Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research
  • Open Access

Long-term clinical outcomes in patients with viral hepatitis related liver cirrhosis after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt treatment

Virology Journal201815:151

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12985-018-1067-7

  • Received: 14 June 2018
  • Accepted: 25 September 2018
  • Published:

Abstract

Background

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) procedure has played a vital role in management of portal hypertension. Thus, we aimed to investigate the natural history, long-term clinical outcome, predictors of survival in viral hepatitis related cirrhotic patients post-TIPS.

Method

A total of 704 patients with complete followed-up data were enrolled, and clinical characteristics of patients were collected and analyzed. Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate survival, and comparisons were made by log rank test. A multivariate analysis of factors influencing survival was carried out using the Cox proportional hazards regression model.

Results

TIPS implatantion significantly decreased portal vein pressure with 9.77 cmH2O reduction, without influencing long-term liver functions. The total incidence rate of major complication post-TIPS, including HE and re-bleeding/bleeding, was 37.9% and 15.5%, respectively. Patients in Child-Pugh C stage revealed higher overt hepatic encephalopathy (HE) occurrence (65.6%), while patients receiving covered, 6 mm in diameter stents indicated notably lower incidence of HE in comparison with other groups (6.4%). The median survival was > 60 months, 27.0 months, and 11.5 months in cirrhotic patients with variceal bleeding, refractory ascites, and both complications, respectively. The cumulative 5-year survival was significantly higher in patients with variceal bleeding (75.6%) in comparison with either that in patients with refractory ascites (12.5%) or that in patients with both complications (1.96%) (P < 0.0001). Covered stents usage, baseline model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score, and baseline Child-Pugh classification were predictive of survival (P < 0.001). Other variables including age, male gender, and pre-TIPS PVP were not emerged as significant predictors (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

TIPS was an effective and safe therapeutic method for decompression of portal hypertension and for treatment of its complications. Careful selection of patients with minimal liver dysfunction for TIPS implantation was essential for better long-term outcomes.

Keywords

  • Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt
  • Liver cirrhosis
  • Portal hypertension
  • Refractory ascites
  • Variceal bleeding

Background

Portal hypertension is one of the most common problems among patients with liver cirrhosis, and therapeutic approaches of the complications are still the challenging tasks [1, 2]. Development of portal hypertension always results in the formation of collateral circulation in portal vein system, which leads to the portal venous flow into systemic circulation and directly increase the incidence of several clinical consequences, e.g. variceal bleeding and refractory ascites [37]. Although a variety of treatment methods have been built up, controversy remains as to the most effective therapeutic algorithm for the complications of portal hypertension [8, 9].

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) surgery inserted metal stent into the liver parenchyma radiologically to establish a shunt between portal vein and hepatic vein/inferior vena cava. It is an efficient method for reducing portal pressure, and has been widely used for treatment of complications of portal hypertension [10, 11]. TIPS has gradually become the first-line therapeutic choice for cirrhotic patients with acute variceal hemorrhage who failed with endoscopic hemostasis [12, 13], with an estimated technical successful rate of 93–100% [2]. TIPS is also used in treatment of refractory ascites [1416] and hepatorenal syndrome [17] due to the circulatory effects on portal hypertension. However, there have been concerns about TIPS implantation, especially with high rate of hepatic encephalopathy (HE) post-TIPS [14]. More recently, the development and usage of covered metal stents significantly reduce the shunt dysfunction in comparison with bare mental stents insertion [18], leading to the lower occlusion rate of consecutive bleeding and improvement of overall survival [19, 20]. However, few studies focused on the long-term outcomes of patients receiving TIPS for complications of portal hypertension and liver cirrhosis, especially with respect to variceal bleeding versus refractory ascites. Thus, in this retrospective study, we evaluated the long-term efficacy and outcomes of TIPS in treatment of variceal bleeding and/or refractory ascites. The major objectives of the present study were to observe the occurrence of clinical complications of TIPS, and predictors of survival.

