Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR · 2022
Portal Vein Recanalization for Noncirrhotic Portal Vein Cavernous Transformation: Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt Creation versus Portal Vein Stent Placement.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Wei Bo, Huang Zhiyin, Wu Hao, Tai Yang, Tong Huan, Li Qian, Wang Zhidong, Yang Rui, Tang Chengwei
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcomes of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) creation versus portal vein stent placement (PVS) in patients with noncirrhotic cavernous transformation of the portal vein (CTPV).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, clinical data from patients with noncirrhotic CTPV who underwent TIPS creation or PVS were compared. A total of 54 patients (mean age, 43.8 years ± 15.8; 31 men and 23 women) were included from January 2013 to January 2021; 29 patients underwent TIPS creation, and 25 patients underwent PVS. Stent occlusion, variceal rebleeding, survival, and postprocedural complications were compared between the 2 groups.
RESULTS: The mean follow-up time was 40.2 months ± 26.2 in the TIPS group and 35.3 months ± 21.1 in the PVS group. The stent occlusion rate in the PVS group (16%, 4 of 25) was significantly lower than that in the TIPS group (41.4%, 12 of 29) during the follow-up (P = .042). The cumulative variceal rebleeding rates in the TIPS group were significantly higher than those in the PVS group (28% vs 4%; P = .027). The procedural success rate was 69% in the TIPS group and 86% in the PVS group (P = .156). There was a higher number of severe adverse events after TIPS than after PVS (0% vs 24%; P = .012).
CONCLUSIONS: Portal vein recanalization with PVS may be a preferable alternative to TIPS creation in the treatment of noncirrhotic CTPV because of higher stent patency rates, lower risk of variceal rebleeding, and fewer adverse events.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, clinical data from patients with noncirrhotic CTPV who underwent TIPS creation or PVS were compared. A total of 54 patients (mean age, 43.8 years ± 15.8; 31 men and 23 women) were included from January 2013 to January 2021; 29 patients underwent TIPS creation, and 25 patients underwent PVS. Stent occlusion, variceal rebleeding, survival, and postprocedural complications were compared between the 2 groups.
RESULTS: The mean follow-up time was 40.2 months ± 26.2 in the TIPS group and 35.3 months ± 21.1 in the PVS group. The stent occlusion rate in the PVS group (16%, 4 of 25) was significantly lower than that in the TIPS group (41.4%, 12 of 29) during the follow-up (P = .042). The cumulative variceal rebleeding rates in the TIPS group were significantly higher than those in the PVS group (28% vs 4%; P = .027). The procedural success rate was 69% in the TIPS group and 86% in the PVS group (P = .156). There was a higher number of severe adverse events after TIPS than after PVS (0% vs 24%; P = .012).
CONCLUSIONS: Portal vein recanalization with PVS may be a preferable alternative to TIPS creation in the treatment of noncirrhotic CTPV because of higher stent patency rates, lower risk of variceal rebleeding, and fewer adverse events.