Endoscopic variceal ligation plus propranolol vs. transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent shunt: a long-term randomized trial

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.

Comparative efficacy of early TIPS, Non-early TIPS, and Standard treatment in patients with cirrhosis and acute variceal bleeding: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Cirrhosis is a chronic disease characterized by chronic liver inflammation and diffuse fibrosis. A combination of vasoactive drugs, preventive antibiotics, and endoscopy is the recommended standard treatment for patients with acute variceal bleeding; however, this has been challenged. We compared the effects of early transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), non-early TIPS, and standard treatment in patients with cirrhosis and acute variceal bleeding.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The present network meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the criteria outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews guidelines. The review has been registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and World Health Organization-approved trial registry databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating early TIPS, non-early TIPS, and standard treatment in patients with cirrhosis and acute variceal bleeding.

RESULTS

Twenty-four RCTs (1894 patients) were included in the review. Compared with standard treatment, early TIPS [odds ratio (OR), 0.53; 95% credible interval (Cr), 0.30-0.94; surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA), 98.3] had a lower risk of all-cause mortality (moderate-to-high-quality evidence), and early TIPS (OR, 0.19; 95% CrI, 0.11-0.28; SUCRA, 98.2) and non-early TIPS (OR, 0.30; 95% CrI, 0.23-0.42; SUCRA, 1.8) were associated with a lower risk of rebleeding (moderate-to-high-quality evidence). Early TIPS was not associated with a reduced risk of hepatic encephalopathy, and non-early TIPS (OR, 2.78; 95% CrI, 1.89-4.23, SUCRA, 0) was associated with an increased incidence of hepatic encephalopathy (moderate-to-high-quality evidence). There was no difference in the incidence of new or worsening ascites (moderate-to-high-quality evidence) among the three interventions.

CONCLUSION

Based on the moderate-to-high quality evidence presented in this study, early TIPS placement was associated with reduced all-cause mortality [with a median follow-up of 1.9 years (25th-75th percentile range 1.9-2.3 years)] and rebleeding compared to standard treatment and non-early TIPS. Although early TIPS and standard treatment had a comparable incidence of hepatic encephalopathy, early TIPS showed superiority over non-early TIPS in this aspect. Recent studies have also shown promising results in controlling TIPS-related hepatic encephalopathy. However, it is important to consider individual patient characteristics and weigh the potential benefits against the risks associated with early TIPS. Therefore, we recommend that clinicians carefully evaluate the patient's condition, considering factors such as severity of variceal bleeding, underlying liver disease, and overall clinical status, before making a treatment decision. Further well-designed RCTs comparing early TIPS with non-early TIPS are needed to validate these findings and provide more definitive guidance.

Balloon-compression endoscopic injection sclerotherapy versus transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for esophageal variceal rebleeding

BACKGROUND

In cirrhotic patients, recurrent bleeding after the first episode of esophageal variceal bleeding (EVB) is common and lethal. The present study was aimed to compare balloon-compression endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (bc-EIS) with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) for the prophylaxis of variceal rebleeding.

METHODS

Between June 2020 and September 2022, 81 cirrhotic patients with EVB (42 in the bc-EIS group and 39 in the TIPS group) were evaluated retrospectively. The occurrence of rebleeding, hepatic encephalopathy (HE) or other complications, as well as liver functions and survival rate were compared between two groups.

RESULTS

During the 12 months of follow-up, variceal eradication was achieved in 40 (95.24%) patients of the bc-EIS group after a mean of 1.80 ± 0.94 sessions. TIPS was successfully performed in 39 (100%) patients. No significant difference in the variceal rebleeding rate was observed between bc-EIS and TIPS groups (16.67 vs. 17.95%; p = 0.111). While the bc-EIS group showed significantly decreased incidence of HE (2.38 vs. 17.95%; p < 0.001) and lower level of total bilirubin (p < 0.05) in comparison with the TIPS group. The difference in mortality between the two groups failed to reach statistical significance (0.00 vs. 7.69%; p = 0.107).

CONCLUSION

Bc-EIS is not inferior to TIPS in the survival and control of variceal rebleeding, but associated with decreased risk of HE and liver dysfunction.

To TIPS or Not to TIPS in High Risk of Variceal Rebleeding and Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure

Variceal bleeding is a consequence of severe portal hypertension in patients with liver cirrhosis. Although the rate of bleeding has decreased over time, variceal bleeding in the presence of acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) carries a high risk of treatment failure and short-term mortality. Treatment and/or removal of precipitating events (mainly bacterial infection and alcoholic hepatitis) and decrease of portal pressure may improve outcome of patients with acute decompensation or ACLF. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPSs), especially in the preemptive situation, have been found to efficiently control bleeding, prevent rebleeding, and reduce short-term mortality. Therefore, TIPS placement should be considered as an option in the management of ACLF patients with variceal bleeding.

TIPS placement as the first-line therapy to prevent variceal rebleeding in patients with cirrhosis and sarcopenia

PURPOSE

Sarcopenia increases the risk of mortality and hepatic encephalopathy (HE) in cirrhosis, and is a potential indication for transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS). The aim was to investigate the prognostic effect of sarcopenia in patients with cirrhosis who received TIPS for prevention of variceal rebleeding.

METHOD

We retrospectively included 262 patients with cirrhosis receiving TIPS as the first-line treatment for prevention of rebleeding. L3 skeletal muscle index (SMI) was measured and sarcopenia was defined using sex-specific cutoffs. Incidence of post-TIPS mortality and overt HE, and changes of L3-SMI before and after TIPS were compared between the non-sarcopenia and sarcopenia group. Moreover, 21 patients with sarcopenia who received TIPS as the second-line treatment were included for additional comparison.

RESULTS

At admission, 99 (37.8 %) and 163 (62.2 %) patients were diagnosed as sarcopenia and non-sarcopenia, respectively. Compared with the non-sarcopenia group, the sarcopenia group had a similar risk of mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.04, 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.55-1.96, p = 0.900) and overt HE (adjusted HR 1.20, 95 %CI 0.72-2.00, p = 0.479). The sarcopenia group achieved higher extent of L3-SMI improvement after TIPS than the non-sarcopenia group (7.0 vs 2.4 cm²/m² in males; 4.2 vs 3.3 cm²/m² in females). For patients with sarcopenia, TIPS as the second-line treatment significantly increased mortality risk compared with TIPS as the first-line treatment (adjusted HR 2.68, 95 %CI 1.05-6.87, p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients treated with TIPS as the first-line treatment for prevention of rebleeding, baseline sarcopenia did not increase the risk of post-TIPS mortality and overt HE.

Prevention of post-tips hepatic encephalopathy: The search of the ideal candidate

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) has been used since more than 25 years to treat some of the complications of portal hypertension, especially variceal bleeding and ascites refractory to conventional therapy. TIPS establishes a communication between the portal and hepatic veins, inducing the blood to shift from the splanchnic circulation into the systemic vascular bed with the aim of decompressing the portal venous system, and avoids the major complications of portal hypertension. However, the shunt of the portal blood into the systemic circulation is the cause of one of the major complications of the procedure: the post-TIPS hepatic encephalopathy (HE). To date, few pharmacological treatment has been proven effective to prevent this complication and thus, the identification of patients at high risk of post-TIPS hepatic encephalopathy and the patients' carefully selection is the only way to prevent this frequent complication.

