Cargando…

Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt Placement for Portal Hypertension: Meta-Analysis of Safety and Efficacy of 8 mm vs. 10 mm Stents

INTRODUCTION: Hepatic encephalopathy (HE) following transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) placement remains a leading adverse event. Controversy remains regarding the optimal stent diameter given that smaller stents may decrease the amount of shunted blood and decrease the risk of HE,...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Liu, Jiangtao, Wehrenberg-Klee, Eric Paul, Bethea, Emily D., Uppot, Raul N., Yamada, Kei, Ganguli, Suvranu
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7586157/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33123192
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/9149065
_version_ 1783599940077879296
author Liu, Jiangtao
Wehrenberg-Klee, Eric Paul
Bethea, Emily D.
Uppot, Raul N.
Yamada, Kei
Ganguli, Suvranu
author_facet Liu, Jiangtao
Wehrenberg-Klee, Eric Paul
Bethea, Emily D.
Uppot, Raul N.
Yamada, Kei
Ganguli, Suvranu
author_sort Liu, Jiangtao
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Hepatic encephalopathy (HE) following transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) placement remains a leading adverse event. Controversy remains regarding the optimal stent diameter given that smaller stents may decrease the amount of shunted blood and decrease the risk of HE, but stent patency and/or clinical adequacy of portal decompression may also be affected. We aim to provide meta-analysis-based evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of 8 mm vs. 10 mm stents during TIPS placement. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched for studies comparing 8 mm and 10 mm stents during TIPS placement for portal hypertension decompression in cirrhotic patients. Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies were prioritized for inclusion. Overall evaluation of quality and bias for each study was performed. The outcomes assessed were the prevalence of HE, rebleeding or failure to control refractory ascites, and overall survival. Subgroup analysis based on TIPS indication was conducted. RESULTS: Five studies with a total number of 489 cirrhotic patients were identified. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) of post-TIPS HE was significantly lower in patients in the 8 mm stent group than in the 10 mm stent group (HR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.51~0.92, p value < 0.0001). The combined HR of post-TIPS rebleeding/the need for paracentesis was significantly higher in patients in the 8 mm stent group than in the 10 mm stent group (HR: 1.76, 95% CI: 1.22~2.55, p value < 0.0001). There was no statistically significant difference in the overall survival between the 8 mm and 10 mm stent groups. The combined risk of HE in the variceal bleeding subgroup was statistically lower (HR: 0.52, CI: 0.34-0.80) with an 8 mm stent compared with a 10 mm stent. The combined risk of both rebleeding/paracentesis and survival was not statistically significant between 8 mm and 10 mm stent use in subgroup analysis. CONCLUSION: 8 mm stents during TIPS placement are associated with a significant lower risk of HE compared to 10 mm stents (32% decreased risk), as well as a 76% increased risk of rebleeding/paracentesis. Meta-analysis results suggest that there is not one superior stent choice for all clinical scenarios and that the TIPS indication of variceal bleeding or refractory ascites might have different appropriate selection of the shunt diameter.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7586157
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Hindawi
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75861572020-10-28 Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt Placement for Portal Hypertension: Meta-Analysis of Safety and Efficacy of 8 mm vs. 10 mm Stents Liu, Jiangtao Wehrenberg-Klee, Eric Paul Bethea, Emily D. Uppot, Raul N. Yamada, Kei Ganguli, Suvranu Gastroenterol Res Pract Review Article INTRODUCTION: Hepatic encephalopathy (HE) following transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) placement remains a leading adverse event. Controversy remains regarding the optimal stent diameter given that smaller stents may decrease the amount of shunted blood and decrease the risk of HE, but stent patency and/or clinical adequacy of portal decompression may also be affected. We aim to provide meta-analysis-based evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of 8 mm vs. 10 mm stents during TIPS placement. