Cost of preventing variceal rebleeding with transjugular intrahepatic portal systemic shunt and distal splenorenal shunt

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.

Treatment for bleeding oesophageal varices in people with decompensated liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Approximately 40% to 95% of people with liver cirrhosis have oesophageal varices. About 15% to 20% of oesophageal varices bleed within about one to three years after diagnosis. Several different treatments are available, including, among others, endoscopic sclerotherapy, variceal band ligation, somatostatin analogues, vasopressin analogues, and balloon tamponade. However, there is uncertainty surrounding the individual and relative benefits and harms of these treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of different initial treatments for variceal bleeding from oesophageal varices in adults with decompensated liver cirrhosis, through a network meta-analysis; and to generate rankings of the different treatments for acute bleeding oesophageal varices, according to their benefits and harms.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers until 17 December 2019, to identify randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in people with cirrhosis and acute bleeding from oesophageal varices.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only RCTs (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and acutely bleeding oesophageal varices. We excluded RCTs in which participants had bleeding only from gastric varices, those who failed previous treatment (refractory bleeding), those in whom initial haemostasis was achieved before inclusion into the trial, and those who had previously undergone liver transplantation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS software, using Bayesian methods, and calculated the differences in treatments using 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. We performed also the direct comparisons from RCTs using the same codes and the same technical details.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 52 RCTs (4580 participants) in the review. Forty-eight trials (4042 participants) were included in one or more comparisons in the review. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies and those with and without a previous history of bleeding. We included outcomes assessed up to six weeks. All trials were at high risk of bias. A total of 19 interventions were compared in the trials (sclerotherapy, somatostatin analogues, vasopressin analogues, sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues, variceal band ligation, balloon tamponade, somatostatin analogues plus variceal band ligation, nitrates plus vasopressin analogues, no active intervention, sclerotherapy plus variceal band ligation, balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy, balloon tamponade plus somatostatin analogues, balloon tamponade plus vasopressin analogues, variceal band ligation plus vasopressin analogues, balloon tamponade plus nitrates plus vasopressin analogues, balloon tamponade plus variceal band ligation, portocaval shunt, sclerotherapy plus transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), and sclerotherapy plus vasopressin analogues). We have reported the effect estimates for the primary and secondary outcomes when there was evidence of differences between the interventions against the reference treatment of sclerotherapy, but reported the other results of the primary and secondary outcomes versus the reference treatment of sclerotherapy without the effect estimates when there was no evidence of differences in order to provide a concise summary of the results. Overall, 15.8% of the trial participants who received the reference treatment of sclerotherapy (chosen because this was the commonest treatment compared in the trials) died during the follow-up periods, which ranged from three days to six weeks. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, somatostatin analogues alone had higher mortality than sclerotherapy (OR 1.57, 95% CrI 1.04 to 2.41; network estimate; direct comparison: 4 trials; 353 participants) and vasopressin analogues alone had higher mortality than sclerotherapy (OR 1.70, 95% CrI 1.13 to 2.62; network estimate; direct comparison: 2 trials; 438 participants). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. Based on low-certainty evidence, a higher proportion of people receiving balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy had more serious adverse events than those receiving only sclerotherapy (OR 4.23, 95% CrI 1.22 to 17.80; direct estimate; 1 RCT; 60 participants). Based on moderate-certainty evidence, people receiving vasopressin analogues alone and those receiving variceal band ligation had fewer adverse events than those receiving only sclerotherapy (rate ratio 0.59, 95% CrI 0.35 to 0.96; network estimate; direct comparison: 1 RCT; 219 participants; and rate ratio 0.40, 95% CrI 0.21 to 0.74; network estimate; direct comparison: 1 RCT; 77 participants; respectively). Based on low-certainty evidence, the proportion of people who developed symptomatic rebleed was smaller in people who received sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues than those receiving only sclerotherapy (OR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.03 to 0.94; direct estimate; 1 RCT; 105 participants). The evidence suggests considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in the remaining comparisons where sclerotherapy was the control intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on moderate-certainty evidence, somatostatin analogues alone and vasopressin analogues alone (with supportive therapy) probably result in increased mortality, compared to endoscopic sclerotherapy. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, vasopressin analogues alone and band ligation alone probably result in fewer adverse events compared to endoscopic sclerotherapy. Based on low-certainty evidence, balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy may result in large increases in serious adverse events compared to sclerotherapy. Based on low-certainty evidence, sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues may result in large decreases in symptomatic rebleed compared to sclerotherapy. In the remaining comparisons, the evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effects of the interventions, compared to sclerotherapy.

