Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in combination with or without variceal embolization for the prevention of variceal rebleeding: a meta-analysis

Efficacy of TIPS plus extrahepatic collateral embolisation in real-world data: a validation study

OBJECTIVES

The efficacy of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) plus extrahepatic collateral embolisation (TIPS+E) in reducing rebleeding and hepatic encephalopathy (HE) post-TIPS was recently reported in a meta-analysis, but further validation is essential. This study aims to confirm the effectiveness of TIPS+E using real-world data.

METHODS

The multicentre retrospective cohort included 2077 patients with cirrhosis who underwent TIPS±E (TIPS: 631, TIPS+E: 1446) between January 2010 and December 2022. Regression and propensity score matching (PSM) were used to adjust for baseline characteristic differences. After PSM, clinical outcomes, including rebleeding, HE, survival and further decompensation (FDC), were analysed. Baseline data from all patients contributed to the construction of prognostic models.

RESULTS

After PSM, 1136 matched patients (TIPS+E: TIPS=568:568) were included. TIPS+E demonstrated a significant reduction in rebleeding (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.59 to 0.99; p=0.04), HE (HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.99; p=0.04) and FDC (HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.73 to 0.99; p=0.04), comparing to TIPS. Significantly, TIPS+E also reduced rebleeding, HE and FDC in subgroup of using 8 mm diameter stents and embolising of gastric varices+spontaneous portosystemic shunts (GV+SPSS). However, there were no differences in overall or subgroup survival analysis. Additionally, the random forest models showed higher accuracy and AUROC comparing to other models. Controlling post-TIPS portal pressure gradient (pPPG) within 7 mm Hg

CONCLUSION

Our real-world data validation confirms the high efficacy of TIPS+E in reducing rebleeding and HE, particularly when using 8 mm diameter stents, embolising GV+SPSS and maintaining an optimal pPPG.

Collapse

Key Words

• GASTROINTESTINAL BLEEDING
• HEPATIC ENCEPHALOPATHY
• INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY
• LIVER CIRRHOSIS
• PORTAL HYPERTENSION

Collapse

MESH Headings

• Humans
• Portasystemic Shunt, Transjugular Intrahepatic
• Retrospective Studies
• Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage/surgery
• Esophageal and Gastric Varices/surgery
• Liver Cirrhosis/complications
• Liver Cirrhosis/surgery
• Hepatic Encephalopathy

Collapse

Grants

• National Natural Science Foundation of China
• Department of Health of Shandong Province

Collapse

Affiliation(s)

Lianhui Zhao Gastroenterology, Shandong Provincial Hospital, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong Province, People's Republic of China Gastroenterology, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, Shandong Province, People's Republic of China
Jun Tie Department of Liver Diseases and Digestive Interventional Radiology, National Clinical Research Centre for Digestive Diseases and Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Fourth Military Medical University, Xian, Shaanxi, People's Republic of China
Guangchuan Wang Gastroenterology, Shandong Provincial Hospital, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong Province, People's Republic of China Gastroenterology, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, Shandong Province, People's Republic of China Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong Province, People's Republic of China
Zhengjie Li School of Automation, Qingdao University, Qingdao, Shandong Province, People's Republic of China
Jiao Xu Department of Liver Diseases and Digestive Interventional Radiology, National Clinical Research Centre for Digestive Diseases and Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Fourth Military Medical University, Xian, Shaanxi, People's Republic of China
Yuzheng Zhuge Gastroenterology, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, Affiliated Hospital of Medical School, Nanjing University, Nanjing, Jiangsun Province, People's Republic of China
Feng Zhang Gastroenterology, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, Affiliated Hospital of Medical School, Nanjing University, Nanjing, Jiangsun Province, People's Republic of China
Hao Wu Gastroenterology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, People's Republic of China
Bo Wei Gastroenterology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, People's Republic of China
Hui Xue Gastroenterology, First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi Province, China
Peijie Li Gastroenterology, First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi Province, China
Wei Wu Gastroenterology, First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, Zhejiang Province, People's Republic of China
Chao Chen Gastroenterology, First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, Zhejiang Province, People's Republic of China
Qiong Wu Gastroenterology, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, Shandong Province, People's Republic of China
Yifu Xia Gastroenterology, Shandong Provincial Hospital, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong Province, People's Republic of China
Xiubin Sun Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong Province, People's Republic of China
Chunqing Zhang Gastroenterology, Shandong Provincial Hospital, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong Province, People's Republic of China Gastroenterology, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, Shandong Province, People's Republic of China

Collapse

Role of Interventional Radiology (IR) in vascular emergencies among cirrhotic patients

Gastrointestinal hemorrhage remains one of the most common causes of morbidity and mortality among patients with liver cirrhosis. Mostly, these patients bleed from the gastroesophageal varices. However, nonvariceal bleeding is also more likely to occur in these patients. Because of frequent co-existing coagulopathy, cirrhotics are more prone to bleed from a minor vascular injury while performing percutaneous interventions. Ultrasound-guided bedside vascular access is an essential procedure in liver critical care units. Transjugular portosystemic shunts (TIPS) with/without variceal embolization is a life-saving measure in patients with refractory variceal bleeding. Whenever feasible, balloon-assisted retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) is an alternative to TIPS in managing gastric variceal bleeding, but without a risk of hepatic encephalopathy. In cases of failed or unfeasible endotherapy, transarterial embolization using various embolic agents remains the cornerstone therapy in patients with nonvariceal bleeding such as ruptured hepatocellular carcinoma, gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding, and procedure-related hemorrhagic complications. Among various embolic agents, N-butyl cyanoacrylate (NBCA) enables better vascular occlusion in cirrhotics, even in coagulopathy, making it a more suitable embolic agent in an expert hand. This article briefly entails the different interventional radiological procedures in vascular emergencies among patients with liver cirrhosis.

Prevention and treatment of hepatic encephalopathy during the perioperative period of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is an established procedure for treating the complications of portal hypertension in liver cirrhosis. While the pathogenesis of postoperative TIPS-related hepatic encephalopathy (HE) has yet to be fully understood, intraoperative portosystemic shunts may provide a pathological basis for the occurrence of postoperative HE in patients with liver cirrhosis. Studies at home and abroad have expressed mixed opinions about TIPS-related HE. This study presents a literature review on the risk factors for and prevention and treatment of perioperative TIPS-related HE in patients with liver cirrhosis, aiming to optimize the procedure and reduce the incidence of postoperative HE.

