Journal of clinical gastroenterology · 2011
Comparison of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) alone versus TIPS combined with embolotherapy in advanced cirrhosis: a retrospective study.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка 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.
Xiao Tianli, Chen Lei, Chen Wensheng, Xu Baoyan, Long Qingling, Li Rongjun, Li Linming, Peng Zhihong, Fang Dianchun, Wang Rongquan
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to determine whether a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) combined with embolotherapy was superior to TIPS alone.
METHODS: Seventy-nine patients were included in the study (43 in the TIPS and embolotherapy group and 36 in the TIPS alone group). Embolotherapy was performed after TIPS using coils and a tissue adhesive agent. The portosystemic pressure gradient (PPG) after TIPS was lower than 12 mm Hg in all patients. Multivariate analyses were performed using a Cox regression model, and the probabilities of survival and rebleeding were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method.
RESULTS: Baseline patient survey data showed similar distributions in both groups. The mean follow-up time was 45.6 months (range: 1 to 85.6 mo). There were no significant differences in the incidences of rebleeding (P=0.889), stent revision (P=0.728), encephalopathy (P=0.728), the cumulative survival rate (P=0.552), or the probability of being free of rebleeding (P=0.806) between the 2 groups. Of 9 patients with rebleeding after TIPS plus embolotherapy, 7 had a history of esophageal variceal bleeding and 2 had gastric variceal bleeding. Of 8 patients with rebleeding after TIPS alone, 4 had a history of esophageal variceal bleeding and 4 had gastric variceal bleeding (P=0.247). Multivariate analysis showed that PPG after TIPS was an independent predictor of rebleeding (P=0.036). Age and Model of End-stage Liver Disease score were independent predictors of survival (P=0.048 and 0.037).
CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that TIPS with embolotherapy cannot reduce the risk of rebleeding if PPG is less than 12 mm Hg after TIPS. PPG after TIPS is an independent predictor of rebleeding.
METHODS: Seventy-nine patients were included in the study (43 in the TIPS and embolotherapy group and 36 in the TIPS alone group). Embolotherapy was performed after TIPS using coils and a tissue adhesive agent. The portosystemic pressure gradient (PPG) after TIPS was lower than 12 mm Hg in all patients. Multivariate analyses were performed using a Cox regression model, and the probabilities of survival and rebleeding were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method.
RESULTS: Baseline patient survey data showed similar distributions in both groups. The mean follow-up time was 45.6 months (range: 1 to 85.6 mo). There were no significant differences in the incidences of rebleeding (P=0.889), stent revision (P=0.728), encephalopathy (P=0.728), the cumulative survival rate (P=0.552), or the probability of being free of rebleeding (P=0.806) between the 2 groups. Of 9 patients with rebleeding after TIPS plus embolotherapy, 7 had a history of esophageal variceal bleeding and 2 had gastric variceal bleeding. Of 8 patients with rebleeding after TIPS alone, 4 had a history of esophageal variceal bleeding and 4 had gastric variceal bleeding (P=0.247). Multivariate analysis showed that PPG after TIPS was an independent predictor of rebleeding (P=0.036). Age and Model of End-stage Liver Disease score were independent predictors of survival (P=0.048 and 0.037).
CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that TIPS with embolotherapy cannot reduce the risk of rebleeding if PPG is less than 12 mm Hg after TIPS. PPG after TIPS is an independent predictor of rebleeding.