Comparision between portosystemic shunts and endoscopic therapy for prevention of variceal re-bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:

Portosystemic shunts, including surgical portosystemic shunts and transjugular intra-hepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), may have benefit over endoscopic therapy (ET) for treatment of variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhotic portal hypertension; however, whether there being a survival benefit among them remains unclear. This study was to compare the effect of three above-mentioned therapies on the short-term and long-term survival in patient with cirrhosis.

Methods:

Using the terms “variceal hemorrhage or variceal bleeding or variceal re-bleeding” OR “esophageal and gastric varices” OR “portal hypertension” and “liver cirrhosis,” the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase, and the references of identified trials were searched for human randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in any language with full texts or abstracts (last search June 2017). Risk ratio (RR) estimates with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using random effects model by Review Manager. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for the assessment of the risk of bias.

Results:

Twenty-six publications comprising 28 RCTs were included in this analysis. These studies included a total of 2845 patients: 496 (4 RCTs) underwent either surgical portosystemic shunts or TIPS, 1244 (9 RCTs) underwent either surgical portosystemic shunts or ET, and 1105 (15 RCTs) underwent either TIPS or ET. There was no significant difference in overall mortality and 30-day or 6-week survival among three interventions. Compared with TIPS and ET, separately, surgical portosystemic shunts were both associated with a lower bleeding-related mortality (RR = 0.07, 95% CI = 0.01–0.32; P < 0.001; RR = 0.17, 95% CI = 0.06–0.51, P < 0.005) and rate of variceal re-bleeding (RR = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.10–0.51, P < 0.001; RR = 0.10, 95% CI = 0.04–0.24, P < 0.001), without a significant difference in the rate of postoperative hepatic encephalopathy (RR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.25–1.00, P = 0.14; RR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.59–2.01, P = 0.78). TIPS showed a trend toward lower variceal re-bleeding (RR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.36–0.58, P < 0.001), but a higher incidence of hepatic encephalopathy than ET (RR = 1.78, 95% CI = 1.34–2.36, P < 0.001).

Conclusions:

The overall analysis revealed that there seem to be no short-term and long-term survival advantage, but surgical portosystemic shunts are with the lowest bleeding-related mortality among the three therapies. Surgical portosystemic shunts may be the most effective without an increased risk of hepatic encephalopathy and TIPS is superior to ET but at the cost of a higher incidence of hepatic encephalopathy. However, some of findings should be interpreted with caution due to the lower level of evidence and the existence of significant heterogeneity.

Incrementally Expandable Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunts: Single-Center Experience

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to investigate the long-term safety and efficacy of a small-diameter expandable transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) in the management of portal hypertension.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This single-center retrospective study included 28 patients (12 women and 16 men; mean age, 56.9 years) who underwent small-diameter expandable TIPS creation between 2008 and 2010 for refractory ascites (n = 15; mean [± SD] model for end-stage liver disease [MELD] score, 15.5 ± 5.3) or gastrointestinal variceal bleeding (n = 13; mean MELD score, 15.2 ± 8.4). An expandable TIPS was created by deploying a covered stent inside a balloon expandable stent. For patients with recurrent symptoms, TIPS adjustment was made by balloon expandable stent balloon dilation. The TIPS diameter was defined as the diameter of the final angioplasty balloon. TIPS patency and efficacy and the rate of post-TIPS hepatic encephalopathy were evaluated.