Efficacy and Safety of Treatments for Patients With Portal Hypertension and Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

Background and Aims: Viral hepatitis are one of the main causes of liver cirrhosis. The treatment of portal hypertension caused by liver cirrhosis is difficult and diverse, and the therapeutic effect is unknown. Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of treatments for patients with portal hypertension and cirrhosis, including a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), endoscopic therapy, surgical therapy and medications. Methods: Eligible articles were searched for in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases from their inception until June 2020. Using the "gemtc-0.8.4" package in R v.3.6.3 software and the Just Another Gibbs Sampler v.4.2.0 program, network meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model within a Bayesian framework. The odds ratios for all-cause rebleeding, bleeding-related mortality, overall survival (OS), treatment failure and hepatic encephalopathy were determined within the Bayesian framework. Results: Forty randomized controlled trials were identified, including 4,006 adult patients and nine treatment strategies. Our results showed that distal splenorenal shunt and TIPS provided the best control of hemorrhage. Endoscopic variceal ligation with medication resulted in the highest OS rate. Medication alone resulted in poor OS and treatment failure. Conclusions: We performed a systematic comparison of diverse treatments for cirrhotic patients with portal hypertension. Our meta-analysis indicated that a TIPS and distal splenorenal shunt resulted in lower rates of rebleeding than did other therapies. Furthermore, drugs are more suitable for combination therapy than monotherapy.

Prevention of variceal rebleeding in cirrhotic patients with spontaneous portosystemic shunts: transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt versus endoscopic treatment

BACKGROUND

Spontaneous portosystemic shunts(SPSSs) in cirrhotic patients indicate higher incidence of gastric varices, which increases the risk for bleeding and death. However, few studies compared endoscopic therapy with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) in preventing variceal rebleeding in cirrhotic patients with SPSSs. This research aims to evaluate the effectiveness of the two methods in this group of patients.

METHODS

We reviewed consecutive cirrhotic patients with SPSSs who underwent either TIPS or endoscopic treatment to prevent variceal rebleeding between January 2015 and December 2018 in our institution. Outcomes including rebleeding, overt hepatic encephalopathy (OHE), complications and survival were compared. Meanwhile, subgroup analyses were conducted to screen relevant factors affecting the results.

RESULTS

A total of 97 patients were included in the study. The TIPS arm contained 50 patients and the endoscopy arm contained 47 patients. Rebleeding rate in TIPS group was statistically lower than endoscopic group [16.0 vs 38.3%, hazard ratio (HR) = 0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.16-0.84, P = 0.01], while OHE was more frequent (16.0 vs 2.1%, HR = 7.59, 95% CI: 0.94-61.2, P = 0.025), the survival rate (92 vs 89.4%, HR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.22-3.60, P = 0.87) and frequency of complications were comparable between two groups. In the subgroups of GOV2/IGV1 and splenorenal shunt/gastrorenal shunt, compared with endoscopic treatments, TIPS reduced the rate of rebleeding without significantly increasing overt hepatic encephalopathy; however, it did not improve survival rate.

CONCLUSIONS

For cirrhotic patients with SPSSs, TIPS brought a lower rebleeding rate but a higher incidence of OHE. However, in the subgroups of GOV2/IGV1 and splenorenal shunt/gastrorenal shunt, TIPS was considered more reasonable due to the lower rebleeding rate and comparable OHE incidence.

Secondary prevention of variceal bleeding in adults with previous oesophageal variceal bleeding due to decompensated liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Approximately 40% to 95% of people with cirrhosis have oesophageal varices. About 15% to 20% of oesophageal varices bleed in about one to three years of diagnosis. Several different treatments are available, which include endoscopic sclerotherapy, variceal band ligation, beta-blockers, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), and surgical portocaval shunts, among others. However, there is uncertainty surrounding their individual and relative benefits and harms.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of different initial treatments for secondary prevention of variceal bleeding in adults with previous oesophageal variceal bleeding due to decompensated liver cirrhosis through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the different treatments for secondary prevention according to their safety and efficacy.

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and previous history of bleeding from oesophageal varices. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had no previous history of bleeding from oesophageal varices, previous history of bleeding only from gastric varices, those who failed previous treatment (refractory bleeding), those who had acute bleeding at the time of treatment, and those who had previously undergone liver transplantation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and calculated the differences in treatments using hazard ratios (HR), 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.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 48 randomised clinical trials (3526 participants) in the review. Forty-six trials (3442 participants) were included in one or more comparisons. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies. The follow-up ranged from two months to 61 months. All the trials were at high risk of bias. A total of 12 interventions were compared in these trials (sclerotherapy, beta-blockers, variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy, no active intervention, TIPS (transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt), beta-blockers plus nitrates, portocaval shunt, sclerotherapy plus variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus nitrates plus variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy plus nitrates). Overall, 22.5% of the trial participants who received the reference treatment (chosen because this was the commonest treatment compared in the trials) of sclerotherapy died during the follow-up period ranging from two months to 61 months. There was considerable uncertainty in the effects of interventions on mortality. Accordingly, none of the interventions showed superiority over another. None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. Based on low-certainty evidence, variceal band ligation may result in fewer serious adverse events (number of people) than sclerotherapy (OR 0.19; 95% CrI 0.06 to 0.54; 1 trial; 100 participants). Based on low or very low-certainty evidence, the adverse events (number of participants) and adverse events (number of events) may be different across many comparisons; however, these differences are due to very small trials at high risk of bias showing large differences in some comparisons leading to many differences despite absence of direct evidence. Based on low-certainty evidence, TIPS may result in large decrease in symptomatic rebleed than variceal band ligation (HR 0.12; 95% CrI 0.03 to 0.41; 1 trial; 58 participants). Based on moderate-certainty evidence, any variceal rebleed was probably lower in sclerotherapy than in no active intervention (HR 0.62; 95% CrI 0.35 to 0.99, direct comparison HR 0.66; 95% CrI 0.11 to 3.13; 3 trials; 296 participants), beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy than sclerotherapy alone (HR 0.60; 95% CrI 0.37 to 0.95; direct comparison HR 0.50; 95% CrI 0.07 to 2.96; 4 trials; 231 participants); TIPS than sclerotherapy (HR 0.18; 95% CrI 0.08 to 0.38; direct comparison HR 0.22; 95% CrI 0.01 to 7.51; 2 trials; 109 participants), and in portocaval shunt than sclerotherapy (HR 0.21; 95% CrI 0.05 to 0.77; no direct comparison) groups. Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers alone and TIPS might result in more, other compensation, events than sclerotherapy (rate ratio 2.37; 95% CrI 1.35 to 4.67; 1 trial; 65 participants and rate ratio 2.30; 95% CrI 1.20 to 4.65; 2 trials; 109 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions including those related to beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation in the remaining comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions on mortality. Variceal band ligation might result in fewer serious adverse events than sclerotherapy. TIPS might result in a large decrease in symptomatic rebleed than variceal band ligation. Sclerotherapy probably results in fewer 'any' variceal rebleeding than no active intervention. Beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy and TIPS probably result in fewer 'any' variceal rebleeding than sclerotherapy. Beta-blockers alone and TIPS might result in more other compensation events than sclerotherapy. The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in the remaining comparisons. Accordingly, high-quality randomised comparative clinical trials are needed.