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt with or without variceal embolization to prevent variceal rebleeding: an updated meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is an established treatment for portal hypertension complications. Still, the role of adjuvant variceal embolization is a matter of debate. Thus, we aim to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TIPS with variceal embolization versus TIPS alone to prevent variceal rebleeding.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We used PubMed, CENTRAL, and OVID to search for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative observational studies up to 17 June 20221117 June 2022. We pooled binary outcomes using risk ratios (RRs) presented with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using RevMan 5.4.

RESULTS

We included 11 studies (two RCTs and nine observational studies) with 1024 patients. Pooled RR favored TIPS with embolization in preventing variceal rebleeding (RR 0.58, 95% CI: 0.44, 0.76); however, there was no difference between the two groups regarding shunt dysfunction (RR 0.92, 95% CI: 0.68, 1.23), encephalopathy (RR 0.88, 95% CI: 0.70, 1.11), and death (RR 0.97, 95% CI: 0.77, 1.22).

CONCLUSIONS

TIPS with embolization can be an effective strategy for preventing variceal rebleeding; however, our results should be interpreted cautiously as most data were observational and the technical quality of the embolization is questionable. Further RCTs are required using the proper techniques of embolization and comparing TIPS with embolization with other treatment modalities such as endoscopic ligation, and balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration.

Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt With or Without Gastroesophageal Variceal Embolization for the Prevention of Variceal Rebleeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

The role of variceal embolization (VE) during transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) creation for preventing gastroesophageal variceal rebleeding remains controversial. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to compare the incidence of variceal rebleeding, shunt dysfunction, encephalopathy, and death between patients treated with TIPS alone and those treated with TIPS in combination with VE.

Methods

We performed a literature search using PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane databases for all studies comparing the incidence of complications between TIPS alone and TIPS with VE. The primary outcome was variceal rebleeding. Secondary outcomes include shunt dysfunction, encephalopathy, and death. Subgroup analysis was performed based on the type of stent (covered vs. bare metal). The random-effects model was used to calculate the relative risk (RR) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of outcome. A P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Eleven studies with a total of 1,075 patients were included (597: TIPS alone and 478: TIPS plus VE). Compared to the TIPS alone, the TIPS with VE had a significantly lower incidence of variceal rebleeding (RR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.43 - 0.81, P = 0.001). Subgroup analysis revealed similar results in covered stents (RR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.36 - 0.86, P = 0.008) but there was no significant difference between the two groups in the subgroup analysis of bare stents and combined stents. There was no significant difference in the risk of encephalopathy (RR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.66 - 1.06, P = 0.13), shunt dysfunction (RR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.64 - 1.19, P = 0.40), and death (RR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.65 - 1.17, P = 0.34). There were similarly no differences in these secondary outcomes between groups when stratified according to type of stent.

Conclusions

Adding VE to TIPS reduced the incidence of variceal rebleeding in patients with cirrhosis. However, the benefit was observed with covered stents only. Further large-scale randomized controlled trials are warranted to validate our findings.

Comparative outcome of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt with or without variceal obliteration: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) has been used for the secondary prevention of variceal bleeding. TIPS can be combined with variceal embolization (TIPS-VO), but its benefit remains controversial. The present systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to compare the incidence of rebleeding, adverse events, and mortality among patients with TIPS alone and with TIPS-VO.

METHODS

A literature search from January 2000 to June 2022 was done for studies comparing the outcome of patients undergoing TIPS alone or TIPS-VO. A subgroup analysis was conducted for patients undergoing TIPS with covered stents.

RESULTS

A total of 11 studies with data from 1044 patients were included. The incidence of rebleeding was significantly higher in the TIPS alone group in both overall population OR 2.01 (1.42-2.83) and the subgroup (OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.21-3.04). There was no difference between the two groups concerning the risk of hepatic encephalopathy (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.83-1.59), procedural adverse events (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.54-1.39), shunt dysfunction (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.82-1.75), overall mortality (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.73-1.46), and mortality due to variceal rebleeding (OR 1.58, 95% CI 0.44-5.64). There was no significant heterogeneity or publication bias among the included studies. The certainty of evidence remains low for all the outcome expect for variceal rebleeding.

CONCLUSION

The present meta-analysis provides a moderate-quality evidence for the benefit of TIPS-VO in reducing the incidence of rebleeding. However, the decision for combining variceal embolization with TIPS should be made on a case-to-case basis.

Percutaneous radiological interventions of the portal vein: a comprehensive review

The portal vein is the largest vessel supplying the liver. A number of radiological interventions are performed through the portal vein, namely for primary pathologies of the portal vein, for inducing liver hypertrophy or to treat the sequelae of portal hypertension among others. The routes used include direct transhepatic, transjugular, and, uncommonly, trans-splenic and through subcutaneous varices. Portal vein embolization and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt are among the most common portal vein interventions that are performed to induce hypertrophy of the future liver remnant and to treat complications of portal hypertension, respectively. Other interventions include transhepatic obliteration of varices and shunts, portal vein thrombolysis, portal vein recanalization, pancreatic islet cell transplantation, and embolization of portal vein injuries. We present a detailed illustrative review of the various radiological portal vein interventions.

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for portal hypertension: 30 years experience from China

Liver diseases are a major cause of illness and death worldwide. In China, liver diseases, primarily viral hepatitis, affect approximately 300 million people, thus having a major impact on the global burden of liver diseases. Portal hypertension is the most severe complication of chronic liver diseases, including ascites, hepatic encephalopathy and bleeding from gastroesophageal varices. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) represents a very effective treatment of these complications. Since its introduction 30 years ago in China, the use of TIPS has evolved and has played an increasingly important role in the management of the complications of portal hypertension. This review will focus on the history, current application and management of complications of TIPS in China.

