Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2023
Comparative outcome of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt with or without variceal obliteration: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
МетаанализСистематический обзорСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Giri Suprabhat, Patel Ranjan Kumar, Varghese Jijo, Agarwal Dhiraj, Tripathy Taraprasad
Аннотация
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.
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.