Management of portal hypertension severe complications

Portal hypertension is a clinical syndrome characterized by an increase in the portal pressure gradient, defined as the gradient between the portal vein at the site downstream of the site of obstruction and the inferior vena cava. The most frequent cause of portal hypertension is cirrhosis. In patients with cirrhosis, portal hypertension is the main driver of cirrhosis progression and development of hepatic decompensation (ascites, variceal hemorrhage and hepatic encephalopathy), which defines the transition from compensated to decompensated stage. In decompensated patients, treatments aim at lowering the risk of death by preventing further decompensation and/or development of acute-on-chronic liver failure. Decompensated patients often pose a complex challenge which typically requires a multidisciplinary approach. The aims of the present review were to discuss the current knowledge regarding interventional treatments for patients with portal hypertension complications as well as to highlight useful information to aid hepatologists in their clinical practice. Specifically, we discussed the indications and contraindications of transjugular intra-hepatic portosystemic shunt and for the treatment of gastro-esophageal variceal hemorrhage in patients with decompensated cirrhosis (first section); we reviewed the use of interventional treatments in patients with hepatic vein obstruction (Budd-Chiari Syndrome) and in those with portal vein thrombosis (second section); and we briefly comment on the most frequent applications of selective splenic embolization in patients with and without underlying cirrhosis (third section).

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.

Where does TIPS fit in the management of patients with cirrhosis?

In this review, we summarise the current knowledge on the indications and contraindications of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) placement for the treatment of the complications of portal hypertension in cirrhosis, specifically variceal haemorrhage and ascites. Moreover, we discuss the role of TIPS for the treatment of portal vein thrombosis (PVT) and the prevention of complications after extrahepatic surgery ('preoperative TIPS') in patients with cirrhosis. The position of TIPS in the treatment hierarchy depends on the clinical setting and on patient characteristics. In acute variceal haemorrhage, preemptive TIPS is indicated in patients at a high risk of failing standard therapy, that is those with a Child-Pugh score of 10-13 points or Child-Pugh B with active bleeding at endoscopy, although the survival benefit in the latter group still remains to be established. Non-preemptive TIPS is a second-line therapy for the prevention of recurrent variceal haemorrhage and for the treatment of ascites. Of note, TIPS may also improve sarcopenia. Contraindications to TIPS placement, independent of clinical setting, include very advanced disease (Child-Pugh >13 points), episodes of recurrent overt hepatic encephalopathy without an identifiable precipitating factor, heart failure, and pulmonary hypertension. In patients with PVT, TIPS placement not only controls complications of portal hypertension, but also promotes portal vein recanalisation. Although the severity of portal hypertension correlates with poor outcomes after extrahepatic surgery, there is no evidence to recommend preoperative TIPS placement.

Comparison of Therapies for Secondary Prophylaxis of Esophageal Variceal Bleeding in Cirrhosis: A Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

PURPOSE

The decision regarding the optimal secondary prophylactic treatment for esophageal variceal bleeding (EVB) in hepatic cirrhosis is controversial. A network meta-analysis was conducted to assess the benefits of various treatments for the secondary prophylaxis of EVB in patients with cirrhosis.

METHODS

A thorough examination of databases, including EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane Database of Controlled Trials, was conducted to identify relevant randomized controlled trials up to December 2019. Key primary outcomes included mortality and rebleeding. Within the identified databases, a network meta-analysis was performed. Results were expressed by using a 95% credible interval (CrI) and odds ratios (ORs). The quality of results was assessed by using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.

FINDINGS

Forty-eight trials with 4415 participants with cirrhosis and portal hypertension who had a history of recent variceal bleeding were included. Carvedilol ranked first (surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA], 87.4%) in overall survival, and some advantage was suggested; however, the findings were not statistically significant, compared with endoscopic variceal ligation + nonselective beta-blockers (NSBB) (OR, 0.59; CrI, 0.28, 1.3), NSBB + isosorbide mononitrate (OR, 0.67; CrI, 0.33, 1.4), and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) (OR, 0.52; CrI, 0.24, 1.1). NSBB + isosorbide mononitrate (SUCRA, 63.9%) ranked higher than NSBB + endoscopic variceal ligation (SUCRA, 49.6%) in reducing mortality. TIPS (SUCRA, 98.8%) ranked higher than other treatments in reducing rebleeding but did not confer any survival benefit.

IMPLICATIONS

TIPS ranks first in preventing rebleeding of secondary prophylaxis of EVB and carvedilol shows outstanding efficacy in improving survival. International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews: identifier CRD42019131814.

Hepatic venous pressure gradient-guided laparoscopic splenectomy and pericardial devascularisation versus endoscopic therapy for secondary prophylaxis for variceal rebleeding in portal hypertension (CHESS1803): study protocol of a multicenter randomised controlled trial in China

INTRODUCTION

Gastro-oesophageal variceal bleeding is one of the most common and severe complications with high mortality in cirrhotic patients who developed portal hypertension. Hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) is a globally recommended golden standard for the portal pressure assessment and an HVPG ≥16 mm Hg indicates a higher risk of death and rebleeding. This study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of splenectomy and pericardial devascularisation (laparoscopic therapy) plus propranolol and endoscopic therapy plus propranolol for variceal rebleeding in cirrhotic patients with HVPG between 16 and 20 mm Hg.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a multicenter, randomised, controlled clinical trial. Participants will be 1:1 assigned randomly into either laparoscopic or endoscopic groups. Forty participants whose transjugular HVPG lies between 16 and 20 mm Hg with a history of gastro-oesophageal variceal bleeding will be recruited from three sites in China. Participants will receive either endoscopic therapy plus propranolol or laparoscopic therapy plus propranolol. The primary outcome measure will be the occurrence of gastro-oesophageal variceal rebleeding. Secondary outcome measures will include overall survival, occurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma, the occurrence of venous thrombosis, the occurrence of adverse events, quality of life and tolerability of treatment. Outcome measures will be evaluated at baseline, 12 weeks, 24 weeks, 36 weeks, 48 weeks and 60 weeks. Multivariate COX regression model will be introduced for analyses of occurrence data and Kaplan-Meier analysis with the log-rank test for intergroup comparison.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval was obtained from all three participating sites. Primary and secondary outcome data will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and widely disseminated.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03783065; Pre-results.

TRIAL STATUS

Recruitment for this study started in December 2018 while the first participant was randomised in January 2019. Recruitment is estimated to stop in October 2019.

Comparison of the effectiveness of 11 mainstay treatments for secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis: A network meta-analysis

The purpose of the present study was to compare the effectiveness of the transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), endoscopic options, medications and mainstay combination therapies for patients with cirrhosis who have had at least one episode of variceal haemorrhage. The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases, as well as the reference lists of relevant articles, were searched to identify eligible studies. P-scores, that were based solely on the point estimates and standard errors of the network estimates, were performed to rank all treatments, on a scale from 0 (worst) to 1 (best). The odds ratio (OR) was determined to assess effects on mortality, treatment failure and bleeding from gastroesophageal ulcers. A total of 43 randomized controlled trials comprising 3,787 adult patients were included. In total, 26 (61%) trials adopted concealed randomization, while most studies did not specify blinding. The drug combination of nadolol and isosorbide mononitrate (ISMN) ranked first for lowering risks of overall mortality (P-score=0.8162), mortality due to liver failure (P-score=0.7536) and bleeding from gastroesophageal ulcers (P-score=0.7536). This combination was determined to be superior to endoscopic sclerotherapy (ES) alone (OR=0.63, 95% CI: 0.42-0.94) and TIPS alone in reducing overall mortality (OR=0.62, 95% CI: 0.40-0.96). ES was more likely to increase treatment failure compared with TIPS, endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL), ES plus EVL, EVL plus nadolol/propranolol plus ISMN and nadolol/propranolol plus ISMN. In conclusion, the present network meta-analysis suggested that for a decreased mortality due to variceal rebleeding in patients with cirrhosis, nadolol plus ISMN may be a preferable choice, while ES is associated with a higher risk of unfavourable treatment outcomes. Further well-controlled studies are required to further elucidate the appropriate treatment options.

