Suppr超能文献

人造 H 型架腔静脉分流术与经颈静脉肝内门体分流术:一项随机试验的 18 年随访。

Prosthetic H-graft portacaval shunts vs transjugular intrahepatic portasystemic stent shunts: 18-year follow-up of a randomized trial.

机构信息

Tampa General Medical Group, Tampa General Hospital, Tampa, FL 33606, USA.

出版信息

J Am Coll Surg. 2012 Apr;214(4):445-53; discussion 453-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2011.12.042.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Widespread application of transjugular intrahepatic portasystemic shunt (TIPS) continues despite the lack of trials documenting efficacy superior to surgical shunting. Here we present an 18-year follow-up of a prospective randomized trial comparing TIPS with small-diameter prosthetic H-graft portacaval shunt (HGPCS) for portal decompression.

STUDY DESIGN

Beginning in 1993, patients were prospectively randomized to undergo either TIPS or HGPCS as definitive therapy for portal hypertension due to cirrhosis. Complications of shunting and long-term outcomes were noted. Failure of shunting was prospectively defined as the inability to place shunt, irreversible shunt occlusion, major variceal rehemorrhage, unanticipated liver transplantation, or death. Survival and shunt failure were compared using Kaplan-Meier curve analysis. Median data are reported.

RESULTS

Patient presentation, circumstances of shunting, causes of cirrhosis, severity of hepatic dysfunction (eg, Child's class, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score), and predicted survival after shunting did not differ between patients undergoing TIPS (n = 66) or HGPCS (n = 66). Survival was significantly longer after HGPCS for patients of Child's class A (91 vs 19 months; p = 0.009) or class B (63 vs 21 months; p = 0.02). Shunt failure occurred later after HGPCS than TIPS (45 vs 22 months; p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with TIPS, survival after HGPCS was superior for patients with better liver function (eg, Child's class A or B). Shunt failure after HGPCS occurred later than after TIPS. Rather than TIPS, application of HGPCS is preferred for patients with complicated cirrhosis and better hepatic function.

摘要

背景

尽管缺乏证明经颈静脉肝内门体分流术(TIPS)优于手术分流术疗效的试验,但 TIPS 的广泛应用仍在继续。在此,我们报告了一项前瞻性随机试验的 18 年随访结果,该试验比较了 TIPS 与小直径人造 H 型移植物门腔分流术(HGPCS)治疗肝硬化门脉高压的效果。

研究设计

从 1993 年开始,患者前瞻性随机分为 TIPS 组或 HGPCS 组,作为肝硬化引起的门脉高压的确定性治疗方法。记录分流术的并发症和长期结果。前瞻性定义分流术失败为无法放置分流管、不可逆转的分流管闭塞、主要静脉曲张再出血、意外肝移植或死亡。使用 Kaplan-Meier 曲线分析比较生存和分流失败。报告中位数数据。

结果

TIPS 组(n = 66)和 HGPCS 组(n = 66)患者的临床表现、分流情况、肝硬化病因、肝功能严重程度(如 Child 分级、终末期肝病模型评分)和分流后预期生存率无差异。Child 分级为 A 级或 B 级的患者,HGPCS 的生存时间明显长于 TIPS(91 个月比 19 个月;p = 0.009)或 63 个月比 21 个月(p = 0.02)。HGPCS 后分流失败的时间晚于 TIPS(45 个月比 22 个月;p = 0.04)。

结论

与 TIPS 相比,肝功能较好的患者(如 Child 分级为 A 级或 B 级)接受 HGPCS 治疗后的生存率更高。HGPCS 后分流失败的时间晚于 TIPS。对于肝功能较差且合并肝硬化的患者,应优先选择 HGPCS 而不是 TIPS。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验