RESULTS

The median diameter of the initial TIPS was 8 mm in the group with variceal bleeding compared with 6 mm in the group with ascites (p = 0.003). The primary patency rate at 1 and 5 years was 90.8% and 73.3%, respectively. Eighty percent of patients with ascites required no or less-frequent large-volume paracentesis. The clinical success rate for patients with acute variceal bleeding was 92.3%. Six patients with ascites (initial TIPS diameter, 6 mm) and two patients with variceal bleeding (initial diameter, 6 mm and 8 mm) required subsequent TIPS adjustment. Of the 22 patients with no prior history of enecphalophy, seven patients (31.8%) experienced new hepatic encephalopathy within 90 days.

CONCLUSION

A small-diameter expandable TIPS is technically feasible and safe, with efficacy falling within the range of that of conventional TIPS. This technique offers the possibility of individualizing the degree of portal decompression.

Inpatient Cost Assessment of Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt in the USA from 2001 to 2012

BACKGROUND

Despite widespread use of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) for treatment of portal hypertension, a paucity of nationwide data exists on predictors of the economic impact related to TIPS.

AIMS

Using the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database from 2001 to 2012, we aimed to evaluate factors contributing to hospital cost of patients admitted to US hospitals for TIPS.

METHODS

Using the NIS, we identified a discharge-weighted national estimate of 61,004 TIPS procedures from 2001 to 2012. Through independent sample analysis, we determined profile factors related to increases in hospital costs.

RESULTS

Of all TIPS cases, the mean charge adjusted for inflation to the year 2012 is $125,044 ± $160,115. The mean hospital cost adjusted for inflation is $44,901 ± $54,565. Comparing pre- and post-2005, mean charges and cost have increased considerably ($98,154 vs. $142,652, p < 0.001 and $41,656 vs. $46,453, p < 0.001, respectively). Patients transferred from a different hospital, weekend admissions, Asian/Pacific Islander patients, and hospitals in the Northeastern and Western region had higher cost. Number of diagnoses and number of procedures show positive correlations with hospital cost, with number of procedures exhibiting stronger relationships (Pearson 0.613). Comorbidity measures with highest increases in cost were pulmonary circulation disorders ($32,157 increase, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The cost of the TIPS procedure is gradually rising for hospitals. Alongside recent healthcare reform through the Affordable Care Act, measures to reduce the economic burden of TIPS are of increasing importance. Data from this study are intended to aid physicians and hospitals in identifying improvements that could reduce hospital costs.

Twenty-five years after the first TIPS in Spain

The incorporation, 25 years ago, of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunting, better known by the acronym TIPS, represents an indisputable improvement in the treatment and management of patients with symptoms due to portal hypertension. This article discusses the origins of the technique and the technical innovations that have been progressively added through the years. The implantation of coated stents, which protect the stent from processes in the parenchymal track that can lead to stenosis, have helped ensure long-term patency, thus reducing the need for reintervention. Solid evidence from valuable publications has situated TIPS at the forefront of the treatment options in a wide variety of clinical situations associated with portal hypertension.

U.K. guidelines on the management of variceal haemorrhage in cirrhotic patients

These updated guidelines on the management of variceal haemorrhage have been commissioned by the Clinical Services and Standards Committee (CSSC) of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) under the auspices of the liver section of the BSG. The original guidelines which this document supersedes were written in 2000 and have undergone extensive revision by 13 members of the Guidelines Development Group (GDG). The GDG comprises elected members of the BSG liver section, representation from British Association for the Study of the Liver (BASL) and Liver QuEST, a nursing representative and a patient representative. The quality of evidence and grading of recommendations was appraised using the AGREE II tool.The nature of variceal haemorrhage in cirrhotic patients with its complex range of complications makes rigid guidelines inappropriate. These guidelines deal specifically with the management of varices in patients with cirrhosis under the following subheadings: (1) primary prophylaxis; (2) acute variceal haemorrhage; (3) secondary prophylaxis of variceal haemorrhage; and (4) gastric varices. They are not designed to deal with (1) the management of the underlying liver disease; (2) the management of variceal haemorrhage in children; or (3) variceal haemorrhage from other aetiological conditions.