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.

Covered TIPS versus endoscopic band ligation plus propranolol for the prevention of variceal rebleeding in cirrhotic patients with portal vein thrombosis: a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Limited data are available on the prevention of variceal rebleeding in cirrhotic patients with portal vein thrombosis (PVT). This study aimed to compare transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) with covered stents versus endoscopic band ligation (EBL) plus propranolol for the prevention of variceal rebleeding among patients with cirrhosis and PVT.

DESIGN

Consecutive cirrhotic patients (94% Child-Pugh class A or B) with PVT who had variceal bleeding in the past 6 weeks were randomly assigned to TIPS group (n=24) or EBL plus propranolol group (EBL+drug, n=25), respectively. Primary endpoint was variceal rebleeding. Secondary endpoints included survival, overt hepatic encephalopathy (OHE), portal vein recanalisation and rethrombosis, other complications of portal hypertension and adverse events.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 30 months in both groups, variceal rebleeding was significantly less frequent in the TIPS group (15% vs 45% at 1 year and 25% vs 50% at 2 years, respectively; HR=0.28, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.76, p=0.008), with a significantly higher portal vein recanalisation rate (95% vs 70%; p=0.03) and a relatively lower rethrombosis rate (5% vs 33%; p=0.06) compared with the EBL+drug group. There were no statistically significant differences in survival (67% vs 84%; p=0.152), OHE (25% vs 16%; p=0.440), other complications of portal hypertension and adverse events between groups.

CONCLUSION

Covered TIPS placement in patients with PVT and moderately decompensated cirrhosis was more effective than EBL combined with propranolol for the prevention of rebleeding, with a higher probability of PVT resolution without increasing the risk of OHE and adverse effects, but this benefit did not translate into improved survival.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01326949.

TIPS versus endoscopic therapy for variceal rebleeding in cirrhosis: A meta-analysis update

Endoscopic therapy (ET) is most common method for preventing variceal bleeding in cirrhosis, but the outcomes are not perfect. Recently, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is introduced into clinical practice. However, the beneficial effects of TIPS compared to ET on cirrhotic patients is unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the effects of TIPS with those of the most frequently used ET for prevention of variceal rebleeding (VRB) in liver cirrhosis. The Pub-Med, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to February 2017. The primary study outcomes included the incidence of VRB, all-cause mortality, bleeding-related death, and the incidence of post-treatment hepatic encephalopathy (PTE). The odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled for dichotomous variables. Subgroup analyses were performed. Twenty-four studies were eligible and they included 1120 subjects treated with TIPS and 1065 subjects treated with ET. Although there was no significant difference in survival and PTE, TIPS was superior to ET in decreasing the incidence of VRB (OR=0.27; 95% CI, 0.19-0.39, P<0.00001), and decreasing the incidence of bleeding-related death (OR=0.21; 95% CI, 0.13-0.32, P<0.00001). Subgroup analysis found a lower mortality (OR=0.48; 95% CI, 0.23-0.97; P=0.04) without any increased incidence of PTE (OR=1.37; 95% CI, 0.75-2.50; P=0.31) in the studies of a greater proportion (≥40%) of patients with Child-Pugh class C cirrhosis receiving TIPS, and TIPS with covered stent did not increase the risk of PTE compared to ET (OR=1.52, 95% CI =0.82-2.80, P=0.18). It was concluded that TIPS with covered stent might be considered the preferred choice of therapy in patients with severe liver disease for secondary prophylaxis.

Early TIPS versus endoscopic therapy for secondary prophylaxis after management of acute esophageal variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

American College of Gastroenterology and American Association for the Study of Liver Disease guidelines recommend endoscopic and pharmacologic treatment for esophageal variceal bleed. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) placement is reserved for cases of therapeutic failure. Several studies have suggested improved prevention of rebleeding and improved survival without excess hepatic encephalopathy in patients who receive TIPS within the first 5 days after bleeding (early TIPS). In this meta-analysis, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of early TIPS versus endoscopic therapy for secondary prophylaxis after acute esophageal variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients.

METHODS

Pubmed, Medline, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ISI Web of Science were searched for randomized controlled trials that compared early TIPS to endoscopic therapy. The primary outcome was mortality at 1 year; secondary outcomes were rebleeding and hepatic encephalopathy at 1 year.

RESULTS

Nine randomized controlled trials involving 608 cirrhotic patients were identified. Early TIPS was associated with a significant risk reduction in 1-year mortality (RR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49-0.96; P = 0.03) and 1-year incidence of variceal rebleeding (RR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.20-0.40; P < 0.001) without significant heterogeneity among studies (I(2)  = 30% and 47%, respectively). No significant difference in the incidence of hepatic encephalopathy at 1 year was observed (RR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.72-2.56; P = 0.34); however, there was significant heterogeneity among studies (I(2)  = 68%).

CONCLUSION

TIPS placed within 5 days after a major esophageal variceal hemorrhage is superior to endoscopic treatment in reducing subsequent bleeding. Early TIPS placement is also associated with superior 1-year survival without significantly increasing the incidence of hepatic encephalopathy.

Rates of recurrent variceal bleeding are low with modern esophageal banding strategies: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Variceal bleeding has a high rate of mortality and recurrence. Endoscopic band ligation (EBL) is the established standard of care for secondary prevention of variceal bleeding.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the long-term re-bleeding rate of an EBL protocol similar to current society guidelines.

DESIGN

We conducted a retrospective cohort study at a tertiary care center of all patients with a history of a variceal bleed who underwent an aggressive band ligation protocol.

INTERVENTIONS

At the time of sentinel bleed, all varices, regardless of size, were ligated. EBL was then repeated every 2 weeks until stabilization, and all visible varices were ligated. The interval between banding sessions then increased.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

The incidence of re-bleeding was calculated as the time between clinical stabilization after the sentinel event until data censoring, which occurred at time of re-bleed, death, transplant or loss-to-follow up. Gastric variceal bleeding was a secondary endpoint.

RESULTS

N = 176 patients were treated with aggressive EBL, and followed for a median of 16 months (range, 3 months - 6.9 years). The 6 month incidence of re-bleeding was 2.3%, the 12 month incidence was 3.4%, and the 2 year incidence was 4.6%. Overall, aggressive EBL was well-tolerated. One patient died during follow-up secondary to a gastric variceal bleed.

CONCLUSIONS

Aggressive EBL yields a low rate of re-bleeding when compared to standard practice. Secondary prophylaxis with aggressive EBL should be a consideration for patients following a sentinel bleeding event.

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

The aim of this study is to compare the clinical outcomes of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) and endoscopic band ligation (EBL) in patients with cirrhosis and portal vein thrombosis (PVT). We retrospectively reviewed the January to September 2010 data from our database and included 25 patients with cirrhosis and PVT who underwent successful TIPS creation. We selected another 25 patients who underwent EBL matching for age, sex, and Child-Pugh-Turcotte class. The outcome measures included changes in the PVT status before and after the treatments, the rebleeding rate, and the overall survival. The mean follow-up was 25.1 ± 8.7 months in the EBL group and 25.6 ± 8.5 months in the TIPS group (P = 0.85). After treatments, the PVT severity improved in 40% and worsened in 25% of patients who did not undergo TIPS, compared with 87% and none of the patients who underwent TIPS (P < 0.001). Previous splenectomy (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02-0.76, P = 0.024) and patency status of TIPS (OR 20.8, 95% CI 3.0-141.8, P = 0.002) were the independent factors associated with PVT disappearance. The 1- and 2-year rebleeding rates were, respectively, 44.6% and 59.0% in the EBL group, and 12.5% and 25.2% in the TIPS group (P = 0.002). The 1- and 2-year survival rates were, respectively, 95.7% and 85.2% in the EBL group, and 96% and 78.7% in the TIPS group (P = 0.203). The MELD score was the only independent predictive factor for survival (HR 1.73, 95% CI 1.27-2.37, P = 0.001). Compared with EBL, TIPS contributed to PVT improvement and reduced the risk of rebleeding without providing a survival benefit for patients with PVT.