Methods

Patients and followed-up

We screened integrated database which included a total of 1024 patients with viral hepatitis related liver cirrhosis who underwent TIPS insertion between June 2004 and December 2012 in China-Japan Union Hospital and 302 Military Hospital. The indication for TIPS treatment included acute or recurrent variceal bleeding and refractory ascites. TIPS insertion was technically not feasible in 89 patients, including 46 patients with unsuccessful portal vein puncture, 28 patients with portal vein malformation, and 15 patients with portal vein thrombosis. There were 231 cases who were lost to follow-up after TIPS insertion. Thus, eventually 704 patients with complete 5-year followed-up data or confirmed death within 5-year followed-up period were enrolled in this study. The TIPS procedures were accomplished by different specialists followed with the same protocol. Anticoagulant drugs, ornithine aspartate, and lactulose were routinely used after TIPS insertion. All patients were treated for primary diseases in the followed-up period, such as nucleos(t)ide analogue therapy for HBV infection. Followed-up data were obtained by in-patients/out-patients visit, or telephone calls every year. Biochemical and ultrasound assessments were performed as routine examination. The study protocol was approved by Ethics Committees of both China-Japan Union Hospital and 302 Military Hospital on December 2016, and data were collected on January and February 2017.

Assessment of clinical characteristics

TIPS procedures were conducted using standard techniques [21]. Serum biochemical assessments (including alanine aminotransferase [ALT], aspartate aminotransferase [AST], albumin [ALB], total bilirubin [T-BIL], blood urea nitrogen [BUN], and serum creatinine [Cr]) were measured using an automatic analyzer (Hitachi 7170A, Hitachi Ltd., Tokyo, Japan). Coagulation function (including prothrombin time [PT], thrombin time [TT], activated partial thromboplastin time [APTT], fibrinogen [Fib], prothrombin activity [PTA], and international normalized ratio [INR]) were measured using a coagulation analyzer (PUN-2048, Perlong Medical Products, Beijing, China). Abdominal ultrasound examination was measured using a Doppler ultrasound diagnostic apparatus (NemioXG, Toshiba, Tokyo, Japan). The stiffness of liver was measured using FibroScan 502 (Echosens, Pairs, France). The severity of liver disease was assessed using traditional Child-Pugh classification as described previously [22, 23]. T-BIL, ALB, INR, ascites, and HE grade was involved for Child-Pugh scoring.

Statistical analysis

All data were analyzed using SPSS version 19.0 for Windows Software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Wilcoxon’s matched pairs test or Dunn’s multiple comparison test were used for comparison of quantitative data. Chi-squared test was used for comparison of categorical data. Kaplan-Meier method was employed to calculate survival from the time of TIPS treatment, and comparisons were made by log rank test. A multivariate analysis of factors influencing survival was carried out using the Cox proportional hazards regression model. The potential predictor variables for survival was age, male gender, and pre-TIPS PVP, complications, stents usage, model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score, and Child-Pugh classification. We firstly perform univariate analysis for each variable and then perform multivariate analysis using all the variables. All tests were two-tailed, and P values of less than 0.05 were considered to indicate significant differences.

Results

Baseline characteristics of enrolled patients

The retrospective cohort comprised 704 of liver cirrhotic patients with TIPS insertion. Baseline characteristics of enrolled patients were listed in Table 1. Of these patients, 581 (82.5%) showed variceal bleeding, 72 (10.2%) revealed refractory ascites, whereas 51 (7.3%) demonstrated both variceal bleeding and refractory ascites. Five hundred and eleven (72.6%) patients were male and 193 (27.4%) were female, with a mean age of 53.2 years.
Table 1

Baseline clinical characteristics of enrolled patients

Characteristic

Value

Patients enrolled (n)

704

 Variceal bleeding

581

 Refractory ascites

72

 Variceal bleeding and refractory ascites

51

Age, years, (mean ± SD)

53.2 ± 13.6

Gender, male/female, (n)

511/193

Cause of cirrhosis (n)

 

 HBV

509

 HCV

134

 HBV + HCV

52

 HBV + HDV

9

Child-Pugh classification (n)

 

