Small-diameter portacaval H-graft shunt: a paradigm shift back to surgical shunting in the management of variceal bleeding in patients with preserved liver function

Current approaches to the management of patients with liver cirrhosis who have acute esophageal variceal bleeding

OBJECTIVE

Esophageal variceal bleeding is the most dangerous complication in patients with liver cirrhosis, and it is accompanied by high mortality. Their treatment can be complex, and requires a multidisciplinary approach. This review examines current approaches to the management of patients with liver cirrhosis who have acute esophageal variceal bleeding.

METHODS

PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Systematic Reviews were searched for articles published between 1987 and 2015. Relevant articles were identified using the following terms: 'esophageal variceal bleeding', 'portal hypertension' and 'complications of liver cirrhosis'. The reference lists of articles identified were also searched for other relevant publications. Inclusion criteria were restricted to the management of patients with liver cirrhosis who have acute esophageal variceal bleeding.

RESULTS

It is currently recommended to combine vasoactive drugs (preferable somatostatin or terlipressin) and endoscopic therapies (endoscopic band ligation as first choice, sclerotherapy if endoscopic band ligation not feasible) for the initial treatment of acute variceal bleeding. Antibiotic prophylaxis must be regarded as an integral part of the treatment. The use of a Sengstaken-Blakemore tube is appropriate only in cases of refractory bleeding if the above methods cannot be used. An alternative to balloon tamponade may be the installation of self-expandable metal stents. The transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt is an extremely useful technique for the treatment of acute bleeding from esophageal varices. Although most current clinical guidelines classify it as second-line therapy, the Baveno VI workshop recommends early transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt with expanded polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stents within 72 h (ideally <24 h) in patients with esophageal variceal bleeding at high risk of treatment failure (e.g. Child-Turcotte-Pugh class C < 14 points or Child-Turcotte-Pugh class B with active bleeding) after initial pharmacological and endoscopic therapy. Urgent surgical intervention is rarely performed and can be considered only in case of failure of conservative and/or endoscopic therapy and being unable to use a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt. Among surgical operations described in the literature are a variety of portocaval anastomosis and azygoportal disconnection procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

To improve the results of treatment for patients with liver cirrhosis who develop acute esophageal variceal bleeding, it is important to stratify patients into risk groups, which will allow one to tailor therapeutic approaches to the expected results.

[Portosystemic shunt surgery between TIPS and liver transplantation]

Portosystemic shunt surgery in addition to transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) insertion must still be regarded as a current treatment option for portomesenteric decompression in patients with pharmacological and endoscopic treatment failure, where liver transplantation is not imminent. This applies to secondary prophylaxis of rebleeding from varices in patients with well preserved liver function, e.g. liver cirrhosis CHILD A or extrahepatic portal vein thrombosis. Even if emergency endoscopy represents the treatment of choice in the acute bleeding situation, latest data from San Diego on emergency portacaval shunt surgery are encouraging. Likewise, portacaval shunt procedures can be an attractive alternative to TIPS or liver transplantation for acute Budd-Chiari syndrome or veno-occlusive disease.This article is an update on the systematics and methodology of portacaval shunt surgery, emphasizing the significance of this treatment option based on latest studies.

Beneficial Effect of Partial Portal Decompression Using the Inferior Mesenteric Vein for Intractable Gastroesophageal Variceal Bleeding in Patients With Liver Cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Use of the inferior mesenteric vein (IMV) for partial portal decompression has not been recommended as a first-line option for intractable gastroesophageal variceal bleeding because of the thin diameter of the vein. Although these indications remain relevant, few reports have compared partial portal decompression using the IMV with other therapies. We propose that partial portal decompression using the IMV is a useful alternative treatment for intractable variceal bleeding.

METHODS

We performed partial portal decompression using the IMV in eight patients with intractable variceal bleeding that had been uncontrolled using medical and endoscopic therapies. All patients were classified into Child's class B or C. The surgical data, morbidity, and mortality were assessed.

RESULTS

Mean portal venous pressure significantly decreased from 26.9 +/- 2.0 mmHg before the surgery to 19.8 +/- 3.9 mmHg after the surgery. The operative mortality rate was 0%. The mean duration of hospital stay was 25.5 +/- 13.3 days. Although one patient experienced recurrent bleeding, shunt patency was well maintained in all patients during the follow-up period (mean 28.9 +/- 14.1 months). Six patients are still alive and well without ascites or hepatic encephalopathy. Two of the Child's class C patients who underwent emergency shunt died owing to hepatic decompensation.

CONCLUSION

Partial portal decompression using the IMV can be a safe, effective way to treat intractable variceal bleeding in patients with liver cirrhosis. However, use of the shunt procedure may have the most survival benefits for cirrhotic patients with preserved liver function.

TIPS in Florida: is its application a result of evidence-based medicine?

BACKGROUND

The typical resident in surgery in the US will not care for a patient with advanced portal hypertension and will not participate in a portacaval shunt. The aim of this study is to compare the number of transjugular intrahepatic portasystemic stent shunts (TIPS) with the number of surgical shunts undertaken in the State of Florida and to assess whether these numbers are consistent with today's evidence-based medicine.

METHODS

We examined the database of the Agency for Health Care Administration of the State of Florida from January 1, 2002, through September 30, 2005, for "intraabdominal venous shunt" (ICD-9 code, 39.1). Data collected include "case mix," "case severity," length of stay, total gross charges, and discharge status. Conclusions about longterm survival from a prospective randomized clinical trial comparing TIPS to surgical shunting were applied to this dataset to determine if the relative frequency of TIPS application in Florida was supported by evidence-based medicine.

RESULTS

TIPS was undertaken more than 12 times as often as surgical shunting (860 patients versus 70 patients). After TIPS versus surgical shunts, average length of stay and hospital charges were less, but case mix, case severity, and in-hospital mortality (11.4% for each) were not different. Applying survival data from a randomized trial comparing TIPS with surgical shunting to the State of Florida database, 129 more people (p < 0.0001) would be alive at 2 years and 137 more (p < 0.0001) would be alive at 5 years after shunting if surgical shunts had been used in lieu of TIPS.

CONCLUSIONS

TIPS leads to shorter hospitalizations and reduced hospital charges and is applied in numbers much greater than surgical shunts, despite evidence that suggests inferior longterm efficacy and survival. Current application of TIPS is not a result of evidence-based medicine, and application of surgical shunting is encouraged.

Current state of portosystemic shunt surgery

BACKGROUND

A switch to decompressive shunt procedures is mandatory if endoscopic therapy fails to control recurrent variceal hemorrhage. Surgical shunt procedures continue to be safe, highly effective, and durable procedures to treat variceal bleeding in patients with low operative risk and good liver function.

DISCUSSION

In cirrhotics, elective operations using portal flow preserving techniques such as a selective distal splenorenal shunt (Warren) and a partial portocaval small diameter interposition shunt (Sarfeh) should be preferred. Rarely, end-to-side portocaval shunt may serve as a salvage procedure if emergency endoscopic treatment or transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt insertion fails to stop bleeding. Until definitive results from randomized trials are available patients with good prognosis (Child-Pugh A and B) should be regarded as candidates for surgical shunts. For patients with noncirrhotic portal hypertension, in particular with extrahepatic portal vein thrombosis, portosystemic shunt surgery represents the only effective therapy which leads to freedom of recurrent bleeding and repeated endoscopies for many years, and improves hypersplenism without deteriorating liver function or encephalopathy. Gastroesophageal devascularization and other direct variceal ablative procedures should be restricted to treat endoscopic therapy failures without shuntable portal tributaries.