Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt versus surgical shunting in the management of portal hypertension

Surgical portosystemic shunts versus transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for variceal haemorrhage in people with cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Variceal haemorrhage that is refractory or recurs after pharmacologic and endoscopic therapy requires a portal decompression shunt (either surgical shunts or radiologic shunt, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS)). TIPS has become the shunt of choice; however, is it the preferred option? This review assesses evidence for the comparisons of surgical portosystemic shunts versus TIPS for variceal haemorrhage in people with cirrhotic portal hypertension.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of surgical portosystemic shunts versus transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) for treatment of refractory or recurrent variceal haemorrhage in people with cirrhotic portal hypertension.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science. We also searched on-line trial registries, reference lists of relevant articles, and proceedings of relevant associations for trials that met the inclusion criteria for this review (date of search 8 March 2018).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing surgical portosystemic shunts versus TIPS for the treatment of refractory or recurrent variceal haemorrhage in people with cirrhotic portal hypertension.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials and extracted data using methodological standards expected by Cochrane. We assessed risk of bias according to domains and risk of random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We found four randomised clinical trials including 496 adult participants diagnosed with variceal haemorrhage due to cirrhotic portal hypertension. The overall risk of bias in all the trials was judged at high risk. All the trials were conducted in the United States of America (USA). Two of the trials randomised participants to selective surgical shunts versus TIPS. The other two trials randomised participants to non-selective surgical shunts versus TIPS. The diagnosis of liver cirrhosis was by clinical and laboratory findings. We are uncertain whether there is a difference in all-cause mortality at 30 days between surgical portosystemic shunts compared with TIPS (risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 1.99; participants = 496; studies = 4). We are uncertain whether there is a difference in encephalopathy between surgical shunts compared with TIPS (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.16; participants = 496; studies = 4). We found evidence suggesting an increase in the occurrence of the following harms in the TIPS group compared with surgical shunts: all-cause mortality at five years (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.90; participants = 496; studies = 4); variceal rebleeding (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.49; participants = 496; studies = 4); reinterventions (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.28; participants = 496; studies = 4); and shunt occlusion (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.51; participants = 496; studies = 4). We could not perform an analysis of health-related quality of life but available evidence appear to suggest improved health-related quality of life in people who received surgical shunt compared with TIPS. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for all-cause mortality at 30 days and five years, irreversible shunt occlusion, and encephalopathy to very low because of high risk of bias (due to lack of blinding); inconsistency (due to heterogeneity); imprecision (due to small sample sizes of the individual trials and few events); and publication bias (few trials reporting outcomes). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for variceal rebleeding and reintervention to very low because of high risk of bias (due to lack of blinding); imprecision (due to small sample sizes of the individual trials and few events); and publication bias (few trials reporting outcomes). The small sample sizes and few events did not allow us to produce meaningful trial sequential monitoring boundaries, suggesting plausible random errors in our estimates.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found evidence suggesting that surgical portosystemic shunts may have benefit over TIPS for treatment of refractory or recurrent variceal haemorrhage in people with cirrhotic portal hypertension. Given the very low-certainty of the available evidence and risks of random errors in our analyses, we have very little confidence in our review findings.

Endoscopic treatments for esophageal gastric varices bleeding

Esophageal gastric varices bleeding (EVB) is a common complication of cirrhosis with high mortality. Endoscopic treatment has been widely used in clinical practice and is an important means to prevent and treat varices bleeding with remarkable curative effect, greatly improving the survival rate of patients. The esophagus is mainly supplied by the left gastric vein, most of which enters the varicose vein through the cardia from the anterior branch, and some of which is accompanied by the paraesophageal vein. The fundus of the stomach is supplied mostly by the left gastric vein and a small part by the short gastric system. This article reviews the current status on endoscopic treatments for EVB.

Hepatic encephalopathy in patients with non-cirrhotic portal hypertension: Description, prevalence and risk factors

BACKGROUND

Hepatic encephalopathy (HE) is a common complication of cirrhosis but it is less studied in patients with non-cirrhotic portal hypertension (NCPH).

AIMS

To describe the prevalence of cognitive impairment (overt and covert HE) in NCPH patients and to identify the risk factors for its development.

METHODS

51 patients with NCPH, 35 with chronic portal vein thrombosis (PVT) and 16 with idiopathic non-cirrhotic portal hypertension (INCPH), were evaluated for the presence of previous or present overt HE (OHE). The psychometric hepatic encephalopathy score and the SCAN battery were used to detect the presence of covert HE (CHE). 34 compensated cirrhotic patients were used as control. In NCPH patients, abdominal scans were performed to detect the presence of shunts.

RESULTS

None of the patients experienced OHE at evaluation while 5.7% of PVT and 12.5% of INCPH patients referred at least one documented episode of previous OHE, similarly to patients with cirrhosis (14.7%). Even if lower than in patients with cirrhosis (64.7%), a considerable proportion of patients with chronic PVT (34.3%) and INCPH (25%) had CHE (p=0.008). The presence of a large portal-systemic shunt was the only factor significantly correlated to cognitive impairment in NCPH patients.

CONCLUSION

HE is a tangible complication of NCPH and is mainly related to the presence of portal-systemic shunts.