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched for studies comparing 8 mm and 10 mm stents during TIPS placement for portal hypertension decompression in cirrhotic patients. Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies were prioritized for inclusion. Overall evaluation of quality and bias for each study was performed. The outcomes assessed were the prevalence of HE, rebleeding or failure to control refractory ascites, and overall survival. Subgroup analysis based on TIPS indication was conducted. RESULTS: Five studies with a total number of 489 cirrhotic patients were identified. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) of post-TIPS HE was significantly lower in patients in the 8 mm stent group than in the 10 mm stent group (HR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.51~0.92, p value < 0.0001). The combined HR of post-TIPS rebleeding/the need for paracentesis was significantly higher in patients in the 8 mm stent group than in the 10 mm stent group (HR: 1.76, 95% CI: 1.22~2.55, p value < 0.0001). There was no statistically significant difference in the overall survival between the 8 mm and 10 mm stent groups. The combined risk of HE in the variceal bleeding subgroup was statistically lower (HR: 0.52, CI: 0.34-0.80) with an 8 mm stent compared with a 10 mm stent. The combined risk of both rebleeding/paracentesis and survival was not statistically significant between 8 mm and 10 mm stent use in subgroup analysis. CONCLUSION: 8 mm stents during TIPS placement are associated with a significant lower risk of HE compared to 10 mm stents (32% decreased risk), as well as a 76% increased risk of rebleeding/paracentesis. Meta-analysis results suggest that there is not one superior stent choice for all clinical scenarios and that the TIPS indication of variceal bleeding or refractory ascites might have different appropriate selection of the shunt diameter. Hindawi 2020-10-17 /pmc/articles/PMC7586157/ /pubmed/33123192 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/9149065 Text en Copyright © 2020 Jiangtao Liu et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review Article
Liu, Jiangtao
Wehrenberg-Klee, Eric Paul
Bethea, Emily D.
Uppot, Raul N.
Yamada, Kei
Ganguli, Suvranu
Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt Placement for Portal Hypertension: Meta-Analysis of Safety and Efficacy of 8 mm vs. 10 mm Stents
title Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt Placement for Portal Hypertension: Meta-Analysis of Safety and Efficacy of 8 mm vs. 10 mm Stents
title_full Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt Placement for Portal Hypertension: Meta-Analysis of Safety and Efficacy of 8 mm vs. 10 mm Stents
title_fullStr Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt Placement for Portal Hypertension: Meta-Analysis of Safety and Efficacy of 8 mm vs. 10 mm Stents
title_full_unstemmed Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt Placement for Portal Hypertension: Meta-Analysis of Safety and Efficacy of 8 mm vs. 10 mm Stents
title_short Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt Placement for Portal Hypertension: Meta-Analysis of Safety and Efficacy of 8 mm vs. 10 mm Stents
title_sort transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt placement for portal hypertension: meta-analysis of safety and efficacy of 8 mm vs. 10 mm stents
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7586157/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33123192
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/9149065
work_keys_str_mv AT liujiangtao transjugularintrahepaticportosystemicshuntplacementforportalhypertensionmetaanalysisofsafetyandefficacyof8mmvs10mmstents
AT wehrenbergkleeericpaul transjugularintrahepaticportosystemicshuntplacementforportalhypertensionmetaanalysisofsafetyandefficacyof8mmvs10mmstents
AT betheaemilyd transjugularintrahepaticportosystemicshuntplacementforportalhypertensionmetaanalysisofsafetyandefficacyof8mmvs10mmstents
AT uppotrauln transjugularintrahepaticportosystemicshuntplacementforportalhypertensionmetaanalysisofsafetyandefficacyof8mmvs10mmstents
AT yamadakei transjugularintrahepaticportosystemicshuntplacementforportalhypertensionmetaanalysisofsafetyandefficacyof8mmvs10mmstents
AT gangulisuvranu transjugularintrahepaticportosystemicshuntplacementforportalhypertensionmetaanalysisofsafetyandefficacyof8mmvs10mmstents