 A

219

 B

421

 C

64

MELD score, (mean ± SD)

12.8 ± 5.1

Stiffness of liver, KPa, (mean ± SD)

18.6 ± 10.7

Diameter of portal vein, cm, (mean ± SD)

1.52 ± 0.37

Diameter of splenic vein, cm, (mean ± SD)

0.96 ± 0.21

MELD model for end-stage liver disease

TIPS insertion significantly reduced PVP of patients with liver cirrhosis, but not ameliorated liver functions

In all 704 enrolled patients with TIPS treatment, direct measurements of portal vein pressure (PVP) were carried out in 487 cases before and after stent insertion. TIPS insertion significantly decreased PVP with 9.77 cmH2O reduction (36.81 ± 8.68 cmH2O vs. 27.04 ± 7.79 cmH2O, Wilcoxon’s matched pairs test, P < 0.0001). All patients were also received anti-fibrosis and anti-primary diseases therapies, and liver functions were assessed in each visit. There were no remarkable differences in ALT, T-BIL, albumin, and stiffness of liver after TIPS insertion in comparison with baseline (Dunn’s multiple comparison test, P > 0.05, Table 2). All patients were routinely treated with anticoagulant drugs at a weight-dependent dose for 1 year after TIPS insertion, leading to the disturbance of blood coagulation which presented as the reduction in PTA and elevation in INR (Dunn’s multiple comparison test, P < 0.05 compared with baseline, Table 2). However, blood ammonia was also increased, especially in the early stage after TIPS implantation, although ornithine aspartate were routinely used (Dunn’s multiple comparison test, P < 0.05 compared with baseline, Table 2).
Table 2

Changes in liver functions of liver cirrhotic patients with TIPS treatment

 

Baseline

1 year

2 years

3 years

4 years

5 years

(n = 704)

(n = 638)

(n = 587)

(n = 530)

(n = 485)

(n = 445)

ALT (U/L)

51 ± 28

47 ± 19

55 ± 31

52 ± 21

58 ± 20

55 ± 18

T-BIL (μmol/L)

29.2 ± 19.7

34.8 ± 20.1

32.9 ± 21.8

35.9 ± 20.8

34.6 ± 19.7

27.6 ± 18.0

Albumin (g/L)

28.9 ± 10.2

29.1 ± 11.7

30.0 ± 9.8

28.7 ± 8.2

29.7 ± 9.2

30.1 ± 12.8

Blood ammonia (μmol/L)

64.7 ± 25.9

87.6 ± 27.1 ##

81.5 ± 19.8 ##

76.2 ± 20.5 ##

78.2 ± 21.2 #

71.0 ± 11.6

PTA (%)

56.8 ± 12.5

37.8 ± 9.1 #

51.4 ± 8.7

49.2 ± 11.0

50.1 ± 10.2

50.8 ± 8.9

INR

1.36 ± 0.23

1.90 ± 0.46 #

1.48 ± 0.51

1.50 ± 0.49

1.50 ± 0.44

1.47 ± 0.38

Stiffness (KPa)

18.6 ± 10.7

17.6 ± 9.8

17.9 ± 12.7

16.8 ± 8.6

16.7 ± 9.1

17.1 ± 10.2

#P < 0.05, ## P < 0.01 compared with baseline, Dunn’s multiple comparison test

Complications after TIPS implantation

The major complications after TIPS therapy included HE and re-bleeding/bleeding. The total incident rate of HE and re-bleeding/bleeding was 37.9% and 15.5%, respectively. Patients with variceal bleeding and refractory ascites indicated higher incidences for both HE and re-bleeding/bleeding (Chi-squared test, P < 0.05, Table 3). Patients with Child-Pugh C revealed a significant elevated incidence of HE than those with Child-Pugh A or B (Chi-squared test, P < 0.01, Table 3). However, there were no remarkable difference in the incidence of re-bleeding/bleeding among Child-Pugh classification (Chi-squared test, P > 0.05, Table 3). Moreover, uncovered (n = 130) and covered (n = 574) metal stents were used for portosystemic shunt. No significant incidence of HE and re-bleeding/bleeding were found between patients using uncovered and covered stents (Chi-squared test, P > 0.05, Table 3). However, patients receiving covered, 6 mm in diameter stents indicated notably lower incidence of HE in comparison with other groups (Chi-squared test, P < 0.0001, Table 3).
Table 3