Advanced Cirrhosis Combined with Portal Vein Thrombosis: A Randomized Trial of TIPS versus Endoscopic Band Ligation Plus Propranolol for the Prevention of Recurrent Esophageal Variceal Bleeding

PURPOSE

To compare transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) placement with or without variceal embolization with endoscopic band ligation (EBL) plus propranolol in preventing recurrent esophageal variceal bleeding in patients with advanced cirrhosis and portal vein thrombosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The present randomized controlled trial was approved by the ethics committee board of West China Hospital. Written informed consent was obtained from each patient. Between January 2010 and December 2012, 73 patients were randomly allocated to receive TIPS (n = 37) or EBL plus propranolol (n = 36). The comparisons of recurrent variceal bleeding, hepatic encephalopathy, and survival rates were based on the Kaplan-Meier method and were compared using the log-rank test.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up time was 22.8 months ± 7.7(standard deviation) in the TIPS group and 20.9 months ± 8.9 in the EBL group. The 2-year probability of remaining free of recurrent variceal bleeding was higher in the TIPS group (77.8%) than in the EBL group (42.9%) (P = .002). Overall recanalization was achieved in 24 (64.9%) patients from the TIPS group and seven (19.4%) patients from the EBL group. The hepatic encephalopathy rates exhibited no significant differences between the two groups (P = .53). The 1- and 2-year probability of survival was 86.5% and 72.9%, respectively, in the TIPS group and 83.3% and 57.2%, respectively, in the EBL group, with no significant difference (P = .23).

CONCLUSION

TIPS was more effective than EBL plus propranolol in preventing recurrent esophageal variceal bleeding in patients with advanced cirrhosis and portal vein thrombosis and did not increase the incidence of hepatic encephalopathy. Survival was similar in both groups.

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is an established procedure for the complications of portal hypertension. The largest body of evidence for its use has been supported for recurrent or refractory variceal bleeding and refractory ascites. Its use has also been advocated for acute variceal bleed, hepatic hydrothorax, and hepatorenal syndrome. With the replacement of bare metal stents with polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stents, shunt patency has improved dramatically, thus, improving outcomes. Therefore, reassessment of its utility, management of its complications, and understanding of various TIPS techniques is important.

Selection of a TIPS stent for management of portal hypertension in liver cirrhosis: An evidence-based review

Nowadays, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) has become a mainstay treatment option for the management of portal hypertension-related complications in liver cirrhosis. Accumulated evidence has shown that its indications are being gradually expanded. Notwithstanding, less attention has been paid for the selection of an appropriate stent during a TIPS procedure. Herein, we attempt to review the current evidence regarding the diameter, type, brand, and position of TIPS stents. Several following recommendations may be considered in the clinical practice: (1) a 10-mm stent may be more effective than an 8-mm stent for the management of portal hypertension, and may be superior to a 12-mm stent for the improvement of survival and shunt patency; (2) covered stents are superior to bare stents for reducing the development of shunt dysfunction; (3) if available, Viatorr stent-grafts may be recommended due to a higher rate of shunt patency; and (4) the placement of a TIPS stent in the left portal vein branch may be more reasonable for decreasing the development of hepatic encephalopathy. However, given relatively low quality of evidence, prospective well-designed studies should be warranted to further confirm these recommendations.

TIPS for treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with liver cirrhosis: Analysis of 232 cases

AIM: To investigate the clinical effect of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) in treating gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with liver cirrhosis.

METHODS: Four hundred liver cirrhosis patients with portal hypertension were divided into either a TIPS group (n = 232) or a control group (n = 168). The demographic data of patients, liver function, gastrointestinal bleeding, and the quality of life, were investigated and analyzed. The follow-up period was 6 mo.

RESULTS: The main cause of cirrhosis was hepatitis B virus infection. There were more men than women. The average age of onset was about 50 years, and the majority of patients had Child-Pugh B disease. The percentage of patients without bleeding or with only one episode of bleeding in the TIPS group was significantly higher than that in the control group (15.5% vs 31.5%, P < 0.05), while the proportion patients with three or more episodes of bleeding was lower than that in the control group (10.8% vs 18.5%, P < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in liver function parameters (ALB: 26.38 ± 4.87 vs 26.79 ± 6.28; PALB: 81.82 ± 23.76 vs 82.04 ± 18.67; P > 0.05). The SF-36 scale survey showed that there were no significant differences in the indexes of energy (64.8 ± 8.12 vs 61.2 ± 7.28) or physical aspects (74.5 ± 9.39 vs 69.1 ± 9.75) between 6 mo after operation and preoperation in the TIPS group, while the rest indicators at 6 mo after operation in the TIPS group differed significantly from those in the control group and those in the TIPS group before operation (P < 0.05). All indexes in the CLDQ questionnaire at 6 mo after operation in the TIPS group differed significantly from those in the control group and those in the TIPS group before operation (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION: TIPS can obviously reduce the episode of gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis and improve the quality of life, and the surgery itself has no effect on the liver function of patients.

Clinical effects and complications of TIPS for portal hypertension due to cirrhosis: A single center

AIM: To determine the clinical effects and complications of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) for portal hypertension due to cirrhosis.

METHODS: Two hundred and eighty patients with portal hypertension due to cirrhosis who underwent TIPS were retrospectively evaluated. Portal trunk pressure was measured before and after surgery. The changes in hemodynamics and the condition of the stent were assessed by ultrasound and the esophageal and fundic veins observed endoscopically.

RESULTS: The success rate of TIPS was 99.3%. The portal trunk pressure was 26.8 ± 3.6 cmH₂O after surgery and 46.5 ± 3.4 cmH₂O before surgery (P < 0.01). The velocity of blood flow in the portal vein increased. The internal diameters of the portal and splenic veins were reduced. The short-term hemostasis rate was 100%. Esophageal varices disappeared completely in 68% of patients and were obviously reduced in 32%. Varices of the stomach fundus disappeared completely in 80% and were obviously reduced in 20% of patients. Ascites disappeared in 62%, were markedly reduced in 24%, but were still apparent in 14% of patients. The total effective rate of ascites reduction was 86%. Hydrothorax completely disappeared in 100% of patients. The incidence of post-operative stent stenosis was 24% at 12 mo and 34% at 24 mo. The incidence of post-operative hepatic encephalopathy was 12% at 3 mo, 17% at 6 mo and 19% at 12 mo. The incidence of post-operative recurrent hemorrhage was 9% at 12 mo, 19% at 24 mo and 35% at 36 mo. The cumulative survival rate was 86% at 12 mo, 81% at 24 mo, 75% at 36 mo, 57% at 48 mo and 45% at 60 mo.

CONCLUSION: TIPS can effectively lower portal hypertension due to cirrhosis. It is significantly effective for hemorrhage of the digestive tract due to rupture of esophageal and fundic veins and for ascites and hydrothorax caused by portal hypertension.