[Not Available]

BACKGROUND

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt is a treatment for complications of portal hypertension, such as bleeding gastroesophageal varices and refractory ascites. In this article we reveal our experiences with this treatment modality.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

All patients who had a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt inserted in the period 2011 - 2021 at Oslo University Hospital Ullevål were studied retrospectively. The cumulative incidence of death was calculated with liver transplantation as a competing event.

RESULTS

The procedure was technically successful in 62 of 64 patients. The average reduction of the pressure gradient between the inferior vena cava and the portal vein was 12.7 (standard deviation 5.0) mm Hg. One of 31 patients who underwent the procedure because of gastrointestinal bleeding experienced a new episode of bleeding, and 4 of 29 patients who underwent the procedure because of ascites needed a further one to two paracenteses. Two of 62 patients had complications directly related to the procedure in the form of liver abscess and portal vein thrombosis. Five of 62 patients developed symptoms of heart failure or fluid overload. After one, three and twelve months, 49 of 62 (79 %), 45 of 62 (73 %) and 38 of 62 (61 %) patients respectively were still alive. The procedure functioned as a 'bridge to liver transplantation' for eight patients with refractory ascites.

INTERPRETATION

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt is a useful treatment method for complications of portal hypertension.

North American Practice-Based Recommendations for Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunts in Portal Hypertension

Complications of portal hypertension, including ascites, gastrointestinal bleeding, hepatic hydrothorax, and hepatic encephalopathy, are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Despite few high-quality randomized controlled trials to guide therapeutic decisions, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) creation has emerged as a crucial therapeutic option to treat complications of portal hypertension. In North America, the decision to perform TIPS involves gastroenterologists, hepatologists, and interventional radiologists, but TIPS creation is performed by interventional radiologists. This is in contrast to other parts of the world where TIPS creation is performed primarily by hepatologists. Thus, the successful use of TIPS in North America is dependent on a multidisciplinary approach and technical expertise, so as to optimize outcomes. Recently, new procedural techniques, TIPS stent technology, and indications for TIPS have emerged. As a result, practices and outcomes vary greatly across institutions and significant knowledge gaps exist. In this consensus statement, the Advancing Liver Therapeutic Approaches group critically reviews the application of TIPS in the management of portal hypertension. Advancing Liver Therapeutic Approaches convened a multidisciplinary group of North American experts from hepatology, interventional radiology, transplant surgery, nephrology, cardiology, pulmonology, and hematology to critically review existing literature and develop practice-based recommendations for the use of TIPS in patients with any cause of portal hypertension in terms of candidate selection, procedural best practices and, post-TIPS management; and to develop areas of consensus for TIPS indications and the prevention of complications. Finally, future research directions are identified related to TIPS for the management of portal hypertension.

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt with or without gastro-oesophageal variceal embolisation for the prevention of variceal rebleeding: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The role of variceal embolisation at the time of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) creation for the prevention of gastro-oesophageal variceal rebleeding remains controversial. This study aimed to evaluate whether adding variceal embolisation to TIPS placement could reduce the incidence of rebleeding after TIPS in patients with cirrhosis.

METHODS

We did an open-label, randomised controlled trial at one university hospital in China. Eligible patients were aged 18-75 years with cirrhosis and had variceal bleeding in the past 6 weeks, and they were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive TIPS (with a covered stent in both groups) plus variceal embolisation (TIPS plus embolisation group) or TIPS alone (TIPS group) to prevent variceal rebleeding. Randomisation was done using a web-based randomisation system using a Pocock and Simon's minimisation method, stratified by Child-Pugh class (A vs B vs C). Clinicians and patients were not masked to treatment allocation; individuals involved in data analysis were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was the 2-year cumulative incidence of variceal rebleeding after randomisation, and analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02119988.

FINDINGS

Between June 16, 2014, and Feb 3, 2016, 205 patients were screened, of whom 134 were randomly allocated to the TIPS plus embolisation group (n=69) and the TIPS group (n=65). TIPS placement and variceal embolisation was successful in all 134 patients, all were included in the analysis. There was no significant difference in the 2-year cumulative incidence of variceal rebleeding between the two groups (TIPS plus embolisation 11·6% [95% CI 4·0-19·1] vs TIPS 13·8% [5·4-22·2]; hazard ratio 0·82 [95% CI 0·42-1·61]; p=0·566). Adverse events were similar between the two groups; the most common adverse events were peptic ulcer or gastritis (12 [17%] of patients in the TIPS plus embolisation group vs 13 [20%] of patients in the TIPS group), new or worsening ascites (ten [14%] vs six [9%]), and hepatocellular carcinoma (four [6%] vs six [9%]). The numbers of deaths were also similar between groups (24 [35%] vs 25 [38%]) INTERPRETATION: Adding variceal embolisation to TIPS did not significantly reduce the incidence of variceal rebleeding in patients with cirrhosis. Our findings do not support concomitant variceal embolisation during TIPS for the prevention of variceal rebleeding.

FUNDING

National Key Technology R&D Program, Boost Program of Xijing Hospital, and China Postdoctoral Science Foundation.

Computed Tomography Images of Spontaneous Portosystemic Shunt in Liver Cirrhosis

Spontaneous portosystemic shunt (SPSS) refers to collateral vessels that communicate between the portal vein system and systemic circulation. SPSS mainly includes esophageal varices, gastric varices, left gastric vein, recanalized paraumbilical vein, abdominal wall varices, and spontaneous splenorenal shunt. SPSS contributes to the development of hepatic encephalopathy caused by portal vein inflow bypassing and carries a higher risk of death in liver cirrhosis. Abdominal contrast-enhanced computed tomography is a major imaging approach to establish a diagnosis of SPSS and evaluate its location and feature. This review primarily describes the main contrast-enhanced CT features of SPSS in liver cirrhosis.