The incidence of major complications after TIPS treatment

 

HE

Re-bleeding/Bleeding

Total

267/704 (37.9%)

109/704 (15.5%)

 Variceal bleeding

208/581 (35.8%)

81/581 (13.9%)

 Refractory ascites

31/72 (43.1%)

6/72 (8.3%)

 Variceal bleeding and refractory ascites

28/51 (54.9%) #

22/51 (43.1%) ##

Child-Pugh classification

  

 A

83/219 (37.8%)

37/219 (16.9%)

 B

142/421 (33.7%)

61/421 (14.5%)

 C

42/64 (65.6%) ##

11/64 (17.2%)

Type of stent

  

 Uncovered stent (n = 130)

56/130 (43.1%)

17/130 (13.1%)

  Diameter of stent = 8 mm (n = 47)

17/47 (36.1%)

5/47 (10.6%)

  Diameter of stent = 10 mm (n = 83)

39/83 (47.0%)

12/83 (14.5%)

 Covered stent (n = 574)

211/574 (36.8%)

92/574 (16.0%)

  Diameter of stent = 6 mm (n = 94)

6/94 (6.4%) ###

14/94 (14.9%)

  Diameter of stent = 7 mm (n = 178)

67/178 (37.6%)

31/178 (17.4%)

  Diameter of stent = 8 mm (n = 302)

138/302 (45.7%)

47/302 (15.6%)

#P < 0.05, ## P < 0.01, and ### P < 0.01 compared with other groups, Chi-squared test

Patients survival

Overall median survival was > 60 months with the cumulative 5-year survival of patients in 63.6% (Fig. 1a). The median survival was > 60 months, 27.0 months, and 11.5 months in cirrhotic patients with variceal bleeding, refractory ascites, and both complications, respectively. Moreover, the cumulative 5-year survival was significantly higher in patients with variceal bleeding (75.6%) in comparison with either that in patients with refractory ascites (12.5%, hazard ratio [HR] = 69.28 [95% CI 39.01–123.0], P < 0.0001, Fig. 1b) or that in patients with both complications (1.96%, HR = 0.00025 [95% CI 0.00011–0.00059], P < 0.0001, Fig. 1b). On multivariate analysis covered stents usage (HR = 2.96 [95% CI 2.06–4.25], P < 0.0001, Fig. 1c), baseline MELD score (HR = 0.40 [95% CI 0.31–0.41], P < 0.0001, Fig. 1d), and baseline Child-Pugh classification (Child-Pugh A versus Child-Pugh B, HR = 0.73 [95% CI 0.54–0.98], P = 0.038; Child-Pugh A versus Child-Pugh C, HR = 0.034 [95% CI 0.019–0.058], P < 0.0001; Child-Pugh B versus Child-Pugh C, HR = 0.038 [95% CI 0.023–0.064], P < 0.0001; Fig. 1e) were predictive of survival. Other variables included in the final Cox proportional hazards model were age, male gender, and pre-TIPS PVP, but none emerged as significant predictors (P > 0.05).
Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of patients after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) implantation. a Overall survival. b Comparison of probability of survival among patients with variceal bleeding and/or refractory ascites. c Comparison of probability of survival between patients with uncovered and covered stent. d Comparison of probability of survival between patients with baseline MELD score ≤ 10 and > 10. e Comparison of probability of survival among patients with different Child-Pugh stage

Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, the current study represented one of the largest cohort of patients who received TIPS as therapeutic method for the complications of portal hypertension and liver cirrhosis, and followed-up for the longest period of time, thereby allowing us to better understand plenty of issues related to TIPS implantation for variceal bleeding and/or refractory ascites.