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for the prevention of variceal rebleeding in cirrhotic patients with portal vein thrombosis: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) increases the risk of variceal rebleeding in liver cirrhosis. However, the strategy for preventing variceal rebleeding in cirrhotic patients with PVT has not been explored. This study aims to evaluate whether the transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) or conventional therapy is preferable for the prevention of variceal rebleeding in liver cirrhosis patients with PVT.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a randomised controlled trial comparing the safety and efficacy of TIPS versus conventional therapy (ie, endoscopic therapy combined with non-selective β-blockers and anticoagulants) for the prevention of variceal rebleeding in cirrhotic patients with non-tumoral PVT. A total of 50 cirrhotic patients with PVT (thrombus >50% of portal vein lumen occupancy) and a history of variceal bleeding will be stratified according to the Child-Pugh class and degree of PVT, and randomised into the TIPS and conventional therapy groups. The primary objective was to compare the incidence of variceal rebleeding between the two groups. The secondary objectives were to compare the overall mortality, variceal rebleeding-related mortality, portal vein recanalisation and complications between the two groups, and to observe the progression of PVT in patients without portal vein recanalisation.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was approved by the ethics committee of Xijing hospital (No. 20110224-5), and was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01326949). All participants give written informed consent. The first patient was recruited into our study on 4 June 2011. A total of 29 patients were recruited through 5 March 2013 (14 and 15 patients assigned to the TIPS and conventional therapy groups, respectively). If TIPS is superior to conventional therapy for the prevention of variceal rebleeding in cirrhotic patients with PVT, TIPS might be recommended as the first-line therapy in such patients. But a small sample size potentially limits the generalisation of our conclusions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov on 29 March 2011. The trial registration number is NCT01326949.

TRIAL STATUS

The first patient was recruited into our study on 4 June 2011. A total of 29 patients were recruited through 5 March 2013 (14 and 15 patients assigned to the TIPS and conventional therapy groups, respectively).

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.

Banding ligation versus beta-blockers for primary prevention in oesophageal varices in adults

BACKGROUND

Non-selective beta-blockers are used as a first-line treatment for primary prevention in patients with medium- to high-risk oesophageal varices. The effect of non-selective beta-blockers on mortality is debated and many patients experience adverse events. Trials on banding ligation versus non-selective beta-blockers for patients with oesophageal varices and no history of bleeding have reached equivocal results.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of banding ligation versus non-selective beta-blockers as primary prevention in adult patients with endoscopically verified oesophageal varices that have never bled, irrespective of the underlying liver disease (cirrhosis or other cause).

SEARCH METHODS

In Febuary 2012, electronic searches (the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded) and manual searches (including scanning of reference lists in relevant articles and conference proceedings) were performed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials were included irrespective of publication status, blinding, and language.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors independently extracted data. All-cause mortality was the primary outcome. Intention-to-treat random-effects and fixed-effect model meta-analyses were performed. Results were presented as risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) with I(2) statistic values as a measure of intertrial heterogeneity. Subgroup, sensitivity, regression, and trial sequential analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of the overall results, risks of bias, sources of intertrial heterogeneity, and risks of random errors.

MAIN RESULTS

Nineteen randomised trials on banding ligation versus non-selective beta-blockers for primary prevention in oesophageal varices were included. Most trials specified that only patients with large or high-risk oesophageal varices were included. Bias control was unclear in most trials. In total, 176 of 731 (24%) of the patients randomised to banding ligation and 177 of 773 (23%) of patients randomised to non-selective beta-blockers died. The difference was not statistically significant in a random-effects meta-analysis (RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.30; I(2) = 0%). There was no evidence of bias or small study effects in regression analysis (Egger's test P = 0.997). Trial sequential analysis showed that the heterogeneity-adjusted low-bias trial relative risk estimate required an information size of 3211 patients, that none of the interventions showed superiority, and that the limits of futility have not been reached. When all trials were included, banding ligation reduced upper gastrointestinal bleeding and variceal bleeding compared with non-selective beta-blockers (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.91; I(2) = 19% and RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.98; I(2) = 31% respectively). The beneficial effect of banding ligation on bleeding was not confirmed in subgroup analyses of trials with adequate randomisation or full paper articles. Bleeding-related mortality was not different in the two intervention arms (29/567 (5.1%) versus 37/585 (6.3%); RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.53 to 1.39; I(2) = 0%). Both interventions were associated with adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review found a beneficial effect of banding ligation on primary prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patient with oesophageal varices. The effect on bleeding did not reduce mortality. Additional evidence is needed to determine whether our results reflect that non-selective beta-blockers have other beneficial effects than on bleeding.

Hepatic encephalopathy after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) has been used for more than 20 years to treat some of the complications of portal hypertension. When TIPS was initially proposed, it was claimed that the optimal calibration of the shunt could allow an adequate reduction of portal hypertension, avoiding, at the same time, the occurrence of hepatic encephalopathy (HE), a neurologic syndrome. However, several clinical observations have shown that HE occurred rather frequently after TIPS, and HE has become an important issue to be taken into consideration in TIPS candidates and a problem to be faced after the procedure.

The transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in the treatment of portal hypertension: current status

The transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) represents a major advance in the treatment of complications of portal hypertension. Technical improvements and increased experience over the past 24 years led to improved clinical results and a better definition of the indications for TIPS. Randomized clinical trials indicate that the TIPS procedure is not a first-line therapy for variceal bleeding, but can be used when medical treatment fails, both in the acute situation or to prevent variceal rebleeding. The role of TIPS to treat refractory ascites is probably more justified to improve the quality of life rather than to improve survival, except for patients with preserved liver function. It can be helpful for hepatic hydrothorax and can reverse hepatorenal syndrome in selected cases. It is a good treatment for Budd Chiari syndrome uncontrollable by medical treatment. Careful selection of patients is mandatory before TIPS, and clinical followup is essential to detect and treat complications that may result from TIPS stenosis (which can be prevented by using covered stents) and chronic encephalopathy (which may in severe cases justify reduction or occlusion of the shunt). A multidisciplinary approach, including the resources for liver transplantation, is always required to treat these patients.

Using transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts for complications of cirrhosis

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) decompresses the portal venous system. TIPS has been used to manage the complications of portal hypertension in cirrhosis, including variceal hemorrhage and refractory ascites. The uncoated TIPS stents are limited by stent stenosis; however, the introduction of coated stents has decreased this. With the introduction of coated stents, we must reevaluate the utility of TIPS in the management of complications of portal hypertension.

Predictors of hepatic encephalopathy after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in cirrhotic patients: a systematic review

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Hepatic encephalopathy (HE) is a very common complication in patients after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS). The purpose of this study is to determine the most robust predictors of post-TIPS HE by performing a systematic review of studies that identified the risk factors for patients with post-TIPS HE.

METHODS

A PUBMED search was performed using the predefined rule. Studies were selected for analysis based on certain inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data were extracted from each study on the basis of predefined items. Meta-analyses were executed to verify the relevant risk factors.

RESULTS

Thirty studies were included in this systematic review. In the 30 studies, the numbers of variables evaluated by univariate and multivariate analyses were 60 and 32, respectively. The numbers of variables found to be significant in univariate and multivariate analyses were 18 and 14, respectively. According to the accumulated number of studies that identified these variables as significant, the three most vigorous predictors of post-TIPS HE were age, prior HE and Child-Pugh class/score in both univariate analysis and multivariate analysis. Our meta-analysis showed that patients with HE before TIPS or higher Child-Pugh class/score had increased risk of post-TIPS HE.