Imaging-guided interventions modulating portal venous flow: evidence and controversies

Portal hypertension is defined by an increase in the portosystemic venous gradient. In most cases, increased resistance to portal blood flow is the initial cause of elevated portal pressure. More than 90% of cases of portal hypertension are estimated to be due to advanced chronic liver disease or cirrhosis. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts, a non-pharmacological treatment for portal hypertension, involve the placement of a stent between the portal vein and the hepatic vein or inferior vena cava which helps bypass hepatic resistance. Portal hypertension may also be a result of extrahepatic portal vein thrombosis or compression. In these cases, percutaneous portal vein recanalisation restores portal trunk patency, thus preventing portal hypertension-related complications. Any portal blood flow impairment leads to progressive parenchymal atrophy and triggers hepatic regeneration in preserved areas. This provides the rationale for using portal vein embolisation to modulate hepatic volume in preparation for extended hepatic resection. The aim of this paper is to provide a comprehensive evidence-based review of the rationale for, and outcomes associated with, the main imaging-guided interventions targeting the portal vein, as well as to discuss the main controversies around such approaches.

Indian College of Radiology and Imaging Evidence-Based Guidelines for Interventions in Portal Hypertension and Its Complications

Portal hypertension is a complication of chronic liver disease. Various radiological interventions are being done to aid in the diagnosis of portal hypertension; further, an interventional radiologist can offer various treatments for the complications of portal hypertension. Diagnosis of portal hypertension in its early stage may require hepatic venous pressure gradient measurement. Measurement of gradient also guides in diagnosing the type of portal hypertension, measuring response to treatment and prognostication. This article attempts to provide evidence-based guidelines on the management of portal hypertension and treatment of its complications.

Glue Embolization of Gastroesophageal Varices during Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt (TIPS) Improves Survival Compared to Coil-only Embolization-A Single-Center Retrospective Study

PURPOSE

To compare the safety and effectiveness of coil versus glue embolization of gastroesophageal varices during transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) creation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this monocentric retrospective study 104 (males: 67 (64%)) patients receiving TIPS with concomitant embolization of GEV and a minimum follow-up of one year (2008-2017) were included. Primary outcome parameter was overall survival (6 week; 1 year). Six-week overall survival was assessed as a surrogate for treatment failure as proposed by the international Baveno working group. Secondary outcome parameters were development of acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF), variceal rebleeding and hepatic encephalopathy (HE). Survival analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier with log-rank test and adjusted Cox regression analysis.

RESULTS

Indications for TIPS were refractory ascites (n = 33) or variceal bleeding (n = 71). Embolization was performed using glue with or without coils (n = 40) (Group G) or coil-only (n = 64) (Group NG). Overall survival was significantly better in group G (p = 0.022; HR = -3.333). Six-week survival was significantly lower in group NG (p = 0.014; HR = 6.945). Rates of development of ACLF were significantly higher in group NG after 6 months (NG = 14; G = 6; p = 0.039; HR = 3.243). Rebleeding rates (NG = 6; G = 3; p = 0.74) and development of HE (NG = 22; G = 15; p = 0.75) did not differ significantly between groups.

CONCLUSION

Usage of glue in embolization of GEV may improve overall survival, reduce treatment failure and may be preferable over coil embolization alone.

Safety, Efficacy, and Outcomes of N-Butyl Cyanoacrylate Glue Injection through the Endoscopic or Radiologic Route for Variceal Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies to assess the efficacy, safety, and outcomes of N-butyl cyanoacrylate (NBCA) injection for the treatment of variceal gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). The MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, and SCOPUS databases were searched for English-language studies published from January 1980 to December 2019 and including patients who had injection of NBCA for variceal GIB. Two independent reviewers extracted and evaluated the data from eligible studies. Exclusion criteria were sample size < 5, article reporting the use of NBCA with other embolic agents, no extractable data, and duplicate reports. NBCA was injected during endoscopy in 42 studies and through a direct percutaneous approach for stomal varices in 1 study. The study’s endpoints were: Technical success, 30-day rebleeding, and 30-day overall and major complications. The estimated overall rates were computed with 95% confidence intervals, based on each study rate, weighted by the number of patients involved in each study. In total, 43 studies with 3484 patients were included. The technical success rate was 94.1% (95% CI: 91.6–96.1%), the 30-day rebleeding rate was 24.2% (18.9–29.9%), and 30-day overall and major complications occurred in 15.9% (11.2–21.3%) and 5.3% (3.3–7.8%) of patients, respectively. For treating variceal GIB, NBCA injection is a safe and effective method that demonstrates high technical success rate and very low major complication rate.

Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt Creation for Treatment of Gastric Varices: Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes

PURPOSE

To quantify the pooled clinical outcomes of stent-graft transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) creation for the management of gastric varices (GVs) through systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A PubMed and Embase search was performed from 2003 to 2020. Search terms included: (transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt OR TIPS) AND (gastric varices OR fundal varices OR gastroesophageal varices OR gastroesophageal varices) AND (hemorrhage OR rebleeding OR rebleeding OR survival). Inclusion criteria spanned: English language studies, publication in peer reviewed journals, sample size ≥ 10, reported clinical outcome data, exclusive treatment of GVs (no esophageal varices), exclusive use of stent-grafts for TIPS, no chemical obliteration of GVs. Outcomes included GV rebleeding rate, overall rebleeding rate, GV occlusion rate, hepatic encephalopathy (HE) incidence, and adverse event (AE) rate.

RESULTS

Literature search yielded 936 articles. Of these, 5 (0.5%) retrospective observational cohort studies met inclusion criteria, spanning 209 patients (quinquagenarian men with viral or alcoholic liver disease) with GVs treated using TIPS with adjunctive coil embolization (47%). Clinical follow-up time ranged from 4.3 to 30.6 months. Outcomes included a pooled GV rebleeding rate of 15% (95% CI: 11%, 20%), total rebleeding rate of 21% (95% CI: 15%, 27%), GV occlusion rate of 33% (95% CI: 22%, 45%), HE incidence of 30% (95% CI: 24%, 36%), and AE incidence of 3% (95% CI: 1%, 8%).

CONCLUSION

The incidence of GV rebleeding after stent-graft TIPS is high. The results suggest the need for additional measures to reduce recurrent hemorrhage incidence from GVs.