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt versus surgical shunting in the management of portal hypertension

Background:

The purpose of this article was to clarify the optimal management concerning transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPSs) and surgical shunting in treating portal hypertension.

Methods:

All databases, including CBM, CNKI, WFPD, Medline, EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane up to February 2014, were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TIPS with surgical shunting. Four RCTs, which were extracted by two independent investigators and were evaluated in postoperative complications, mortality, 2- and 5-year survival, hospital stay, operating time and hospitalization charges.

Results:

The morbidity in variceal rehemorrhage was significantly higher in TIPS than in surgical shunts (odds ratio [OR] = 7.45, 95% confidence interval[CI]: (3.93–14.15), P < 0.00001), the same outcomes were seen in shunt stenosis (OR = 20.01, 95% CI: (6.67–59.99), P < 0.000001) and in hepatic encephalopathy (OR = 2.50, 95% CI: (1.63–3.84), P < 0.0001). Significantly better 2-year survival (OR = 0.66; 95% CI: (0.44–0.98), P = 0.04) and 5-year survival (OR = 0.44; 95% CI: (0.30–0.66), P < 0.00001) were seen in patients undergoing surgical shunting compared with TIPS.

Conclusions:

Compared with TIPS, postoperative complications and survival after surgical shunting were superior for patients with portal hypertension. Application of surgical shunting was recommended for patients rather than TIPS.

Portosystemic Shunts: Stable Utilization and Improved Outcomes, Two Decades After the Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to assess national trends in utilization, demographics, hospital characteristics, and outcomes of patients undergoing surgical or percutaneous portal decompression since the introduction of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPS).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing surgical portal decompression and TIPS procedures was conducted using Medicare Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary Master Files from January 2003 through December 2013 and National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample data from 1993, 2003, and 2012. Utilization rates normalized to the annual number of Medicare enrollees, estimated means, and 95% confidence intervals were calculated.

RESULTS

The Medicare total annual utilization rate per million for all portosystemic decompression procedures decreased by 6.5% during the study period, from 15.3 in 2003 to 14.3 in 2013. TIPS utilization increased by 19.4% (from 10.3 to 12.3 per million), whereas open surgical shunt utilization decreased by 60.0% (from 5.0 to 2.0 per million). TIPS procedures represented 86% of all procedures in 2013. From 1993 to 2012, mean age increased slightly (from 53.0 to 55.5 years, P < .05). The percentage of procedures performed at teaching hospitals increased, whereas in-hospital mortality and length of stay decreased by 42% (P < .05) and 20% (P < .05), respectively. Of factors evaluated, the performance of procedures on an elective basis was the most influential on in-hospital mortality (P < .01, all years studied) and length of stay (P < .0001, all years studied).

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately two decades after the introduction of TIPS, the utilization of all portal decompression procedures has remained relatively stable. The TIPS procedure represents the dominant portal decompression technique. In-hospital mortality and mean length of stay after decompression have decreased, partially because of the performance of procedures during elective admissions.

Self-Expanding Metal Stent (SEMS): an innovative rescue therapy for refractory acute variceal bleeding

BACKGROUND

Acute variceal bleeding (AVB) is a life-threatening complication of liver cirrhosis or less commonly splenic vein thrombosis. Pharmacological and endoscopic interventions are cornerstones in the management of variceal bleeding but may fail in 10 - 15 % of patients. Rescue therapy with balloon tamponade (BT) or transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) may be required to control refractory acute variceal bleeding effectively but with some limitations. The self-expanding metal stent (SEMS) is a covered, removable tool that can be deployed in the lower esophagus under endoscopic guidance as a rescue therapy to achieve hemostasis for refractory AVB.

AIMS

To evaluate the technical feasibility, efficacy, and safety of SEMS as a rescue therapy for AVB.

METHODS

In this review article, we have performed an extensive literature search summarizing case reports and case series describing SEMS as a rescue therapy for AVB. Indications, features, technique, deployment, success rate, limitations, and complications are discussed.

