Surgical portosystemic shunts versus transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for variceal haemorrhage in people with cirrhosis
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 opt...
Saved in:
Published in | Cochrane database of systematic reviews Vol. 10; p. CD001023 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
England
31.10.2018
|
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get more information |
Cover
Loading…
Abstract | 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.
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.
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).
Randomised clinical trials comparing surgical portosystemic shunts versus TIPS for the treatment of refractory or recurrent variceal haemorrhage in people with cirrhotic portal hypertension.
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.
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.
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. |
---|---|
AbstractList | 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.
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.
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).
Randomised clinical trials comparing surgical portosystemic shunts versus TIPS for the treatment of refractory or recurrent variceal haemorrhage in people with cirrhotic portal hypertension.
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.
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.
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. |
Author | Prodehl, Leanne Ede, Chikwendu J Brand, Martin |
Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Martin surname: Brand fullname: Brand, Martin organization: Department of Surgery, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa, 0001 – sequence: 2 givenname: Leanne surname: Prodehl fullname: Prodehl, Leanne – sequence: 3 givenname: Chikwendu J surname: Ede fullname: Ede, Chikwendu J |
BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30378107$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
BookMark | eNptUMlKAzEYDqLYRV-h5AWmJpNlMkepKxQ8qOCtZJI_nZTZSGYqvfvgBtSbp49vPXwLdN71HSC0omRNCclvKJeCKqHWmztCKMnZepgqdobmySgzXrKPGVrEeCCElZSqSzRjhBWKkmKOvl6nsPdGN3jow9jHUxyh9QbHeurGiI8Q4hTxGHQXD9N-anTAvku0hkGPKfdPC7s-4KMO3kCarTW0fQi13kNq4gH6oQH86ccaG5_0Pvp4hS6cbiJc_-ISvT_cv22esu3L4_PmdpsZXjCWWaUqa6zjTlpeSeJElRtQsqDC2BKYUdS5SmpbFoxbU_GCgMwtcGEFE1TmS7T62U3_tGB3Q_CtDqfd3x35NzkMaa0 |
CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1002_14651858_CD013471 crossref_primary_10_1002_cca_2389 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11605_020_04643_1 crossref_primary_10_1055_a_1205_5942 crossref_primary_10_1155_2022_1382556 crossref_primary_10_53065_n7833_1589_6253_t crossref_primary_10_1002_14651858_CD013122_pub2 crossref_primary_10_16931_1995_5464_2021_3_34_45 crossref_primary_10_31146_1682_8658_ecg_214_6_72_78 crossref_primary_10_16931_1995_5464_2022_2_20_30 |
ContentType | Journal Article |
DBID | CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM |
DOI | 10.1002/14651858.CD001023.pub3 |
DatabaseName | Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed |
DatabaseTitle | MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) |
DatabaseTitleList | MEDLINE |
Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 2 dbid: EIF name: MEDLINE url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=https://www.webofscience.com/wos/medline/basic-search sourceTypes: Index Database |
DeliveryMethod | no_fulltext_linktorsrc |
Discipline | Medicine |
EISSN | 1469-493X |
ExternalDocumentID | 30378107 |
Genre | Meta-Analysis Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Systematic Review Journal Article |
GroupedDBID | --- 53G 5GY 7PX 9HA ABJNI ACGFO ACGFS AENEX ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS ALUQN AYR CGR CUY CVF D7G ECM EIF HYE NPM OEC OK1 P2P RWY WOW ZYTZH |
ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c4733-d88bdcdf4f6d4b60f5b2ce86715cd9e3c81ffb6ad9734dcb470e62de45d535162 |
IngestDate | Sat Sep 28 08:34:44 EDT 2024 |
IsDoiOpenAccess | false |
IsOpenAccess | true |
IsPeerReviewed | true |
IsScholarly | true |
Language | English |
LinkModel | OpenURL |
MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c4733-d88bdcdf4f6d4b60f5b2ce86715cd9e3c81ffb6ad9734dcb470e62de45d535162 |
OpenAccessLink | https://europepmc.org/articles/pmc6516991?pdf=render |
PMID | 30378107 |
ParticipantIDs | pubmed_primary_30378107 |
PublicationCentury | 2000 |
PublicationDate | 2018-10-31 |
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2018-10-31 |
PublicationDate_xml | – month: 10 year: 2018 text: 2018-10-31 day: 31 |
PublicationDecade | 2010 |
PublicationPlace | England |
PublicationPlace_xml | – name: England |
PublicationTitle | Cochrane database of systematic reviews |
PublicationTitleAlternate | Cochrane Database Syst Rev |
PublicationYear | 2018 |
SSID | ssj0039118 |
Score | 2.3759575 |
SecondaryResourceType | review_article |
Snippet | Variceal haemorrhage that is refractory or recurs after pharmacologic and endoscopic therapy requires a portal decompression shunt (either surgical shunts or... |
SourceID | pubmed |
SourceType | Index Database |
StartPage | CD001023 |
SubjectTerms | Cause of Death Esophageal and Gastric Varices - complications Esophageal and Gastric Varices - mortality Esophageal and Gastric Varices - surgery Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage - etiology Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage - mortality Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage - surgery Hepatic Encephalopathy - epidemiology Humans Liver Cirrhosis - complications Liver Cirrhosis - mortality Portasystemic Shunt, Surgical - adverse effects Portasystemic Shunt, Surgical - mortality Portasystemic Shunt, Transjugular Intrahepatic - adverse effects Portasystemic Shunt, Transjugular Intrahepatic - mortality Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic Recurrence Reoperation - statistics & numerical data Time Factors |
Title | Surgical portosystemic shunts versus transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for variceal haemorrhage in people with cirrhosis |
URI | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30378107 |
Volume | 10 |
hasFullText | |
inHoldings | 1 |
isFullTextHit | |
isPrint | |
link | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV1Nb9QwELW2IFW9oPINLcgHblVKEjuOc4RtUYWgF1qptyr-Igsiu9o0rcSZP8I_ZcZOdtNVQMAliux1ssq8zIyd5zeEvDI6K5zUPCol5xE3Jo6kSoqoLEQZ6xyCgvNqn6fi5Jy_v8guJpOfA9ZSe6UO9ffRfSX_Y1VoA7viLtl_sOzqotAA52BfOIKF4fhXNv7ULoPjwiR6HkSZZ_qgqVoktyDhom2wCETdfGk_B74pruVWduF1WkdGedbhdYlKQ7hJskQe7rJCXs-Kbd6x1WfQPm9mzTC7nc51BXezB8g7xfiIqeimVvQ6i3-77FiVQctg5aXBp9vKL01_sGW9_u5_HCSCp9Xs642tTdt90urWLBI5cPY2-FmYlUe88KWA1444HnjS6ZGXu2Ojbj7IxiZYx11m8rD_LUL41gAw1-KbNz5E6lx2BXb_3Lshv913bZGtXKILPcXloBDqGUQK2W87j9PX439oh2z3F9mYu_gc5myX3OsmH_RNQNJ9MrH1A7L9saNXPCQ_ekDRW9CgAVA0AIoOAUWHgBobRQFQtAcUHQAKRtIAKIqAoitAPSLn747PpidRV6Yj0jxnLDJSKqON404YrkTsMpVqi7qJmTaFZVomzilRmiJn3GjF89iK1FiemYxliUgfkzv1vLZPCU2EjC0TJkGdyNQUUkhnlVFOMci8XfqMPAnP73IRtFgu-yf7_Lc9e2RnDcF9ctfBy29fQCZ5pV56a_4C5Yp8wQ |
link.rule.ids | 786 |
linkProvider | National Library of Medicine |
openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Surgical+portosystemic+shunts+versus+transjugular+intrahepatic+portosystemic+shunt+for+variceal+haemorrhage+in+people+with+cirrhosis&rft.jtitle=Cochrane+database+of+systematic+reviews&rft.au=Brand%2C+Martin&rft.au=Prodehl%2C+Leanne&rft.au=Ede%2C+Chikwendu+J&rft.date=2018-10-31&rft.eissn=1469-493X&rft.volume=10&rft.spage=CD001023&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002%2F14651858.CD001023.pub3&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F30378107&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F30378107&rft.externalDocID=30378107 |