorable outcomes of TIPSS compared with non-TIPSS treatment of PVT complications. Outcomes of TIPSS with PVT appear similar to those in TIPSS without PVT. However, TIPSS may be more technically difficult in the presence of PVT, and such procedures should be performed in expert high-volume centers to mitigate the risk of procedural complications. The presence of PVT should no longer be considered a contraindication to TIPSS. TIPSS for PVT has been acknowledged as a therapeutic strategy in recent international guidelines, although further studies are needed before recommendations can be strengthened. KEY POINTS: Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is no longer a contraindication to the insertion of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPSS) TIPSS often leads to the spontaneous dissolution of PVT, but can be combined with mechanical or pharmacological thrombectomy TIPSS reduces portal hypertensive complications of PVT, such as variceal bleeding, and can also facilitate liver transplantation where PVT may otherwise interfere with vascular anastomoses Studies have shown favorable long-term outcomes of TIPSS compared with TIPSS without PVT; as well as compared with non-TIPSS treatment of PVT complications TIPSS in PVT should be performed in high-volume specialist centers due to technical difficulties.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of trans-jugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for cirrhotic patients with portal vein thrombosis

BACKGROUND

Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) was previously a contraindication for trans-jugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS).

AIM

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the current available studies investigating outcomes of TIPS for cirrhotic patient with PVT.

METHODS

Multiple databases were systematically searched to identify studies investigating the outcomes of TIPS for cirrhotic patients with PVT. The quality of studies was assessed by Cochrane Collaboration method and Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies. The demographic data, outcomes, combined treatment, and anticoagulation strategy were extracted.

RESULTS

Twelve studies were identified with 460 patients enrolled in the analysis. The technical success rate was 98.9% in patients without portal vein cavernous transformation and 92.3% in patients with portal vein cavernous transformation. One-year portal vein recanalization rate was 77.7%, and TIPS patency rate was 84.2%. The cumulative encephalopathy rate was 16.4%. One-year overall survival was 87.4%.

CONCLUSION

TIPS is indicated for portal hypertension related complications and the restoration of pre-transplantation portal vein patency in cirrhotic patients with PVT. Cavernous transformation is an indicator for technical failure. Post-TIPS anticoagulation seems not mandatory. Simultaneous TIPS and percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy device could achieve accelerated portal vein recanalization and decreased thrombolysis-associated complications, but further investigation is still needed.

Consensus for management of portal vein thrombosis in liver cirrhosis (2020, Shanghai)

Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is a common and severe complication of liver cirrhosis. So far, there have been few consensuses or practice guidelines on the management of PVT in liver cirrhosis. In this expert consensus, we systematically review the epidemiology, risk factors, imaging examinations, diagnosis, assessment of disease severity, and treatment strategy of PVT in liver cirrhosis, based on the most recent evidence and expert opinions, to further standardize the diagnosis and treatment of the disease in clinical practice.

Portosystemic shunts versus endoscopic intervention with or without medical treatment for prevention of rebleeding in people with cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

People with liver cirrhosis who have had one episode of variceal bleeding are at risk for repeated episodes of bleeding. Endoscopic intervention and portosystemic shunts are used to prevent further bleeding, but there is no consensus as to which approach is preferable.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of shunts (surgical shunts (total shunt (TS), distal splenorenal shunt (DSRS), or transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS)) versus endoscopic intervention (endoscopic sclerotherapy or banding, or both) with or without medical treatment (non-selective beta blockers or nitrates, or both) for prevention of variceal rebleeding in people with liver cirrhosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CHBG Controlled Trials Register; CENTRAL, in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE Ovid; Embase Ovid; LILACS (Bireme); Science Citation Index - Expanded (Web of Science); and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (Web of Science); as well as conference proceedings and the references of trials identified until 22 June 2020. We contacted study investigators and industry researchers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing shunts versus endoscopic interventions with or without medical treatment in people with cirrhosis who had recovered from a variceal haemorrhage.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. When possible, we collected data to allow intention-to-treat analysis. For each outcome, we estimated a meta-analysed estimate of treatment effect across trials (risk ratio for binary outcomes). We used random-effects model meta-analysis as our main analysis and as a means of presenting results. We reported differences in means for continuous outcomes without a meta-analytic estimate due to high variability in their assessment among all trials. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 27 randomised trials with 1828 participants. Three trials assessed TSs, five assessed DSRSs, and 19 trials assessed TIPSs. The endoscopic intervention was sclerotherapy in 16 trials, band ligation in eight trials, and a combination of band ligation and either sclerotherapy or glue injection in three trials. In eight trials, endoscopy was combined with beta blockers (in one trial plus isosorbide mononitrate). We judged all trials to be at high risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence for all the outcome review results as very low (i.e. the true effects of the results are likely to be substantially different from the results of estimated effects). The very low evidence grading is due to the overall high risk of bias for all trials, and to imprecision and publication bias for some outcomes. Therefore, we are very uncertain whether portosystemic shunts versus endoscopy interventions with or without medical treatment have effects on all-cause mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.13; 1828 participants; 27 trials), on rebleeding (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.50; 1769 participants; 26 trials), on mortality due to rebleeding (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.76; 1779 participants; 26 trials), and on occurrence of hepatic encephalopathy, both acute (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.92; 1649 participants; 24 trials) and chronic (RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.38 to 4.55; 956 participants; 13 trials). No data were available regarding health-related quality of life. Analysing each modality of portosystemic shunts individually (i.e. TS, DSRS, and TIPS) versus endoscopic interventions with or without medical treatment, we are very uncertain if each type of shunt has effect on all-cause mortality: TS, RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.13; 164 participants; 3 trials; DSRS, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.33; 352 participants; 4 trials; and TIPS, RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.31; 1312 participants; 19 trial; on rebleeding: TS, RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.56; 127 participants; 2 trials; DSRS, RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.65; 330 participants; 5 trials; and TIPS, RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.55; 1312 participants; 19 trials; on mortality due to rebleeding: TS, RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.96; 164 participants; 3 trials; DSRS, RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.74; 352 participants; 5 trials; and TIPS, RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.04; 1263 participants; 18 trials; on acute hepatic encephalopathy: TS, RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.70 to 3.92; 115 participants; 2 trials; DSRS, RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.94 to 3.08; 287 participants; 4 trials, TIPS, RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.99; 1247 participants; 18 trials; and chronic hepatic encephalopathy: TS, Fisher's exact test P = 0.11; 69 participants; 1 trial; DSRS, RR 4.87, 95% CI 1.46 to 16.23; 170 participants; 2 trials; and TIPS, RR 1.88, 95% CI 0.93 to 3.80; 717 participants; 10 trials. The proportion of participants with shunt occlusion or dysfunction was overall 37% (95% CI 33% to 40%). It was 3% (95% CI 0.8% to 10%) following TS, 7% (95% CI 3% to 13%) following DSRS, and 47.1% (95% CI 43% to 51%) following TIPS. Shunt dysfunction in trials utilising polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stents was 17% (95% CI 11% to 24%). Length of inpatient hospital stay and cost were not comparable across trials. Funding was unclear in 16 trials; 11 trials were funded by government, local hospitals, or universities.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence on whether portosystemic shunts versus endoscopy interventions with or without medical treatment in people with cirrhosis and previous hypertensive portal bleeding have little or no effect on all-cause mortality is very uncertain. Evidence on whether portosystemic shunts may reduce bleeding and mortality due to bleeding while increasing hepatic encephalopathy is also very uncertain. We need properly conducted trials to assess effects of these interventions not only on assessed outcomes, but also on quality of life, costs, and length of hospital stay.