RESULTS

At present, 103 cases have been described in the literature. Studies have reported 97.08 % technical success rates in deployment of SEMS. Most of the stents were intact for 4 - 14 days with no major complications reported. Stent extraction had a success rate of 100 %. Successful hemostasis was achieved in 96 % of cases with only 3.12 % found to have rebleeding after placement of SEMS. Stent migration, which was the most common complication, was observed in 21 % of patients.

CONCLUSION

SEMS is a safe and effective alternative approach as a rescue therapy for refractory AVB.

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt: indications, contraindications, and patient work-up

The transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) procedure is effective in achieving portal decompression and in managing some of the major complications of portal hypertension. While many clinicians are familiar with the two most common indications for TIPS placement, secondary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal hemorrhage and treatment of refractory ascites, evidence for its usefulness is growing in other entities, where it has been less extensively studied but demonstrates promising results. Newer indications include early utilization in the treatment of esophageal variceal hemorrhage, Budd-Chiari syndrome, ectopic varices, and portal vein thrombosis. The referring clinician and interventionist must remain cognizant of the contraindications to the procedure to avoid complications and potential harm to the patient. This review is designed to provide an in-depth analysis of the most common as well as less typical indications for TIPS placement, and to discuss the contraindications and appropriate patient evaluation for this procedure.

[Mexican consensus on portal hypertension]

The aim of the Mexican Consensus on Portal Hypertension was to develop documented guidelines to facilitate clinical practice when dealing with key events of the patient presenting with portal hypertension and variceal bleeding. The panel of experts was made up of Mexican gastroenterologists, hepatologists, and endoscopists, all distinguished professionals. The document analyzes themes of interest in the following modules: preprimary and primary prophylaxis, acute variceal hemorrhage, and secondary prophylaxis. The management of variceal bleeding has improved considerably in recent years. Current information indicates that the general management of the cirrhotic patient presenting with variceal bleeding should be carried out by a multidisciplinary team, with such an approach playing a major role in the final outcome. The combination of drug and endoscopic therapies is recommended for initial management; vasoactive drugs should be started as soon as variceal bleeding is suspected and maintained for 5 days. After the patient is stabilized, urgent diagnostic endoscopy should be carried out by a qualified endoscopist, who then performs the corresponding endoscopic variceal treatment. Antibiotic prophylaxis should be regarded as an integral part of treatment, started upon hospital admittance and continued for 5 days. If there is treatment failure, rescue therapies should be carried out immediately, taking into account that interventional radiology therapies are very effective in controlling refractory variceal bleeding. These guidelines have been developed for the purpose of achieving greater clinical efficacy and are based on the best evidence of portal hypertension that is presently available.

A case-control study of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent shunts for patients admitted to intensive care following variceal bleeding

INTRODUCTION

Variceal bleeding has a 6-week mortality of 20%. Recent evidence suggests that early covered transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent shunts (TIPSS) can improve outcomes following a variceal bleed in selected patients. We aim to assess the outcomes following the insertion of covered TIPSS in a real-life intensive care setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective matched cohort study of all patients referred for TIPSS with variceal bleeding admitted to intensive care (2007-2009). Patients were matched with others admitted to intensive therapy unit following a variceal bleed but did not proceed to TIPSS. All TIPSS procedures were carried out using polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stents.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight patients [mean age 55.2 years; mean model for end-stage liver disease (MELD)=14.0; and median follow-up 458 days] were assessed. Nineteen underwent TIPSS and were well matched to the controls. All patients received terlipressin and antibiotics and 86% had active bleeding at endoscopy. Indication for TIPSS was salvage therapy (47%), rebleeding after day 5 (11%) and as secondary prophylaxis (42%). There was 34% all-cause inpatient mortality. The TIPSS group had lower mortality than the non-TIPSS group at 6 weeks (10.5 vs. 47.4%, P<0.05) that persisted at 1 year (21.1 vs. 52.6%, P<0.05). Multivariate analysis indicated MELD [HR 1.131, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.018-1.257] and TIPSS (HR 0.301, 95% CI 0.091-0.995) as significant predictors of mortality (P<0.05). TIPSS was found to significantly reduce the incidence of failure to control bleeding and rebleeding (HR 0.120, 95% CI 0.015-0.978, P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Patients with recent severe variceal bleeding admitted to intensive care have significantly better outcomes following covered TIPSS insertion. These findings should be validated in randomized-controlled trials.