CONCLUSIONS

Increased age, prior HE and higher Child-Pugh class/score were the most robust predictors for post-TIPS HE.

Management of varices in cirrhosis

INTRODUCTION

Acute variceal bleeding is a medical emergency and one of the main causes of mortality in patients with cirrhosis. Timely and effective treatment of the acute bleeding episode results in increased survival, and appropriate prophylactic treatment can prevent bleeding or rebleeding from varices.

AREAS COVERED

We discuss the prevention of development and growth of varices, the primary and secondary prophylaxis of bleeding, the treatment of acute bleeding, and the management of gastric varices. We systematically reviewed studies, without time limits, identified through Medline and searches of reference lists, and provide an overview of the evidence underlying the -treatment options in the management of varices in cirrhosis.

EXPERT OPINION

The management of variceal hemorrhage relies on nonspecific interventions (e.g., adequate fluid resuscitation, airway protection) and on specific interventions. These are routine prophylactic antibiotics, vasoactive drugs and endoscopic treatment. Procedures such as the placement of a Sengstaken-Blakemore tube or a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) can be lifesaving. The primary and secondary prophylaxis of bleeding is based on nonselective beta-blockers and endoscopy, even though TIPS or, less frequently, surgery have a role in selected cases.

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.

The role of endoscopy in secondary prophylaxis of esophageal varices

The rate of rebleeding from esophageal varices remains appreciably high after cessation of acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage. Many measures have been developed to prevent the occurrence of rebleeding. Endoscopic therapy plays a central role in the prevention of variceal bleeding. In the 1980s sclerotherapy played a pivotal role in the prevention of variceal rebleeding, but now yields to endoscopic variceal ligation. Compared with sclerotherapy, a lower incidence of complications and rebleeding is associated with banding ligation. On the other hand, beta-blockers are also noted to be able to reduce portal pressure, leading to the reduction of variceal rebleeding. The reduction of variceal rebleeding with beta-blockers plus nitrates is as effective as banding ligation. The combination of beta-blockers and endoscopic variceal ligation has proven to be more efficacious than banding ligation alone in the reduction of variceal rebleeding and is the treatment of choice for patients with failure in either medical or endoscopic therapy. Patients with repeated rebleeding despite endoscopic therapies may require transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent shunt or shunt operation as a rescue therapy.

Pathogenesis of hepatic encephalopathy and its prevention after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt

With the increasing use of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), we have obtained a breakout progress in the therapy of acute esophageal and gastric-fundus variceal bleeding and refractory ascites. whereas the patency of stent and hepatic encephalopathy (or namely portal-systemic encephalopathy, PSE) after TIPS become two great problems for TIPS. The patency of stent has been improved greatly after the use of covered stent such as Viator stents or covered vascular stents. But the problem of hepatic encephalopathy has not been well solved. In this review, we try to explore the pathogenesis of hepatic encephalopathy and its prevention after TIPS.

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 versus endoscopic therapy in the secondary prophylaxis of variceal rebleeding in cirrhotic patients: meta-analysis update

GOALS

The aim of this study was to determine through meta-analysis the effects of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) for the reduction of variceal rebleeding (VRB).

BACKGROUND

Variceal bleeding is one of the most frequent and severe complications of chronic liver disease. Although prophylactic use of TIPS for the reduction of VRB has been evaluated, the discrepancy about TIPS's beneficial effect on cirrhotic patients still exists.

STUDY

We employed the method recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration to perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of TIPS versus endoscopic therapy in the prevention of VRB including 12 RCTs conducted in 7 different countries.

RESULTS

Most RCTs reviewed were of high quality. The updated meta-analysis showed that the decreased incidence of VRB [odds ratio (OR)=0.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.24-0.43), P<0.00001], deaths due to rebleeding [OR=0.35, 95% CI (0.18-0.67), P=0.002], the increased rate of posttreatment encephalopathy [OR=2.21, 95% CI (1.61-3.03), P<0.00001] were correlated with TIPS, whereas the hospitalization days [weighted mean difference=-0.21, 95% CI (-3.50 to 3.08), P=0.90] and deaths due to all causes [OR=1.17, 95% CI (0.85-1.61), P=0.33] returned negative results in 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

TIPS is currently the first choice to prevent rebleeding except that TIPS is worse than endoscopic therapy for encephalopathy. An exploration of new approaches out of above complications will be of considerable clinical significance and be a challenge to clinicians.

Prevention of recurrent esophageal variceal hemorrhage: review and current recommendations

Variceal rebleeding is a very frequent and severe complication in cirrhotic patients; therefore, its prevention should be mandatory. Lately several studies demonstrated that the rate of rebleeding was decreased by 40% and overall survival is improved by 20% with beta-blockers. However, this treatment presents some problems, such as the number of nonresponders and contraindications for its use. Recent trials found that the combination of beta-blockers with mononitrate of isosorbide to be superior to beta-blockade alone. Furthermore, endoscopic band ligation also shown to decrease the frequency of rebleeding, complications, and death compared with sclerotherapy and should be the preferred endoscopic treatment. In addition, the comparison between combined pharmacologic treatment with endoscopic treatment present similar rebleeding and mortality rates. More recently, the addition of nadolol to endoscopic band ligation increased the efficacy of endoscopy alone in the prevention of variceal rebleeding. These studies suggest that banding plus drugs could be the treatment of choice for the prophylaxis of rebleeding. When these treatments fail, the recommendation is to use transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) or surgical shunts. Both treatments are effective in preventing rebleeding; however, they are associated with a greater risk of encephalopathy. The comparison of portacaval shunts with TIPS demonstrated that TIPS patients presented higher rebleeding, treatment failure, and transplantation. Another randomized controlled trial comparing distal splenorenal shunt with TIPS shows that variceal rebleeding was similar in both groups without differences in encephalopathy and mortality. The only difference observed was the higher rate of reintervention observed in the TIPS group to maintain his patency.

Worldwide mortality from cirrhosis: an update to 2002

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Cirrhosis mortality has registered large changes over the last few decades.

METHODS

Age-standardized (world standard) cirrhosis mortality rates per 100,000 were computed for 41 countries worldwide over the period 1980-2002 using data from the WHO mortality database.

RESULTS

In the early 1980s, the highest rates were in Mexico, Chile (around 55/100,000 men and over 14/100,000 women), France, Italy, Portugal, Austria, Hungary and Romania (around 30-35/100,000 men and 10-15/100,000 women). Mortality from cirrhosis has been steadily declining in most countries worldwide since the mid or late 1970s (annual percent change, APC, between -5% and -1.5% in the last decade only for both sexes). In southern Europe, rates in the early 2000s were less than halved compared to earlier decades. In contrast, rates have been rising in Eastern European countries to reach extremely high values in the mid 1990s, and declined only thereafter. In the UK rates were still steadily rising (APC around +7% in men and +3% in women from England and Wales, and +9% in men and +7% in women from Scotland).

CONCLUSIONS

Mortality from cirrhosis shows favourable trends in most countries of the world, following the reduction in alcohol consumption and hepatitis B and C virus infection. The steady upward trends observed over more recent calendar periods in the UK and central and eastern European countries are attributed to the persistent increase in the prevalence of alcohol consumption.

