Percutaneous Transsplenic Balloon-Assisted Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt Placement in Patients with Portal Vein Obliteration for Portal Vein Recanalization: Feasibility, Safety and Effectiveness

Safety and effectiveness of transsplenic access for portal venous interventions: a single-center retrospective study

PURPOSE

To assess the safety and effectiveness of percutaneous transsplenic access (PTSA) for portal vein (PV) interventions among patients with PV disease.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Adult patients with PV disease were enrolled if they required percutaneous catheterization for PV angioplasty, embolization, thrombectomy, variceal embolization, or transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) placement for a difficult TIPS or recanalization of a chronically occluded PV. The procedures were performed between January 2018 and January 2023. Patients were excluded if they had an active infection, had a chronically occluded splenic vein malignant infiltration of the needle tract, had undergone splenectomy, or were under age 18 years.

RESULTS

Thirty patients (15 women, 15 men) were enrolled. Catheterization of the PV through PTSA succeeded for 29 of 30 patients (96.7%). The main adverse effect recorded was flank pain in 5 of 30 cases (16.7%). No bleeding events from the spleen, splenic vein, or percutaneous access point were recorded. Two cases (6.7%) each of hepatic bleeding and rethrombosis of the PV were reported, and a change in hemoglobin levels (mean [SD], - 0.5 [1.4] g/dL) was documented in 14 cases (46.7%).

CONCLUSION

PTSA as an approach to accessing the PV is secure and achievable, with minimal risk of complications. Minimal to no bleeding is possible by using tract closure methods.

Safety of Percutaneous Transmesenteric and Transsplenic Access for Portosystemic Shunt Creation in Patients with Portal Vein Obstruction: Single-Center Experience and Review of Literature

PURPOSE

To evaluate the safety of ultrasound-guided percutaneous mesenteric vein access compared to transsplenic portal vein access for portosystemic shunt placement in patients with portal vein obstruction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eight patients underwent portosystemic shunt creation through either a transsplenic (n = 4) or transmesenteric (n = 4) approach. The superior or inferior mesenteric vein was percutaneously accessed under ultrasound guidance using a 21G needle and a 4F sheath. Hemostasis at the mesenteric access site was achieved with manual compression. For transsplenic access, sheath sizes between 6 and 8F were used and tract embolization with gelfoam was performed.

RESULTS

Portosystemic shunt placement was successful in all patients. While there were no bleeding complications with transmesenteric access, hemorrhagic shock requiring splenic artery embolization occurred in one patient in which the transsplenic approach was used.

CONCLUSION

Ultrasound-guided mesenteric vein access seems feasible and a valid alternative to the transsplenic access in case of portal vein obstruction. Level of Evidence Level 4, case series.

Transsplenic tract closure after transsplenic portalvenous access using gelfoam-based tract plugging

BACKGROUND

To assess the feasibility and safety of a gelfoam torpedo plugging technique for embolization of the transsplenic access channel in adult patients following transvenous portal vein interventions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between 09/2016 and 08/2021, an ultrasound guided transsplenic portalvenous access (TSPVA) was established in twenty-four adult patients with a 21-G needle and 4-F microsheath under ultrasound guidance. Afterwards, sheaths ranging from 4-F to 8-F were inserted as needed for the procedure. Following portal vein intervention, the splenic access tract was embolized with a gelfoam-based tract plugging (GFTP) technique. TSPVA and GFTP were performed twice in two patients. Patients' pre-interventional and procedural characteristics were analyzed to assess the feasibility and safety of the plugging technique according Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) classification system. Values are given as median (minimum;maximum). Subgroup analysis of intercostal vs. subcostal puncture site for TSPVA was performed using the two-sided Mann-Whitney-U test or Student's t-test and Fisher's exact test. Level of significance was p < 0.05.

