Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt With or Without Gastroesophageal Variceal Embolization for the Prevention of Variceal Rebleeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Embolotherapy
Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt
Variceal bleeding
Variceal embolization
Journal
Gastroenterology research
ISSN: 1918-2805
Titre abrégé: Gastroenterology Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101519422
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2023
Apr 2023
Historique:
received:
27
03
2023
accepted:
14
04
2023
medline:
16
5
2023
pubmed:
16
5
2023
entrez:
15
5
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The role of variceal embolization (VE) during transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) creation for preventing gastroesophageal variceal rebleeding remains controversial. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to compare the incidence of variceal rebleeding, shunt dysfunction, encephalopathy, and death between patients treated with TIPS alone and those treated with TIPS in combination with VE. We performed a literature search using PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane databases for all studies comparing the incidence of complications between TIPS alone and TIPS with VE. The primary outcome was variceal rebleeding. Secondary outcomes include shunt dysfunction, encephalopathy, and death. Subgroup analysis was performed based on the type of stent (covered vs. bare metal). The random-effects model was used to calculate the relative risk (RR) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of outcome. A P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Eleven studies with a total of 1,075 patients were included (597: TIPS alone and 478: TIPS plus VE). Compared to the TIPS alone, the TIPS with VE had a significantly lower incidence of variceal rebleeding (RR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.43 - 0.81, P = 0.001). Subgroup analysis revealed similar results in covered stents (RR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.36 - 0.86, P = 0.008) but there was no significant difference between the two groups in the subgroup analysis of bare stents and combined stents. There was no significant difference in the risk of encephalopathy (RR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.66 - 1.06, P = 0.13), shunt dysfunction (RR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.64 - 1.19, P = 0.40), and death (RR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.65 - 1.17, P = 0.34). There were similarly no differences in these secondary outcomes between groups when stratified according to type of stent. Adding VE to TIPS reduced the incidence of variceal rebleeding in patients with cirrhosis. However, the benefit was observed with covered stents only. Further large-scale randomized controlled trials are warranted to validate our findings.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
The role of variceal embolization (VE) during transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) creation for preventing gastroesophageal variceal rebleeding remains controversial. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to compare the incidence of variceal rebleeding, shunt dysfunction, encephalopathy, and death between patients treated with TIPS alone and those treated with TIPS in combination with VE.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
We performed a literature search using PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane databases for all studies comparing the incidence of complications between TIPS alone and TIPS with VE. The primary outcome was variceal rebleeding. Secondary outcomes include shunt dysfunction, encephalopathy, and death. Subgroup analysis was performed based on the type of stent (covered vs. bare metal). The random-effects model was used to calculate the relative risk (RR) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of outcome. A P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results
UNASSIGNED
Eleven studies with a total of 1,075 patients were included (597: TIPS alone and 478: TIPS plus VE). Compared to the TIPS alone, the TIPS with VE had a significantly lower incidence of variceal rebleeding (RR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.43 - 0.81, P = 0.001). Subgroup analysis revealed similar results in covered stents (RR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.36 - 0.86, P = 0.008) but there was no significant difference between the two groups in the subgroup analysis of bare stents and combined stents. There was no significant difference in the risk of encephalopathy (RR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.66 - 1.06, P = 0.13), shunt dysfunction (RR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.64 - 1.19, P = 0.40), and death (RR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.65 - 1.17, P = 0.34). There were similarly no differences in these secondary outcomes between groups when stratified according to type of stent.
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
Adding VE to TIPS reduced the incidence of variceal rebleeding in patients with cirrhosis. However, the benefit was observed with covered stents only. Further large-scale randomized controlled trials are warranted to validate our findings.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37187555
doi: 10.14740/gr1618
pmc: PMC10181335
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
68-78Informations de copyright
Copyright 2023, Jaber et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
All other authors have no conflict of interest to disclose.
Références
Zhonghua Gan Zang Bing Za Zhi. 2011 Jul;19(7):494-7
pubmed: 22152238
Ann Intern Med. 2009 Aug 18;151(4):264-9, W64
pubmed: 19622511
Control Clin Trials. 1996 Feb;17(1):1-12
pubmed: 8721797
Hepatol Int. 2010 Aug 06;4(4):749-56
pubmed: 21286346
Eur Radiol. 2019 Feb;29(2):699-706
pubmed: 30039223
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2004 Nov;15(11):1219-30
pubmed: 15525740
Dig Liver Dis. 2018 Dec;50(12):1315-1323
pubmed: 29960900
Nat Clin Pract Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009 Feb;6(2):72-3
pubmed: 19092789
J Clin Gastroenterol. 2011 Aug;45(7):643-50
pubmed: 21301360
Hepatology. 1990 Mar;11(3):348-52
pubmed: 2312049
Dig Dis Sci. 2014 Sep;59(9):2325-32
pubmed: 24748182
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2016 Jul;27(7):1001-11
pubmed: 27106732
Gastroenterology. 1997 Mar;112(3):889-98
pubmed: 9041251
Dig Dis Sci. 2011 Nov;56(11):3350-6
pubmed: 21643741
Gastroenterology. 1981 May;80(5 pt 1):1031-6
pubmed: 7009311
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2012 Feb;23(2):227-35
pubmed: 22178037
Hepatology. 2003 Oct;38(4):1043-50
pubmed: 14512892
J Hepatol. 2017 Sep;67(3):508-516
pubmed: 28506905
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2004 Mar;15(3):239-48
pubmed: 15028808
Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006 Mar;18(3):225-32
pubmed: 16462534
Sci Rep. 2016 Feb 15;6:21011
pubmed: 26876503
N Engl J Med. 2010 Mar 4;362(9):823-32
pubmed: 20200386
Radiology. 2013 Sep;268(3):900-6
pubmed: 23657891
Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2009 Mar 15;47(6):446-9
pubmed: 19595233
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005 Aug;185(2):472-80
pubmed: 16037523
Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022 Aug;7(8):736-746
pubmed: 35588750
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022 Aug;20(8):1636-1662.e36
pubmed: 34274511
J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014 Apr;29(4):688-96
pubmed: 24117967
Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Aug;4(8):587-598
pubmed: 31153882
J Clin Gastroenterol. 2008 May-Jun;42(5):507-16
pubmed: 18344888
Radiology. 2005 Jul;236(1):360-7
pubmed: 15955858