Prevention and management of variceal hemorrhage

Variceal hemorrhage is a common and devastating complication of portal hypertension and is a leading cause of death in patients with cirrhosis. The management of gastroesophageal varices has evolved over the last decade resulting in improved mortality and morbidity rates. Regarding the primary prevention of variceal hemorrhaging, nonselective β -blockers should be the first-line therapy in all patients with medium to large varices and in patients with small varices associated with high-risk features such as red wale marks and/or advanced cirrhosis. EVL should be offered in cases of intolerance or side effects to β -blockers, or for patients at high-risk for variceal bleeding who have medium or large varices with red wale marks or advanced liver cirrhosis. In acute bleeding, vasoactive agents should be initiated along with antibiotics followed by EVL or endoscopic sclerotherapy (if EVL is technically difficult) within the first 12 hours of presentation. Where available, terlipressin is the preferred agent because of its safety profile and it represents the only drug with a proven efficacy in improving survival. All patients surviving an episode of bleeding should undergo further prophylaxis to prevent rebleeding with EVL and nonselective β -blockers.

The role of Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Stent-Shunt (TIPSS) in the management of variceal hemorrhage

BACKGROUND

Variceal bleeding in cirrhosis represents a lethal complication of their disease. In the last 20 years, management of AVH has improved greatly with reduction in mortality from 43% in 1980 to 15% in 2000.

AIM

Advances in endoscopic therapy, pharmacologic agents including vasoconstrictor therapy and antibiotics have played a large part in improving outcomes, but the role of Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Stent-Shunt (TIPSS) remains controversial, which this review will cover.

METHODS

MEDLINE search for the following terms was performed to July 2011: variceal hemorrhage, portal hypertension, cirrhosis, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent-shunt (TIPSS), PTFE, covered stents. Where possible randomized controlled studies were used for this review, although uncontrolled studies were also included if they made a significant contribution to the literature.

RESULTS

Literature used for the present study was selected from a total of 252 publications and abstracts from meetings.

RESULTS

TIPSS has been used as a salvage therapy after initial medical and endoscopic therapy for the bleed given its high success rate in arresting uncontrolled variceal bleeding. The recent trial by Garcia- Pagan et al. suggested beneficial effects of an earlier covered TIPSS in those at high risk of treatment failure (Childs C and those who are Childs B with active bleeding).

CONCLUSIONS

TIPSS can reduce failure to control bleeding and rebleeding as well as mortality with no increase in the risk of hepatic encephalopathy.This needs to be confirmed in further trials. However, it is clear that prevention of rebleeding is the key to improved outcomes following a variceal bleed.

Direct costs of care in a randomized controlled trial of endoscopic sclerotherapy versus emergency portacaval shunt for bleeding esophageal varices in cirrhosis--Part 4

BACKGROUND

Emergency treatment of bleeding esophageal varices (BEV) in cirrhotic patients is of prime importance because of the high mortality rate surrounding the episode of acute bleeding. Nevertheless, there is a paucity of randomized controlled trials of emergency surgical therapy and no reports of the costs of any of the widely used forms of emergency treatment. The important issue of direct costs of care was examined in a randomized controlled trial that compared endoscopic sclerotherapy (EST) to emergency portacaval shunt (EPCS).

METHODS

Two hundred eleven unselected consecutive patients with ultimately biopsy-proven cirrhosis and endoscopically proven acute BEV were randomized to EST (n = 106) or EPCS (n = 105). Diagnostic workup was completed, and EST or EPCS was initiated within 8 h. Criteria for failure of EST or EPCS were clearly defined, and crossover rescue treatment was applied, when primary therapy failed. Ninety-six percent of patients underwent more than 10 years follow-up, or until death. Complete charges for all aspects of care were obtained continuously for more than 10 years.