In this retrospective study, shunt insertion was successful in 91.3% (935/1024) of patients scheduled. The baseline characteristics revealed that distribution of underlying diseases was typical for China, with chronic viral hepatitis as the major causation for liver cirrhosis [24]. In agreement with previous findings [2528], we confirmed that TIPS is effective as treatment for variceal bleeding and refractory ascites in cirrhotic patients without improvement of liver function. TIPS implantation could decrease the portal pressure gradient by 20–50% of the initial pressure, and maintained under 12 mmHg [29, 30]. This was consistent with the current results of reduction in direct measurement of PVP. However, there were no remarkable differences in the degree of reduction of PVP post-TIPS insertion among patients with variceal bleeding and/or refractory ascites. Although the initial reduction in PVP after TIPS insertion was considered to be a predictor for rebleeding risk, but not for survival [31], we did not find notable correlation between baseline/reduction of PVP and survival, indicating that PVG might not be the predictor for survival post-TIPS treatment.

In consistent with Membreno et al. [32] and Heinzow et al. [2], the current results demonstrated that overall long-term survival was significantly better in patients with TIPS due to variceal bleeding (> 60 months) than that in patients with TIPS due to refractory ascites (27.0 months), while the combination of both complications further worsened the survival (11.5 months, P < 0.001) with higher rate of major complications. The overall occurrence of HE was nearly 40% which was higher than previous reports, although we routinely prescribed ornithine aspartate and lactulose to all patients post-TIPS. The use of smaller diameter stents might be associated with lower risk of HE post-TIPS, as the development of refractory HE requiring reduction in shunt diameter in 8–10% of patients [33]. This was in accordance with our results showing the lower HE occurrence in patients with 6 mm-diameter of stent insertion, although elevated risk of treatment failure was also observed among patients with smaller 8-mm stent from a randomized controlled trials [34].

TIPS implantation increased the risk of acute liver and/or cardiac decompensation and failure. Thus, careful selection of patients with liver cirrhosis and portal hypertension was crucial to the successful outcome post-TIPS [35, 36]. Previous study revealed that better liver function might respond better to TIPS insertion [37]. The baseline age < 55 years, T-BIL < 35 μmol/L, and serum sodium > 135 mmol/L indicated beneficial survival post-TIPS. Original Child-Pugh stage [2], modified Child-Na score with serum sodium incorporation [38], and MELD score [39] were independent prognostic factor of survival. We showed that patients in Child-Pugh C stage demonstrated higher incidence of overt HE. Moreover, in agreement with previous findings, Child-Pugh stage and MELD score were significant indicator for survival post-TIPS, probably due to the fact that both scoring systems were validated tools for assessing prognosis [40]. Thus, approximate 60% of overall 5-year survival was not surprising as the enrolled patients had minimal liver dysfunction at baseline.

Uncovered metal stents were one of the treatment choice for establishing TIPS tracts [41], with approximate 20% use of all TIPS procedures in United States [42]. The higher rate of shunt dysfunction with consecutive bleeding complications [43] has been largely overcome after the development of covered metal stents [18, 19, 44]. Although Bureau and colleagues did not detect survival benefit of covered and bare stents [45], more recently meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials revealed that covered stents for TIPS improved overall survival [20], especially in prevention of variceal re-bleeding [46]. In addition, it was also reported that 1-year probability of remaining free of HE in patients with post-covered TIPS was numerically lower than that with bare stents [35, 47]. In the present study, we found that there were no remarkable differences in the occurrences of either HE or re-bleeding between covered and uncovered stents. Furthermore, the use of covered stents was predictive of beneficial survival, which was similar to the findings by Tan et al. in refractory ascites [35]. This was partly due to the better baseline liver function in covered stents groups, which was also found in Tan’s study [35]. Moreover, since most covered stents were used in recent years, the improvement in procedure-related skills with primary patency up to 90% within first year application also accounted for superiority of covered stents [19, 35]. Thus, as expected, the improved survival was due to era effect rather than type of stents [35], which further deepened the understanding of patients selection for TIPS implantation.