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in the prevention of rebleeding in oesophageal varices

Variceal bleeding is a common complication of cirrhosis and has a high in-patient mortality (30-50%). Rebleeding is a major cause of death and occurs in 35% of patients at 6 weeks after the initial bleeding episode and 75% at 1 year. Therefore, strategies that improve survival by preventing rebleeding in the early period are crucial to improve long-term survival. This review concentrates on the evidence for transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in the prevention of rebleeding. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in comparison with endoscopic and pharmacological therapies is clearly superior at reducing the rate of rebleeding in those patients who had an oesophageal variceal haemorrhage. It, however, does not improve mortality and is associated with a greater risk of encephalopathy and is more costly than endoscopic procedures. It is therefore generally used when endoscopic therapy has failed but may be useful in patients who would tolerate a rebleed poorly such as Child's C patients. Randomized-controlled trials are required to evaluate the role of polytetrafluoroethylene shunts in the prevention of rebleeding as their improved patency and suggested reduced incidence of encephalopathy make them a very attractive potential treatment for rebleeding.

Portosystemic shunts versus endoscopic therapy for variceal rebleeding in patients with cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Randomised clinical trials have compared portosystemic shunting procedures with endoscopic therapy for variceal haemorrhage, but there is no consensus as to which approach is preferable.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of shunts (total surgical shunt (TS); distal spleno-renal shunts (DSRS) or transjugular intrahepatic porto-systemic shunts (TIPS) with endoscopic therapy (ET, sclerotherapy and/or banding) for prevention of variceal rebleeding in patients with cirrhosis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, conference proceedings, and the references of identified trials were searched (last search February 2004). Researchers in the field and in industry were contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing TS, DSRS or TIPS with ET in patients who had recovered from a variceal haemorrhage and were known to be cirrhotic.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were collected to allow intention-to-treat analysis where possible. For each outcome, a pooled estimate of treatment effect (log hazard ratio for time to outcome, Peto odds ratio for binary outcomes, and differences in means for continuous outcomes) across trials was calculated.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-two trials evaluating 1409 patients were included. All trials had problems of method. Shunt therapy compared with ET demonstrated significantly less rebleeding (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.30) at the cost of significantly increased acute hepatic encephalopathy (OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.59 to 2.69) and chronic encephalopathy (OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.20 to 3.62). There were no significant differences regarding mortality (hazard ratio 1.00, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.21) and duration of in-patient stay (weighed mean difference 0.78 day, 95% CI -1.48 to 3.05). The proportion of patients with shunt occlusion or dysfunction was 3.1% (95% CI 0.4 to 10.7%) following TS (two trials), 7.8% (95% CI 3.8 to 13.9%) following DSRS (four trials), and 59% (range 18% to 72%) following TIPS (14 trials).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

All shunts resulted in a significantly lower rebleeding rate at the expense of a higher incidence of encephalopathy. TIPS was complicated by a high incidence of shunt dysfunction. No survival advantage was demonstrated with any shunt.

Portosystemic shunts versus endoscopic therapy for variceal rebleeding in patients with cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Randomised clinical trials have compared portosystemic shunting procedures with endoscopic therapy for variceal haemorrhage, but there is no consensus as to which approach is preferable.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of shunts (total surgical shunt (TS); distal spleno-renal shunts (DSRS) or transjugular intrahepatic porto-systemic shunts (TIPS) with endoscopic therapy (ET, sclerotherapy and/or banding) for prevention of variceal rebleeding in patients with cirrhosis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, conference proceedings, and the references of identified trials were searched (last search February 2004). Researchers in the field and in industry were contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing TS, DSRS or TIPS with ET in patients who had recovered from a variceal haemorrhage and were known to be cirrhotic.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were collected to allow intention-to-treat analysis where possible. For each outcome, a pooled estimate of treatment effect (log hazard ratio for time to outcome, Peto odds ratio for binary outcomes, and differences in means for continuous outcomes) across trials was calculated.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-two trials evaluating 1409 patients were included. All trials had problems of method. Shunt therapy compared with ET demonstrated significantly less rebleeding (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.30) at the cost of significantly increased acute hepatic encephalopathy (OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.59 to 2.69) and chronic encephalopathy (OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.20 to 3.62). There were no significant differences regarding mortality (hazard ratio 1.00, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.21) and duration of in-patient stay (weighed mean difference 0.78 day, 95% CI -1.48 to 3.05). The proportion of patients with shunt occlusion or dysfunction was 3.1% (95% CI 0.4 to 10.7%) following TS (two trials), 7.8% (95% CI 3.8 to 13.9%) following DSRS (four trials), and 59% (range 18% to 72%) following TIPS (14 trials).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

All shunts resulted in a significantly lower rebleeding rate at the expense of a higher incidence of encephalopathy. TIPS was complicated by a high incidence of shunt dysfunction. No survival advantage was demonstrated with any shunt.

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in treatment of 56 patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension

AIM: To observe the clinical effect and complications of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) in the treatment of liver cirrhosis with portal hypertension.

METHODS: Fifty-six patients of liver cirrhosis with portal hypertension were treated with TIPS. Portal pressure, flow rate of portal blood, flow rate in the shunt, internal diameter of portal and splenic veins, blood routine before and after TIPS were measured, respectively.

RESULTS: TIPS was successfully performed in all the 56 patients (100%). The portal pressure (cmH₂O) post-TIPS was 22.5 ± 3.5 (P < 0.01 vs pre-TIPS 43.5 ± 4.5). The flow rate of portal blood (cm/s) post-TIPS was 12.5 ± 4.0 (P < 0.01 vs pre-TIPS 46.0 ± 16.5). The flow rate in the shunt was 158.0 ± 60.0 cm/s. The internal diameter of portal and splenic vein (cm) post-TIPS were 1.13 ± 0.086 and 0.90 ± 0.056, respectively (P < 0.01 vs pre-TIPS 1.52 ± 0.082 and 1.26 ± 0.034, respectively). Hypersplenism was found in 30 patients, and the numbers of leukocytes (×10⁹/L), platelets (×10⁹/L) and the levels of hemoglobin (×g/L) post-TIPS were 3.92 ± 0.76, 80.74 ± 16.82 and 118.20 ± 10.24 (P < 0.01 vs pre-TIPS 2.65 ± 0.58, 42.56 ± 12.34 and 86.52 ± 12.68). The clinical symptoms of 56 patients with avrix and ascites were alleviated obviously. Common complications were hepatic encephalopathy, shunt stenosis and occlusion.

CONCLUSION: TIPS is a useful treatment in controlling varceal bleeding, decreasing portal pressure and partially alleviating hypersplenism.

Radiofrequency ablation for hypersplenism in patients with liver cirrhosis: a pilot study

Radiofrequency ablation is a relatively new technique used for local ablation of unresectable tumors. We investigated the feasibility and efficacy of radiofrequency ablation for hypersplenism and its effect on liver function in patients with liver cirrhosis and portal hypertension. Nine consecutive patients with hypersplenism due to cirrhotic portal hypertension underwent radiofrequency ablation in enlarged spleens. The ablation was performed either intraoperatively or percutaneously. Patients are followed up for over 12 months. After treatment, between 20% and 43% of spleen volume was ablated, and spleen volume increased by 4%-10.2%. White blood cell count, platelet count, liver function, and hepatic artery blood flow showed significant improvement after 1-year follow-up. Splenic vein and portal vein blood flow were significantly reduced. Only minor complications including hydrothorax (three of nine patients) and mild abdominal pain (four of nine patients) were observed. No mortality or other morbidity occurred. Radiofrequency ablation is a safe, effective, and minimally invasive approach for the management of splenomegaly and hypersplenism in patients with liver cirrhosis and portal hypertension. Increased hepatic artery blood flow may be responsible for sustained improvement of liver condition. Radiofrequency ablation may be used as a bridging therapy for cirrhotic patients waiting for liver transplantation.