Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2015
Comparison of Technical and Clinical Outcome of Transjugular Portosystemic Shunt Placement Between a Bare Metal Stent and a PTFE-Stentgraft Device.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Lauermann J, Potthoff A, Mc Cavert M, Marquardt S, Vaske B, Rosenthal H, von Hahn T, Wacker F, Meyer B C, Rodt Thomas
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To analyse technical and clinical success of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) in patients with portal hypertension and compare a stent and a stentgraft with regard to clinical and technical outcome and associated costs.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: 170 patients (56 ± 12 years, 32.9% females) treated with TIPS due to portal hypertension were reviewed. 80 patients received a stent (group 1) and 83 a stentgraft (group 2), and seven interventions were unsuccessful. Technical data, periprocedural imaging, follow-up ultrasound and clinical data were analysed with focus on technical success, patency, clinical outcome and group differences. Cost analysis was performed.
RESULTS: Portal hypertension was mainly caused by ethyltoxic liver cirrhosis with ascites as dominant symptom (80%). Technical success was 93.5% with mean portosystemic gradient decrease from 16.1 ± 4.8 to 5.1 ± 2.1 mmHg. No significant differences in technical success and portosystemic gradient decrease between the groups were observed. Kaplan-Meier analysis yielded significant differences in primary patency after 14 days, 6 months and 2 years in favour of the stentgraft. Both groups showed good clinical results without significant difference in 1-year survival and hepatic encephalopathy rate. Costs to establish TIPS and to manage 2-year follow-up with constant patency and clinical success were 8876 € (group 1) and 9394 € (group 2).
CONCLUSION: TIPS is a safe and effective procedure to manage portal hypertension. Stent and stentgraft enabled good technical and clinical results with a low complication rate. Primary patency rates are clearly in favour of the stentgraft, whereas the stent was more cost effective with similar clinical results in both groups.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: 170 patients (56 ± 12 years, 32.9% females) treated with TIPS due to portal hypertension were reviewed. 80 patients received a stent (group 1) and 83 a stentgraft (group 2), and seven interventions were unsuccessful. Technical data, periprocedural imaging, follow-up ultrasound and clinical data were analysed with focus on technical success, patency, clinical outcome and group differences. Cost analysis was performed.
RESULTS: Portal hypertension was mainly caused by ethyltoxic liver cirrhosis with ascites as dominant symptom (80%). Technical success was 93.5% with mean portosystemic gradient decrease from 16.1 ± 4.8 to 5.1 ± 2.1 mmHg. No significant differences in technical success and portosystemic gradient decrease between the groups were observed. Kaplan-Meier analysis yielded significant differences in primary patency after 14 days, 6 months and 2 years in favour of the stentgraft. Both groups showed good clinical results without significant difference in 1-year survival and hepatic encephalopathy rate. Costs to establish TIPS and to manage 2-year follow-up with constant patency and clinical success were 8876 € (group 1) and 9394 € (group 2).
CONCLUSION: TIPS is a safe and effective procedure to manage portal hypertension. Stent and stentgraft enabled good technical and clinical results with a low complication rate. Primary patency rates are clearly in favour of the stentgraft, whereas the stent was more cost effective with similar clinical results in both groups.