There were some limitations in this study. First, we conducted a retrospective study with limited patients numbers and no control group was established. Thus, large-scale, random control studies were needed to confirm the current results. Second, we tried to identify predictors for liver failure in patients post-TIPS. However, the definition for liver failure was hard. The classical definition for liver failure contains jaundice (T-BIL > 170 μmol/L) and coagulopathy (PTA < 40%). The use of anticoagulant drugs down-regulated PTA level, which made it hard for definition. Furthermore, only few patients suffered with high jaundice post-TIPS. Thus, we did not analyze predictors for liver failure post-TIPS. Third, the factors regarding the cause of cirrhosis were lacking in survival analysis after TIPS. Fourth, the cause of death of patients did not analyzed in the current study.

Conclusion

TIPS was an effective and safe therapeutic method for decompression of portal hypertension and for treatment of its complications. Child-Pugh stage and MELD score were independent predictors of survival in patients with TIPS implantation. Thus, careful selection of patients for TIPS was essential for better long-term outcomes.

Abbreviations

ALT: 

Alanine aminotransferase

APTT: 

Activated partial thromboplastin time

AST: 

Aspartate aminotransferas

BUN: 

Blood urea nitrogen

Cr: 

Creatinine

Fib: 

Fibrinogen

HE: 

Hepatic encephalopathy

HR: 

Hazard ratio

INR: 

International normalized ratio

MELD: 

Model for end-stage liver disease

PT: 

Prothrombin time

PTA: 

Prothrombin activity

PVP: 

Portal vein pressure

T-BIL: 

Total bilirubin

TIPS: 

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt

TT: 

Thrombin time

Declarations

Authors’ contributions

JD designed and supervised the study. LD, DT, and LL acquisition of data. LD, DT, HZ, LL, and JD analyzed and interpreted the data. LD, DT, HZ, and JD prepared the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study protocol was approved by Ethics Committees of both China-Japan Union Hospital and 302 Military Hospital on December 2016.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Ultrasound, China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, 130022, Jilin Province, China
(2)
Department of Pain, The Second Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, 130041, Jilin Province, China
(3)
Department of Radiology, China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University, 126 Xintai St, Changchun, 130022, Jilin Province, China
(4)
Department of Radiology, 302 Military Hospital of China, 100 West Fourth Ring Rd, Beijing, 100039, China