Beyond the scope and the glue: update on evaluation and management of gastric varices

Gastric varices are encountered less frequently than esophageal varices. Nonetheless, gastric variceal bleeding is more severe and associated with worse outcomes. Conventionally, gastric varices have been described based on the location and extent and endoscopic treatments offered based on these descriptions. With improved understanding of portal hypertension and the dynamic physiology of collateral circulation, gastric variceal classification has been refined to include inflow and outflow based hemodynamic pathways. These have led to an improvement in the management of gastric variceal disease through newer modalities of treatment such as endoscopic ultrasound-guided glue-coiling combination therapy and the emergence of highly effective endovascular treatments such as shunt and variceal complex embolization with or without transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) placement in patients who are deemed ‘difficult’ to manage the traditional way. Furthermore, the decisions regarding TIPS and additional endovascular procedures in patients with gastric variceal bleeding have changed after the emergence of ‘portal hypertension theories’ of proximity, throughput, and recruitment. The hemodynamic classification, grounded on novel theories and its cognizance, can help in identifying patients at baseline, in whom conventional treatment could fail. In this exhaustive review, we discuss the conventional and hemodynamic diagnosis of gastric varices concerning new classifications; explore and illustrate new ‘portal hypertension theories’ of gastric variceal disease and corresponding management and shed light on current evidence-based treatments through a ‘new’ algorithmic approach, established on hemodynamic physiology of gastric varices.

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in cirrhosis: An exhaustive critical update

More than five decades after it was originally conceptualized as rescue therapy for patients with intractable variceal bleeding, the transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) procedure continues to remain a focus of intense clinical and biomedical research. By the impressive reduction in portal pressure achieved by this intervention, coupled with its minimally invasive nature, TIPS has gained increasing acceptance in the treatment of complications of portal hypertension. The early years of TIPS were plagued by poor long-term patency of the stents and increased incidence of hepatic encephalopathy. Moreover, the diversion of portal flow after placement of TIPS often resulted in derangement of hepatic functions, which was occasionally severe. While the incidence of shunt dysfunction has markedly reduced with the advent of covered stents, hepatic encephalopathy and instances of early liver failure continue to remain a significant issue after TIPS. It has emerged over the years that careful selection of patients and diligent post-procedural care is of paramount importance to optimize the outcome after TIPS. The past twenty years have seen multiple studies redefining the role of TIPS in the management of variceal bleeding and refractory ascites while exploring its application in other complications of cirrhosis like hepatic hydrothorax, portal hypertensive gastropathy, ectopic varices, hepatorenal and hepatopulmonary syndromes, non-tumoral portal vein thrombosis and chylous ascites. It has also been utilized to good effect before extrahepatic abdominal surgery to reduce perioperative morbidity and mortality. The current article aims to review the updated literature on the status of TIPS in the management of patients with liver cirrhosis.

Evaluation and Management of Esophageal and Gastric Varices in Patients with Cirrhosis

Variceal bleeding is a complication of cirrhosis that defines decompensation. Important advances in the management of gastroesophageal varices have led to a significant decrease in the morbidity and mortality. Achieving these results in clinical practice is contingent on clinicians applying the best practice strategies and appropriate referral to a tertiary center. Several quality metrics were developed by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. This article aims to update outpatient and inpatient strategies to include the latest recommendations on variceal screening and surveillance, primary and secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding, and therapy for patients with acute variceal bleeding.

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent-shunt in the management of portal hypertension

These guidelines on transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent-shunt (TIPSS) in the management of portal hypertension have been commissioned by the Clinical Services and Standards Committee (CSSC) of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) under the auspices of the Liver Section of the BSG. The guidelines are new and have been produced in collaboration with the British Society of Interventional Radiology (BSIR) and British Association of the Study of the Liver (BASL). The guidelines development group comprises elected members of the BSG Liver Section, representation from BASL, a nursing representative and two patient representatives. The quality of evidence and grading of recommendations was appraised using the GRADE system. These guidelines are aimed at healthcare professionals considering referring a patient for a TIPSS. They comprise the following subheadings: indications; patient selection; procedural details; complications; and research agenda. They are not designed to address: the management of the underlying liver disease; the role of TIPSS in children; or complex technical and procedural aspects of TIPSS.

Randomised clinical trial: standard of care versus early-transjugular intrahepatic porto-systemic shunt (TIPSS) in patients with cirrhosis and oesophageal variceal bleeding

BACKGROUND

Early-transjugular intrahepatic porto-systemic shunt (TIPSS) has been recommended in international guidelines for high-risk patients with oesophageal variceal bleeding.

AIM

To validate the results of a previous randomised control trial which supports use of early-TIPSS.

METHODS

In a two-centre open-label parallel-group randomised control trial, patients with cirrhosis and acute variceal bleeding were recruited following haemostasis with vaso-active drugs and endoscopic band ligation. Participants were randomised to standard of care or early-TIPSS. The primary outcome was 1-year survival, secondary outcomes included early and late rebleeding, and complications of portal hypertension.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight patients (58 ± 11.12 years; 32.7% female) were randomised. After one year, seven patients died in the standard of care group and six in the early-TIPSS group, a 1-year survival of 75.9% vs 79.3% respectively (P = 0.79). Variceal rebleeding occurred in eight patients in the standard of care group compared with three patients in the early-TIPSS group (P = 0.09). Not all participants randomised to early-TIPSS received the intervention in time. For those receiving TIPSS per-protocol, variceal rebleeding rates were reduced (0% vs 27.6%, P = 0.04) but this had no effect on survival (76.9% vs 75.9%, P = 0.91). Serious adverse events were similar in both treatment groups, except that rates of hepatic encephalopathy were higher in patients receiving TIPSS (46.1% vs 20.7%, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Early-TIPSS reduced variceal rebleeding, increased encephalopathy but had no effect on survival in high-risk patients with oesophageal variceal bleeding. Early-TIPSS may not be feasible in many centres however, larger studies are needed. ClinicalTrials.gov reference: NCT02377141.

Emergent Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt Creation in Acute Variceal Bleeding

Emergent transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) creation is most commonly employed in the setting of acute variceal hemorrhage. Given a propensity for decompensation, these patients often require a multidisciplinary, multimodal approach involving prompt diagnosis, pharmacologic therapy, and endoscopic intervention. While successful in the majority of cases, failure to medically control initial bleeding can prompt interventional radiology consultation for emergent portal decompression via TIPS creation. This article discusses TIPS creation in emergent, acute variceal hemorrhage, reviewing the natural history of gastroesophageal varices, presentation and diagnosis of acute variceal hemorrhage, pharmacologic therapy, endoscopic approaches, patient selection and risk stratification for TIPS, technical considerations for TIPS creation, adjunctive embolotherapy, and the role of salvage TIPS versus early TIPS in acute variceal hemorrhage.

