| Literature DB >> 27231160 |
Chang-Ming Wang1, Xuan Li1, Jun Fu1, Jing-Yuan Luan1, Tian-Run Li1, Jun Zhao1, Guo-Xiang Dong1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Balanced adjustment of the portal vein shunt volume during a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is critical for maintaining liver perfusion and decreasing the incidence of liver insufficiency. A stent-graft is proved to be superior to a bare metal stent (BMS) for the construction of a TIPS. However, the clinical results of the combination application of stents and stent-grafts have not been determined. This study aimed to compare the technique of using a combination of stents and stent-grafts with using a single stent-graft to construct a TIPS.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27231160 PMCID: PMC4894033 DOI: 10.4103/0366-6999.182830
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Chin Med J (Engl) ISSN: 0366-6999 Impact factor: 2.628
Figure 1Procedures of TIPS in stents-combination Group. (a) The umbilical portion of left portal vein was punctured with RUPS-100 system under the guidance of deliberately placed catheter into the left hepatic artery beforehand. (b) The shunt was dilated with PTA balloon (the arrow indicated the liver parenchymal segment of the shunt). (c) The length of the parenchymal segment was measured. (d and e) Variceal veins were identified and embolized with coils. (f) BMS was placed, the narrowed area corresponding to the parenchymal segment (indicated by the arrow). (g) The parenchymal area was covered by the stent-graft (indicated by the arrow). (h) The final status of the stents-combination. TIPS: Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt; PTA: Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty; BMS: Bare metal stent.
Figure 2Flow diagram of the participants of the randomized control study. The consecutive sixty patients, in which fifty were randomized either into the stents-combination arm (Group I, n = 28) or the stent-graft arm (Group II, n = 22), while the other ten were excluded because of not meeting the inclusion criteria.
Patient demographic and clinical characteristics undergoing a TIPS
| Characteristics | Stents-combination group | Stent-graft group | Statistical | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of patients, | 28 | 22 | – | – |
| Male/female, | 19:9 | 13:9 | 0.565 | |
| Age (years), mean ± SD | 55.8 ± 8.4 | 62.0 ± 10.5 | 0.065 | |
| Liver disease, | ||||
| Viral hepatitis | 15 | 11 | – | – |
| Alcoholic cirrhosis | 4 | 1 | – | – |
| Autoimmune hepatitis | 4 | 4 | – | – |
| Others | 5 | 6 | – | – |
| Child-Pugh score, mean ± SD | 7.5 ± 1.8 | 6.6 ± 1.9 | 0.063 | |
| Child-Pugh class, | ||||
| A | 10 | 13 | – | – |
| B | 14 | 6 | – | – |
| C | 4 | 3 | – | – |
| Indications for TIPS, | ||||
| Acute hemorrhage | 5 | 7 | – | – |
| Recurrent hemorrhage | 23 | 15 | – | – |
Values are presented as mean ± SD or n. TIPS: Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt; –: Not applicable; A: Child-Pugh score 5–6; B: Child-Pugh score 7–9; C: Child-Pugh score 10–15; SD: Standard deviation.
Figure 3Kaplan–Meier survival analyses for the combined-stent group and stent-graft group. The Kaplan–Meier survival analysis for the combined-stent group and the stent-graft group indicated that no significant difference was found between these two groups (log-rank [Mantel–Cox], χ2= 0.006, P = 0.940). TIPS: Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt.
Figure 4Kaplan–Meier shunt patency analyses for combined-stent group and stent-graft group. There was no significant difference between the two groups (log-rank [Mantel–Cox], χ2 = 0.031, P = 0.860). TIPS: Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt.
Primary patency rates for ePTFE-covered TIPS*
| Study | Number of TIPS, | Follow-up (years) | Primary patency (%) | Study design | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 year | 2 years | 3 years | ||||
| Rössle | 100 | 3 | 90 | 84 | 74 | ePTFE only |
| Tripathi | 157 | 2 | 92 | 89 | – | ePTFE versus BMS |
| Jung | 40 | 1 | 38 | – | – | ePTFE versus BMS |
| Saad | 126 | 2 | 87 | 62 | – | ePTFE only |
| Luca | 57 | 2 | 79 | 71 | – | ePTFE versus BMS |
| Gaba | 70 | 2 | 90 | 78 | – | ePTFE versus BMS |
| Sommer | 58 | 1 | 62 | – | – | ePTFE versus BMS |
| Chen | 103 | 3 | 81 | 76 | 76 | ePTFE only |
| Luo | 33 | 2 | 91 | 85 | – | ePTFE versus BMS |
| Sajja | 59 | 2 | – | 80 | – | ePTFE only |
| Wu | 114 | 2 | 87 | 75 | – | ePTFE only (Fluency®) |
Created with the Viatorr® stent-graft or as specified. –: No data; ePTFE: Expanded polytetrafluoroethylene; TIPS: Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt; BMS: Bare metal stent.