References

  1. Siramolpiwat S. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts and portal hypertension-related complications. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20:16996–7010.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Heinzow HS, Lenz P, Kohler M, Reinecke F, Ullerich H, Domschke W, Domagk D, Meister T. Clinical outcome and predictors of survival after TIPS insertion in patients with liver cirrhosis. World J Gastroenterol. 2012;18:5211–8.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Ertel AE, Chang AL, Kim Y, Shah SA. Management of gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis. Curr Probl Surg. 2016;53:366–95.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Toshikuni N, Takuma Y, Tsutsumi M. Management of gastroesophageal varices in cirrhotic patients: current status and future directions. Ann Hepatol. 2016;15:314–25.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Williams MJ, Hayes P. Improving the management of gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;10:505–15.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Garcia-Tsao G, Sanyal AJ, Grace ND, Carey W, Practice guidelines Committee of the American Association for the study of liver D, practice parameters Committee of the American College of G. Prevention and management of gastroesophageal varices and variceal hemorrhage in cirrhosis. Hepatology. 2007;46:922–38.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Sanyal AJ, Bosch J, Blei A, Arroyo V. Portal hypertension and its complications. Gastroenterology. 2008;134:1715–28.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Garcia-Tsao G. Current Management of the Complications of cirrhosis and portal hypertension: variceal hemorrhage, ascites, and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Dig Dis. 2016;34:382–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Nguyen GC, Segev DL, Thuluvath PJ. Racial disparities in the management of hospitalized patients with cirrhosis and complications of portal hypertension: a national study. Hepatology. 2007;45:1282–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Tytle TL, Loeffler C, Thompson WM 3rd. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS): a promising nonsurgical treatment for bleeding gastroesophageal varices. J Okla State Med Assoc. 1993;86:220–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Sanyal AJ, Genning C, Reddy KR, Wong F, Kowdley KV, Benner K, McCashland T, North American study for the treatment of refractory ascites G. The north American study for the treatment of refractory ascites. Gastroenterology. 2003;124:634–41.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Goykhman Y, Ben-Haim M, Rosen G, Carmiel-Haggai M, Oren R, Nakache R, Szold O, Klausner J, Kori I. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt: current indications, patient selection and results. Isr Med Assoc J. 2010;12:687–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Boyer TD, Haskal ZJ, American Association for the Study of liver D. The role of Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) in the Management of Portal Hypertension: update 2009. Hepatology. 2010;51:306.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Forrest EH, Stanley AJ, Redhead DN, McGilchrist AJ, Hayes PC. Clinical response after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent shunt insertion for refractory ascites in cirrhosis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 1996;10:801–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Ochs A, Rossle M, Haag K, Hauenstein KH, Deibert P, Siegerstetter V, Huonker M, Langer M, Blum HE. The transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent-shunt procedure for refractory ascites. N Engl J Med. 1995;332:1192–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Narahara Y, Kanazawa H, Fukuda T, Matsushita Y, Harimoto H, Kidokoro H, Katakura T, Atsukawa M, Taki Y, Kimura Y, et al. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt versus paracentesis plus albumin in patients with refractory ascites who have good hepatic and renal function: a prospective randomized trial. J Gastroenterol. 2011;46:78–85.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Anderson CL, Saad WE, Kalagher SD, Caldwell S, Sabri S, Turba UC, Matsumoto AH, Angle JF. Effect of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt placement on renal function: a 7-year, single-center experience. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2010;21:1370–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Perarnau JM, Le Gouge A, Nicolas C, d'Alteroche L, Borentain P, Saliba F, Minello A, Anty R, Chagneau-Derrode C, Bernard PH, et al. Covered vs. uncovered stents for transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt: a randomized controlled trial. J Hepatol. 2014;60:962–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Yang Z, Han G, Wu Q, Ye X, Jin Z, Yin Z, Qi X, Bai M, Wu K, Fan D. Patency and clinical outcomes of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt with polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stents versus bare stents: a meta-analysis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;25:1718–25.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Qi X, Tian Y, Zhang W, Yang Z, Guo X. Covered versus bare stents for transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2017;10:32–41.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. LaBerge JM, Ring EJ, Gordon RL, Lake JR, Doherty MM, Somberg KA, Roberts JP, Ascher NL. Creation of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts with the wallstent endoprosthesis: results in 100 patients. Radiology. 1993;187:413–20.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Tarantino G, Citro V, Conca P, Riccio A, Tarantino M, Capone D, Cirillo M, Lobello R, Iaccarino V. What are the implications of the spontaneous spleno-renal shunts in liver cirrhosis? BMC Gastroenterol. 2009;9:89.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Tarantino G, Citro V, Esposito P, Giaquinto S, de Leone A, Milan G, Tripodi FS, Cirillo M, Lobello R. Blood ammonia levels in liver cirrhosis: a clue for the presence of portosystemic collateral veins. BMC Gastroenterol. 2009;9:21.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Tang CM, Yau TO, Yu J. Management of chronic hepatitis B infection: current treatment guidelines, challenges, and new developments. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20:6262–78.