Comparison of the Effects of TIPS versus BRTO on Bleeding Gastric Varices: A Meta-Analysis

Background and Aim. Upper gastrointestinal bleeding is a threat to patients with gastric varices (GVs). Previous studies have concluded that both transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) and balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) are effective treatments for patients with GV. We aimed to compare the efficiency and outcomes of these two procedures in GV patients through meta-analysis.

METHODS

The PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases were searched using the keywords: GV, bleeding, TIPS, and BRTO to identify relevant randomized controlled trials and cohort studies. The overall survival (OS) rate, imminent haemostasis rate, rebleeding rate, technical success rate, procedure complication rate (hepatic encephalopathy and aggravated ascites), and Child-Pugh score were evaluated. Randomized clinical trials and cohort studies comparing TIPS and BRTO for GV due to portal hypertension were included in our meta-analysis. Two independent reviewers performed data extraction and assessed the study quality. A meta-analysis was performed to calculate risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MDs), and 95% CIs using random effects models.

RESULTS

A total of nine studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. There was a significant difference between TIPS and BRTO in the OS rate (RR, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.66 to 0.98); P=0.03) and rebleeding rate (RR, 2.61 (95% CI, 1.75 to 3.90); P=0.03) and rebleeding rate (RR, 2.61 (95% CI, 1.75 to 3.90); P=0.03) and rebleeding rate (RR, 2.61 (95% CI, 1.75 to 3.90); P=0.03) and rebleeding rate (RR, 2.61 (95% CI, 1.75 to 3.90); P=0.03) and rebleeding rate (RR, 2.61 (95% CI, 1.75 to 3.90); P=0.03) and rebleeding rate (RR, 2.61 (95% CI, 1.75 to 3.90); P=0.03) and rebleeding rate (RR, 2.61 (95% CI, 1.75 to 3.90).

CONCLUSIONS

In this meta-analysis, BRTO brought more benefits to patients, with a higher OS rate and lower rebleeding rate. BRTO is a feasible method for GVB.

Role of Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt in the Management of Portal Hypertension: Review and Update of the Literature

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is a well-established procedure used in the management of complications of portal hypertension. Although the most robust evidence supports the use of TIPS as salvage therapy in variceal hemorrhage, secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding, and treatment of refractory ascites, there is also data to suggest its efficacy in other indications such as hepatic hydrothorax, hepatorenal syndrome, and Budd-Chiari syndrome. Recent literature also suggests that TIPS may improve survival for certain subpopulations if placed early after variceal bleeding. This article provides an updated evidence-based review of the indications for TIPS. Outcomes, complications, and adequate patient selection are also discussed.

Adjuvant Transjugular Variceal Occlusion at Creation of a Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt (TIPS): Efficacy and Risks of Bucrylate Embolization

Adjuvant embolization of varices may reduce rebleeding in patients with a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS). The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and the risks of adjuvant variceal embolization at TIPS implantation using bucrylate.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The retrospective study evaluated 104 of 237 cirrhotic patients with TIPS for variceal bleeding who received adjuvant bucrylate embolization. For TIPS creation, bare stents were used in 35 patients (33.7%) and covered stents in 69 patients (66.3%) patients. Isolated gastric varices were seen in 10 patients (9.6%).

RESULTS

Six patients (5.8%) rebled during a median follow-up time of 26 months (1-57 months). Rebleeding occurred in 14% (5/35) of patients with a bare stent but only in 1.4% (1/69) of patients with a covered stent. The 1- and 2-year rebleeding rates of all patients were 0.9 and 2.9% and of patients receiving a bare stent were 2.9 and 8.6%, respectively. Bucrylate migration was seen in 13 patients (12.5%). In 9 of these patients (8.7%), asymptomatic lung embolization occurred. This was rare in patients with esophageal varices (3.1%) but frequent (60%) in patients with isolated gastric varices and a spontaneous splenorenal shunt.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that adjuvant embolization using bucrylate is effective and delays variceal rebleeding. The general use of covered stents, however, alleviates the utility of adjuvant bucrylate embolization which may be restricted to patients with a high risk of rebleeding indicated by large varices, active, acute or recent variceal bleeding and advanced cirrhosis. Bucrylate should not be used in isolated gastric varices because it bears a high risk of migration into the lungs.

Endovascular Treatment for Variceal Hemorrhage: TIPS, BRTO, and Combined Approaches

Variceal hemorrhage is a feared complication of portal hypertension, with high rates of morbidity and mortality. Optimal management requires a thoughtful, multidisciplinary approach. In cases of refractory or recurrent esophageal hemorrhage, endovascular approaches such as transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) have a well-defined role. For hemorrhage related to gastric varices, the optimal treatment remains to be established; however, there is increasing adoption of balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO). This article will review the concept, history, patient selection, basic technique, and outcomes for TIPS, BRTO, and combined TIPS + BRTO procedures for variceal hemorrhage.

Comparison of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) alone and combined with embolisation for the management of cardiofundal varices: a retrospective study

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) with and without adjunctive embolisation in managing cardiofundal varices bleeding.

METHODS

The retrospective study comprised 82 patients (54 men; mean age 53.9 years; mean Model of End-stage Liver Disease score 9.3) with cardiofundal varices bleeding who underwent TIPS creation from 2011 to 2015. Variceal rebleeding, the outflow tracts of varices, overt hepatic encephalopathy (HE) and post-procedure varices patency were assessed.

RESULTS

Gastrorenal shunt was present in 92.7% of patients (n = 76). Embolisation was performed in 67.1% of patients (n = 55). The 1- and 2-year variceal rebleeding rates in the TIPS combined with embolisation group were significantly lower than those in the TIPS alone group (3.8% and 13.4% vs 13.0% and 28.0%, respectively; p = 0.041). No significant differences between the two groups were found in the cardiofundal varices patency, overt HE or survival (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that TIPS combined with embolisation can reduce the risk of variceal rebleeding for patients with cardiofundal varices.