RESULTS

Direct charges for all aspects of care were significantly lower in patients treated by EPCS than in patients treated by emergency EST followed by long-term repetitive sclerotherapy. Charges per patient, per year of treatment, and per year in each child's risk class were significantly lower in patients randomized to EPCS. Charges in patients who failed endoscopic sclerotherapy and underwent a rescue portacaval shunt were significantly higher than the charges in both the unshunted sclerotherapy patients and the patients randomized to EPCS. This result was particularly noteworthy given the widespread practice of using surgical portacaval shunt as rescue treatment only when all other forms of therapy have failed.

CONCLUSIONS

In this randomized controlled trial of emergency treatment of acute BEV, EPCS was significantly superior to EST with regard to direct costs of care as reflected in charges for care as well as in survival rate, control of bleeding, and incidence of portal-systemic encephalopathy. These results provide support for the use of EPCS as a first line of emergency treatment of BEV in cirrhosis.

Alcoholic versus nonalcoholic cirrhosis in a randomized controlled trial of emergency therapy of bleeding varices

BACKGROUND

It has been proposed that portal-systemic shunts be avoided in alcoholic cirrhotics because survival rate is allegedly lower in alcoholics than in nonalcoholics. We examined this issue in a randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

Two hundred eleven unselected, consecutive patients with cirrhosis and bleeding esophageal varices were randomized to endoscopic sclerotherapy (EST) (n = 106) or emergency portacaval shunt (EPCS) (105). Treatment was initiated within 8 h. EST failure was treated by rescue portacaval shunt (PCS). Ten-year follow-up was 96%.

RESULTS

Results strongly favored EPCS over EST (P < 0.001). Among EPCS patients, 83% were alcoholic and 17% nonalcoholic. Outcomes were (1) permanent control of bleeding 100% versus 100%; (2) 5-y survival 71% versus 78%; (3) encephalopathy 14% versus 19%; (4) yearly charges $38,300 versus $43,000.

CONCLUSIONS

EPCS results were similar in alcoholic and nonalcoholic cirrhotics. EPCS is an effective first line emergency treatment in all forms of cirrhosis, including alcoholic.

Surgical shunt versus TIPS for treatment of variceal hemorrhage in the current era of liver and multivisceral transplantation

Over the last 3 decades, management of acute variceal bleeding and measures to prevent recurrent episodes has evolved due to the introduction of new therapeutic modalities including innovative surgical and minimally invasive shunt procedures. Such an evolution has been compounded by the parallel progress that has been achieved in organ transplantation. This article focuses primarily on the commonly used surgical and radiologic shunt procedures. Liver and multivisceral transplantation are also briefly discussed as important parts of the algorithmic management of these complex patients, particularly those with hepatic decompensation and portomesenteric venous thrombosis.

Emerging issues in the use of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) for management of portal hypertension: time to update the guidelines?

Since its first introduction in the 1980s, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt has played an increasingly important role in the management and treatment of the complications of portal hypertension. In 2005, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases published the Practice Guidelines for the use of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in the management of portal hypertension. Since then, technical advances and new interesting data on transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt have been presented in the literature. The present review focus on the applications of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt and examines more recent studies on this topic; the current guidelines on the use of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt are also discussed. From the data presented in the most recent publications, it has become increasingly clear that the recommendations stemming from the current guidelines need to be reviewed and updated in several points. Changes in the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases Practice Guidelines are needed for both common indications (variceal bleeding and refractory ascites) as well as uncommon ones (i.e., Budd-Chiari syndrome and portal cavernoma). In addition, a relevant technical advance has been the introduction of the polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stents, which greatly improved the patency and clinical efficacy of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt. Consequently, new studies are required to re-assess the role of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt performed with new covered stents as compared with other strategies in the management of portal hypertension.

An assessment of surgery for portal hypertensive patients performed at a single community hospital

PURPOSE

The outcomes of surgery for portal hypertensive patients at a single community hospital in the last two decades were retrospectively examined.