RESULTS

The study population's age was 56 (29;71) years and 54% were female patients. Primary liver disease was predominantly liver cirrhosis with 62% of the patients. Pre-interventional model for end-stage liver disease score was 9 (6;25), international normalized ratio was 1.15 (0.86;1.51), activated partial thromboplastin time was 33s (26s;52s) and platelet count was 88.000/µL (31.000;273.000/µL). Ascites was present in 76% of the cases. Craniocaudal spleen diameter was 17cm (10cm;25cm). Indication for TSPVA was assisted transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt placement in 16 cases and revision in two cases, portal vein stent placement in five cases and variceal embolization in three cases. TSPVA was successfully established in all interventions; interventional success rate was 85% (22/26). The splenic access time was 33min (10min;133min) and the total procedure time was 208min (110min;429min). Splenic access was performed with a subcostal route in 11 interventions and with an intercostal route in 15 interventions. Final sheath size was 4-F in 17 cases, 5-F in three cases, 6-F in five cases, 7-F in two cases and 8-F in one case. A median of two gelfoam cubes was used for GFTP. TSPVA- and GFTP-related complications occurred in 4 of 26 interventions (15%) with a subcapsular hematoma of the spleen in two patients (CIRSE grade 1), access-related infection in one patient (CIRSE grade 3) and both in one patient (CIRSE grade 3). In detail, one access-related complication occurred in a patient with subcostal TSPVA (CIRSE grade 1 complication) and the other three complications occurred in patients with intercostal TSPVA (one CIRSE grade 1 complication and two CIRSE grade 3 complication) (p = 0.614). No patient required interventional or surgical treatment due to puncture tract bleeding.

CONCLUSION

Gelfoam-based plugging of the puncture tract was feasible and safe for transsplenic access in adult patients undergoing percutaneous portal vein interventions. The lack of major bleeding complications and complete absorption of the gelatine sponge make it a safe alternative to transjugular and transhepatic access and re-interventions via the splenic route.

Portal Vein Recanalization-Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt (PVR-TIPS) with superior mesenteric vein access and balloon-assisted shunt placement

BACKGROUND

To report the technique and outcome of ultrasound-guided percutaneous access to the superior mesenteric vein (SMV) for balloon-assisted portal vein recanalization-transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (PVR-TIPS) in a patient with chronic portal venous and splenic vein occlusion.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 51-year-old, non-cirrhotic patient with severe portal hypertension was admitted for PVR-TIPS. Neither splenic nor hepatic access was feasible due to chronic portal and splenic vein occlusion. Percutaneous ultrasound-guided direct puncture of the SMV was performed to obtain access for balloon-assisted PVR-TIPS. The transmesenteric approach in combination with a balloon puncture technique for PVR-TIPS was successful, and no immediate complications were observed post-procedure. The subsequent follow-up exams showed patent TIPS and SMV without signs of intraabdominal hemorrhage.

CONCLUSION

Percutaneous ultrasound-guided superior mesenteric vein access for balloon-assisted PVR-TIPS is a feasible option in cases where hepatic or splenic access is not.

Evaluation of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt and modified sclerotherapy in preventing rebleeding of esophageal and gastric varices

Esophageal and gastric varices are complications of decompensated portal hypertension due to cirrhosis, and gastrointestinal bleeding and can seriously trigger major bleeding and crisis life. Seriously endangers patients' physical and mental health and attracts great attention in the clinic. To compare the efficacy and safety of MES (combined with lauromacrogol and tissue adhesive) and TIPS in the treatment of esophageal and gastric varices. The 62 cases of esophageal and gastric variceal bleeding in our hospital were retrospectively analyzed. They were divided into the MES group and TIPS group according to the treatment method. The rebleeding rate, complications, 2-year birth rate, treatment cost, and hospitalization time within 2 years after operation were compared between the two groups. Among the 62 patients, there were 32 in the MES group and 30 in the TIPS group. The rebleeding rate within 1 year after operation in the MES group was higher than that in the TIPS group, but the difference was not statistically significant. The rebleeding rate within 2 years after operation in the MES group was 40.63%, significantly higher than 13.33% in the TIPS group (P < 0. 05). In the MES group, the incidence of hepatic encephalopathy after the operation was 9.38%, significantly lower than 33.33% in TIPS group (P < 0. 05). The survival rate within 2 years after operation in MES group (81.25%) and TIPS group (83.33), the difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in hospital stay between the MES group and TIPS group (P > 0.05). The treatment cost of the MES group was lower than that of the TIPS group (P < 0.05). MES is more suitable for development and promotion in grass-roots hospitals, but TIPS treatment should be carried out as soon as possible for patients with poor efficacy of endoscopic treatment.