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Bissonnette J, Garcia-Pagan JC, Albillos A, Turon F, Ferreira C, Tellez L, Nault JC, Carbonell N, Cervoni JP, Abdel Rehim M, et al. Role of the transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in the management of severe complications of portal hypertension in idiopathic noncirrhotic portal hypertension. Hepatology. 2016;64:224–31.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Berry K, Lerrigo R, Liou IW, Ioannou GN. Association between Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt and survival in patients with cirrhosis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;14:118–23.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Bhogal HK, Sanyal AJ. Using transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts for complications of cirrhosis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;9:936–46 quiz e123.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Colombato L. The role of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) in the management of portal hypertension. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2007;41(Suppl 3):S344–51.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Rossle M, Siegerstetter V, Olschewski M, Ochs A, Berger E, Haag K. How much reduction in portal pressure is necessary to prevent variceal rebleeding? A longitudinal study in 225 patients with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001;96:3379–83.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Casado M, Bosch J, Garcia-Pagan JC, Bru C, Banares R, Bandi JC, Escorsell A, Rodriguez-Laiz JM, Gilabert R, Feu F, et al. Clinical events after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt: correlation with hemodynamic findings. Gastroenterology. 1998;114:1296–303.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Biecker E, Roth F, Heller J, Schild HH, Sauerbruch T, Schepke M. Prognostic role of the initial portal pressure gradient reduction after TIPS in patients with cirrhosis. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007;19:846–52.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Membreno F, Baez AL, Pandula R, Walser E, Lau DT. Differences in long-term survival after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for refractory ascites and variceal bleed. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005;20:474–81.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Riggio O, Nardelli S, Moscucci F, Pasquale C, Ridola L, Merli M. Hepatic encephalopathy after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt. Clin Liver Dis. 2012;16:133–46.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Riggio O, Ridola L, Angeloni S, Cerini F, Pasquale C, Attili AF, Fanelli F, Merli M, Salvatori FM. Clinical efficacy of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt created with covered stents with different diameters: results of a randomized controlled trial. J Hepatol. 2010;53:267–72.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Tan HK, James PD, Sniderman KW, Wong F. Long-term clinical outcome of patients with cirrhosis and refractory ascites treated with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt insertion. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;30:389–95.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Trebicka J. Emergency TIPS in a child-Pugh B patient: when does the window of opportunity open and close? J Hepatol. 2017;66:442–50.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Salerno F, Camma C, Enea M, Rossle M, Wong F. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for refractory ascites: a meta-analysis of individual patient data. Gastroenterology. 2007;133:825–34.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Chen H, Bai M, Qi X, Liu L, He C, Yin Z, Fan D, Han G. Child-Na score: a predictive model for survival in cirrhotic patients with symptomatic portal hypertension treated with TIPS. PLoS One. 2013;8:e79637.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Fejfar T, Safka V, Hulek P, Vanasek T, Krajina A, Jirkovsky V. MELD score in prediction of early mortality in patients suffering refractory ascites treated by TIPS. Vnitr Lek. 2006;52:771–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Durand F, Valla D. Assessment of the prognosis of cirrhosis: child-Pugh versus MELD. J Hepatol. 2005;42(Suppl):S100–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Boyer TD. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt: current status. Gastroenterology. 2003;124:1700–10.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Clark TW. Management of shunt dysfunction in the era of TIPS endografts. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol. 2008;11:212–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Sanyal AJ, Freedman AM, Luketic VA, Purdum PP 3rd, Shiffman ML, DeMeo J, Cole PE, Tisnado J. The natural history of portal hypertension after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts. Gastroenterology. 1997;112:889–98.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Bureau C, Garcia-Pagan JC, Otal P, Pomier-Layrargues G, Chabbert V, Cortez C, Perreault P, Peron JM, Abraldes JG, Bouchard L, et al. Improved clinical outcome using polytetrafluoroethylene-coated stents for TIPS: results of a randomized study. Gastroenterology. 2004;126:469–75.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Bureau C, Pagan JC, Layrargues GP, Metivier S, Bellot P, Perreault P, Otal P, Abraldes JG, Peron JM, Rousseau H, et al. Patency of stents covered with polytetrafluoroethylene in patients treated by transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts: long-term results of a randomized multicentre study. Liver Int. 2007;27:742–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Qi X, Tian Y, Zhang W, Zhao H, Han G, Guo X. Covered TIPS for secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in liver cirrhosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95:e5680.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Riggio O, Angeloni S, Salvatori FM, De Santis A, Cerini F, Farcomeni A, Attili AF, Merli M. Incidence, natural history, and risk factors of hepatic encephalopathy after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt with polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stent grafts. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103:2738–46.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2018

Advertisement