METHODS

From June 1989 to March 2008, 13 of 848 (1.5%) portal hypertensive patients admitted and treated at the community hospital underwent surgery. The types of surgery performed were a distal splenorenal shunt for 2 patients, gastric devascularization and splenectomy for 8, laparoscopic gastric devascularization and splenectomy for 1, distal gastrectomy for 1, and splenectomy alone for 1. This study reviewed the postoperative records of the endoscopic findings and additional treatments, and the perioperative records.

RESULTS

No patient had bleeding from esophagogastric varices during the 75-month mean follow-up period after surgery. Five patients had one or two series of endoscopic treatment for recurrent likely-to-bleed esophageal varices. One patient needed interventional radiology for recurrent gastric varices. No patients died due to upper gastrointestinal bleeding. The survival rates were 87.5% after 5 years and 46.9% after 10 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgery for portal hypertensive patients performed at a single community hospital is still safe and effective, and has been adequately incorporated into the late treatment strategy for portal hypertensive patients.

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt with an autologous endothelial progenitor cell seeded stent: a porcine model

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of a self-expanding metal stent seeded with autologous endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) for preventing in-stent stenoses in transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) in a swine model.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

TIPS was performed in 18 young adult pigs, using a self-expanding nitinol stent (control, n = 8) and an autologous EPC-seeded stent (treatment, n = 10). All pigs were sacrificed at 2 weeks post-TIPS procedure. Portography was performed immediately before the euthanasia. Gross, microscopic, and immunohistochemistry of the TIPS tract specimens were examined. The proliferative response of the shunt was quantified histologically.

RESULTS

TIPS was performed successfully in 16 swine, 2 animals died during the procedure. Another pig died of unknown causes 2 days post-procedure. At day 14 follow-up, portography and necropsy of the 15 remaining swine demonstrated that five shunts occluded and one shunt was stenotic (80%) in the control group (n = 6). Five shunts remained patent, two shunts were stenosed (50%, 70%), and the remaining two shunts were occluded in the treatment group (n = 9). The patency rate was significantly lower in the control group than in the treatment group, 0% versus 55.6% (P = .03). Histological analyses showed a significantly greater pseudointimal hyperplasia in the TIPS track of the control group than that of the treatment group (P < .05). Intact endothelium was documented in the lumina of all the EPC-implanted stent group.

CONCLUSIONS

The EPC-seeded metal stent is feasibly fabricated in vitro and improves the patency in TIPS in a porcine model.

Management of failures of first line treatments

Up to 70% of the patients treated to prevent rebleeding will experience a bleeding episode within 2 years. The response should be adapted to the delay after the index bleed, the source and the severity of the haemorrhage, the underlying liver disease and the initial treatment to prevent rebleeding. Bleeding can be caused by endoscopic techniques themselves, which should incitate to complete obliteration rather than to switch to another therapy. Failure of drug therapy can be secondary to ineffectiveness, to a lack of compliance, or to an insufficient dosage. The two latter conditions may be corrected. Whenever a patient rebleeds in spite of optimal treatment, liver transplantation should be considered. When such a procedure is contra-indicated and in patients on the waiting list, a Transjugular intra-hepatic porto-systemic shunt (TIPS) should be performed.

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in the management of complications of portal hypertension

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is a commonly used approach for managing many complications of portal hypertension. It is an attractive option due to its relative ease of creation (> 90% success rate) and the availability at most hospitals of an interventional radiologist capable of performing the procedure. TIPS is the preferred approach to control acutely bleeding esophageal or gastric varices that cannot be controlled with medical management. It is also now preferred to surgical shunts for preventing rebleeding in patients who rebleed despite adequate medical management. TIPS is more effective than large-volume paracentesis in controlling refractory cirrhotic ascites, with possibly a slight survival benefit but also increased encephalopathy. TIPS should be used to control refractory ascites in patients who cannot be managed with large-volume paracentesis. The role of TIPS in the treatment of hepatorenal syndrome is unclear; currently only patients with type 2 hepatorenal syndrome should be considered candidates for TIPS.