KEY POINTS

• TIPS combined with embolisation reduces the risk of rebleeding in treating cardiofundal varices. • TIPS combined with embolisation could not completely occlude cardiofundal varices. • TIPS combined with embolisation could not prevent the development of hepatic encephalopathy.

Persistence of gastric or esophageal varices on final angiography increases transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt revision rate after polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stent shunt creation

Background

To assess the association between final polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)-covered stent transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) angiographic parameters and free shunt revision survey.

Methods

Series of two comparison groups were generated with persistence of varices or not, the 25^th, 50^th, and 75^th percentile as cutoff for each angle and a 15-mm distance as cutoff for distance D. Kaplan Meier free shunt revision curves were then created and compared with Log Rank test.

Results

Mean follow-up was 455 days. Thirteen (19.4%) patients had shunt revision. Significant free shunt revision survey difference was found between post-procedural angiographic persistent varices group and the group without varices (P=0.0001). Shunt revision rate at 3, 12 and 24 months was respectively 13%, 29%, and 39% in the group with varices versus 0%, 2.7% and 2.7% in the group without. No difference was found between groups for angles A, B, C and distance D.

Conclusions

Persistence of gastric or esophageal varices on final trans-TIPS angiography increases TIPS revision rate after PTFE-covered stent shunt creation whereas geometric parameters have no influence.

Spleen stiffness is positively correlated with HVPG and decreases significantly after TIPS implantation

BACKGROUND

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is indicated in patients with decompensated portal hypertension (PH). Hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) is considered gold standard for assessment of PH. Because HVPG measurement is invasive, non-invasive methods for evaluating severity of PH are warranted.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively correlated spleen stiffness as measured by FibroScan with HVPG in patients who underwent TIPS. Twenty-four patients with spleen stiffness measurement (SSM) one day before (D-1), one day after (D+1) and 28 days after TIPS (D+28) were included.

RESULTS

SSM was positively correlated with pre-TIPS HVPG (HVPG <13mmHg, median SSM: 19.7±8.6kPa; HVPG 13-24mmHg, median SSM: 45.0±15.7kPa; HVPG >24mmHg, median SSM: 75.0±6.2kPa; p<0.05]; r²=0.72; p<0.001) and decreased significantly after TIPS implantation (D-1, median SSM: 67.1±17.3kPa; D+1, median SSM: 44.7±18.5kPa; D+28, median SSM: 35.6±17.0kPa; p<0.05), while liver stiffness measurement decrease was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study highlights the utility of SSM as non-invasive tool in patients with chronic liver disease in evaluating degree of PH potentially offering a confirmable additional parameter in surveillance of patients undergoing TIPS procedure.

Use of concomitant variceal embolization and prophylactic antiplatelet/anticoagulative in transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunting: A retrospective study of 182 cirrhotic portal hypertension patients

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunting (TIPS) is an effective treatment modality for refractory variceal bleeding and ascites in patients with cirrhotic portal hypertension (CPH). Variceal rebleeding and shunt dysfunction are major post-TIPS morbidities. This study aimed to retrospectively evaluate the effectiveness and safety of use of concomitant variceal embolization and prophylactic antiplatelet/anticoagulative in patients with CPH undergoing TIPS. Between October 2006 and October 2011, 182 patients with CPH were retrospectively and consecutively hospitalized for elective TIPS with Fluency stenting. Concomitant variceal embolization was given after establishing the shunt. Subcutaneous heparin was given after TIPS and replaced by oral clopidogrel, aspirin, or warfarin for at least 6 months. Main outcome measures included shunt patency rate, recurrence of CPH (rebleeding and/or refractory ascites), hepatic encephalopathy (HE) frequency, and post-TIPS survival. The cumulative primary patency rate was 96%, 94%, 90%, 88%, and 88% at 6, 12, 24, 36, and 48 months, respectively. Shunt stenosis occurred in 16 (9%) patients, gastrointestinal (GI) rebleeding in 32 (17.5%) patients, recurrence of refractory ascites 44 (48%) patients, HE in 42 (23%) patients, and death in 36 (20%) patients during the follow-up period. Use of concomitant variceal embolization and prophylactic antiplatelet/anticoagulative was associated with a favorable shunt patency and a low risk of GI rebleeding.

Comparison of Vascular Plugs and Pushable Coils for Variceal Embolization After TIPS

OBJECTIVE

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) with variceal embolization is routinely performed to treat variceal bleeding. Embolization using vascular plugs is reported, but outcomes are not known. Outcomes and material costs of embolization using vascular plugs and coils are compared.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A single center's medical records of TIPS procedures (May 2003-December 2014) with variceal embolization were reviewed. Twenty patients with vascular plug embolization (age [± SD], 50 ± 10 years; seven men and 13 women; median Model for End-Stage Liver Disease [MELD], 20; interquartile range [IQR], 14-23) were compared with an age-, sex-, and MELD-matched cohort who underwent coil embolization (age, 50 ± 9 years; seven men and 13 women; median MELD, 17; IQR, 15-19; p = 0.52). Procedure details, primary outcome (rebleeding), secondary outcome (mortality), and costs were compared.

RESULTS

Vascular plug use was associated with a lower fluoroscopy time (49.05 minutes [IQR, 36-62] vs 68 minutes [IQR, 49-76]; p = 0.006) and total procedure time (255 minutes [IQR, 205-290] for vascular plugs vs 275 minutes [IQR, 230-330]; p = 0.05). Total volume of contrast agent used was similar (180 mL [IQR, 155-234] for vascular plugs vs 210 mL [IQR, 185-261]; p = 0.14). In patients with at least a 30-day follow-up, rebleeding rates (2/17 [12%] for vascular plugs vs 4/15 [27%]; p = 0.40) and mortality (2/17 [12%] for vascular plugs vs 4/15 [27%]; p = 0.66) were similar. Per procedure, vascular plugs cost significantly more than coils ($1292 ± $676 vs $228 ± $292, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The use of vascular plugs or coils has similar outcomes for variceal embolization after TIPS. The advantages of vascular plug use (i.e., reduced fluoroscopy or procedure time) may be offset by increased material cost, a trade-off that merits further study given current cost concerns in health care.