The role of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in the management of portal vein thrombosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The role of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) in the management of portal vein thrombosis (PVT) remains controversial. This study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the role of TIPS for the management of PVT in adult patients with liver disease.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Multiple databases were searched through April 2017. Data were gathered to estimate the rates of technical success, portal vein recanalization, portal patency, hepatic encephalopathy, and mean change in portal pressure gradient in patients with PVT who underwent TIPS. Estimates were pooled across studies using the random effects model.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies were included in the analysis. The pooled technical success rate was 86.7% [95% confidence interval (CI)=78.6-92.1%]. Rate of portal vein recanalization was 84.4% (95% CI=78.4-89.0%). The rate of complete recanalization was 73.7% (95% CI=64.3-81.3%). Portal patency was 86.9% (95% CI=79.7-91.8%). Mean change in portal pressure gradient was 14.5 mmHg (95% CI=11.3-17.7 mmHg). Hepatic encephalopathy was 25.3% (95% CI=19.2-32.6%). The number of major adverse events reported across studies was low. The majority of the analyses were not associated with substantial heterogeneity.

CONCLUSION

The use of TIPS in the management of PVT is feasible and effective in achieving a significant and sustainable reduction in clot burden with a low risk of major complications. TIPS should be considered as a viable treatment option in patients with PVT. Given the limited amount of randomized comparative studies reported, additional trials are warranted to assess the safety and efficacy of TIPS as a treatment modality in PVT, in comparison to other treatment options, such as anticoagulation.

Hemostasis, bleeding and thrombosis in liver disease

The presence of cirrhosis poses an increased risk of both thrombosis and bleeding in individuals with chronic liver disease. This duality is a result of a dynamic disequilibrium between procoagulant and anticoagulant states in individuals with cirrhosis. The mechanism of this imbalance in cirrhosis remains unclear. It is known that the progression of cirrhosis leads to decreased synthetic function and a concurrent lack of natural anticoagulants. Other proposed mechanisms contributing to this hemostatic imbalance include decreased platelet production, increased platelet destruction from hypersplenism, decreased synthesis of Vitamin K-dependent and independent clotting factors and anticoagulant factors, and alterations in purinergic signaling pathways.

Given the current state of flux in our understanding of bleeding and thrombophilia in cirrhosis, the recommendations for treatment of these conditions are still evolving.

We provide a current update on the proposed pathophysiology of altered hemostasis and thrombophilia in cirrhosis. We discuss recent studies in portal vein thrombosis (PVT) and venous thromboembolism (VTE), which are the common thrombotic consequences of cirrhosis, resulting in substantive morbidity and mortality. To address these, we discuss new prophylactic interventions and current treatment options to manage the heightened risk of thrombosis in cirrhosis, while limiting hemorrhagic complications.

Portal vein thrombosis in cirrhosis: Controversies and latest developments

Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is encountered in liver cirrhosis, particularly in advanced disease. It has been a feared complication of cirrhosis, attributed to significant worsening of liver disease, poorer clinical outcomes and potential inoperability at liver transplantation; also catastrophic events such as acute intestinal ischaemia. Optimal management of PVT has not yet been addressed in any consensus publication. We review current literature on PVT in cirrhosis; its prevalence, pathophysiology, diagnosis, impact on the natural history of cirrhosis and liver transplantation, and management. Studies were identified by a search strategy using MEDLINE and Google Scholar. The incidence of PVT increases with increasing severity of liver disease: less than 1% in well-compensated cirrhosis, 7.4%-16% in advanced cirrhosis. Prevalence in patients undergoing liver transplantation is 5%-16%. PVT frequently regresses instead of uniform thrombus progression. PVT is not associated with increased risk of mortality. Optimal management has not been addressed in any consensus publication. We propose areas for future research to address unresolved clinical questions.