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.

Portal Venous Interventions: State of the Art

In recent decades, there have been numerous advances in the management of liver cancer, cirrhosis, and diabetes mellitus. Although these diseases are wide ranging in their clinical manifestations, each can potentially be treated by exploiting the blood flow dynamics within the portal venous system, and in some cases, adding cellular therapies. To aid in the management of these disease states, minimally invasive transcatheter portal venous interventions have been developed to improve the safety of major hepatic resection, to reduce the untoward effects of sequelae from end-stage liver disease, and to minimize the requirement of exogenously administered insulin for patients with diabetes mellitus. This state of the art review therefore provides an overview of the most recent data and strategies for utilization of preoperative portal vein embolization, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt placement, balloon retrograde transvenous obliteration, and islet cell transplantation.

Techniques for Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt Reduction and Occlusion

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPS) effectively lower portal pressure and are commonly used to manage selected patients with variceal bleeding. Unfortunately, significant consequences are not infrequently encountered as a result of this diversion of portal venous flow. These consequences include disabling hepatic encephalopathy as well as hepatic decompensation. To manage these complications, therapeutic options include TIPS reduction and TIPS occlusion. TIPS reduction is the favored technique because of the potential for venous thrombosis and recurrent variceal hemorrhage after acute TIPS occlusion. Techniques and indications for TIPS reduction and TIPS occlusion are reviewed.

Current diagnosis and management of post-transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt refractory hepatic encephalopathy

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt has evolved into an important option for management of complications of portal hypertension. The use of polytetrafluoroethylene covered stents enhances shunt patency. Hepatic encephalopathy (HE) remains a significant problem after TIPS placement. The approach to management of patients with refractory hepatic encephalopathy typically requires collaboration between different specialties. Patient selection for TIPS requires careful evaluation of risk factors for HE. TIPS procedure-related technical factors like stent size, attention to portosystemic pressure gradient reduction and use of adjunctive variceal embolization maybe important. Conservative medical therapy in combination with endovascular therapies often results in resolution or substantial reduction of symptoms. Liver transplantation is, however, the ultimate treatment.

Combined transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt and other interventions for hepatocellular carcinoma with portal hypertension

AIM: To evaluate combination transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) and other interventions for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and portal hypertension.

METHODS: Two hundred and sixty-one patients with HCC and portal hypertension underwent TIPS combined with other interventional treatments (transarterial chemoembolization/transarterial embolization, radiofrequency ablation, hepatic arterio-portal fistulas embolization, and splenic artery embolization) from January 1997 to January 2010 at Beijing Shijitan Hospital. Two hundred and nine patients (121 male and 88 female, aged 25-69 years, mean 48.3 ± 12.5 years) with complete clinical data were recruited. We evaluated the safety of the procedure (procedure-related death and serious complications), change of portal vein pressure before and after TIPS, symptom relief [e.g., ascites, hydrothorax, esophageal gastric-fundus variceal bleeding (EGVB)], cumulative rates of survival, and distributary channel restenosis. The characteristics of the patients surviving ≥ 5 and < 5 years were also analyzed.

RESULTS: The portosystemic pressure was decreased from 29.0 ± 4.1 mmHg before TIPS to 18.1 ± 2.9 mmHg after TIPS (t = 69.32, P < 0.05). Portosystemic pressure was decreased and portal hypertension symptoms were ameliorated. During the 5 year follow-up, the total recurrence rate of resistant ascites or hydrothorax was 7.2% (15/209); 36.8% (77/209) for EGVB; and 39.2% (82/209) for hepatic encephalopathy. The cumulative rates of distributary channel restenosis at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years were 17.2% (36/209), 29.7% (62/209), 36.8% (77/209), 45.5% (95/209) and 58.4% (122/209), respectively. No procedure-related deaths and serious complications (e.g., abdominal bleeding, hepatic failure, and distant metastasis) occurred. Moreover, Child-Pugh score, portal vein tumor thrombosis, lesion diameter, hepatic arterio-portal fistulas, HCC diagnosed before or after TIPS, stent type, hepatic encephalopathy, and type of other interventional treatments were related to 5 year survival after comparing patient characteristics.

CONCLUSION: TIPS combined with other interventional treatments seems to be safe and efficacious in patients with HCC and portal hypertension.

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

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

Efficacy of vasopressin/terlipressin and somatostatin/octreotide for the prevention of early variceal rebleeding after the initial control of bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Our purpose was to conduct a meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness of vasopressin/terlipressin and somatostatin/octreotide on variceal re-bleeding within and after 5 days of initial control bleeding.

METHODS

A search was conducted of PubMed, the Cochrane database, and Google Scholar until June 31, 2014 using combinations of the search terms: esophageal varices, variceal re-bleeding, recurrent variceal hemorrhage, early re-bleeding, vasopressin, somatostatin, terlipressin, octreotide. Inclusion criteria were: (1) randomized controlled trials, (2) patients with esophageal or esophageal and gastric varices confirmed by endoscopy, (3) re-bleeding control was evaluated, (4) treatment with somatostatin/vasopressin. Outcome measures were the re-bleeding rates within 5 days (≤ 5 days) or after 5 days (>5 days) after initial treatment.

RESULTS

Six studies were included in the analysis. Five studies had complete data of re-bleeding rate within 5 days after initial treatment, and the combined odds ratio (OR) of 0.87 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51, 1.50] indicated that there was no difference in the re-bleeding rate between patients treated with vasopressin/terlipressin or somatostatin/octreotide. Two studies had complete data of the re-bleeding rate 5 days after initial treatment, and the combined OR of 1.12 (95% CI 0.64, 1.95) indicated there was no difference in the re-bleeding rate between patients who were treated with vasopressin/terlipressin or somatostatin/octreotide.

CONCLUSION

There is no difference between vasopressin/terlipressin and somatostatin/octreotide in prevention of re-bleeding after the initial treatment of bleeding esophageal varices.