Liver Transplantation Center, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100005, China.
Clinical Center for Pediatric Liver Transplantation, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100005, China.
Chin Med J (Engl). 2019 May 5;132(9):1087-1099. doi: 10.1097/CM9.0000000000000212.
Portosystemic shunts, including surgical portosystemic shunts and transjugular intra-hepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), may have benefit over endoscopic therapy (ET) for treatment of variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhotic portal hypertension; however, whether there being a survival benefit among them remains unclear. This study was to compare the effect of three above-mentioned therapies on the short-term and long-term survival in patient with cirrhosis.
Using the terms "variceal hemorrhage or variceal bleeding or variceal re-bleeding" OR "esophageal and gastric varices" OR "portal hypertension" and "liver cirrhosis," the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase, and the references of identified trials were searched for human randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in any language with full texts or abstracts (last search June 2017). Risk ratio (RR) estimates with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using random effects model by Review Manager. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for the assessment of the risk of bias.
Twenty-six publications comprising 28 RCTs were included in this analysis. These studies included a total of 2845 patients: 496 (4 RCTs) underwent either surgical portosystemic shunts or TIPS, 1244 (9 RCTs) underwent either surgical portosystemic shunts or ET, and 1105 (15 RCTs) underwent either TIPS or ET. There was no significant difference in overall mortality and 30-day or 6-week survival among three interventions. Compared with TIPS and ET, separately, surgical portosystemic shunts were both associated with a lower bleeding-related mortality (RR = 0.07, 95% CI = 0.01-0.32; P < 0.001; RR = 0.17, 95% CI = 0.06-0.51, P < 0.005) and rate of variceal re-bleeding (RR = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.10-0.51, P < 0.001; RR = 0.10, 95% CI = 0.04-0.24, P < 0.001), without a significant difference in the rate of postoperative hepatic encephalopathy (RR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.25-1.00, P = 0.14; RR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.59-2.01, P = 0.78). TIPS showed a trend toward lower variceal re-bleeding (RR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.36-0.58, P < 0.001), but a higher incidence of hepatic encephalopathy than ET (RR = 1.78, 95% CI = 1.34-2.36, P < 0.001).
The overall analysis revealed that there seem to be no short-term and long-term survival advantage, but surgical portosystemic shunts are with the lowest bleeding-related mortality among the three therapies. Surgical portosystemic shunts may be the most effective without an increased risk of hepatic encephalopathy and TIPS is superior to ET but at the cost of a higher incidence of hepatic encephalopathy. However, some of findings should be interpreted with caution due to the lower level of evidence and the existence of significant heterogeneity.
门体分流术,包括手术门体分流术和经颈静脉肝内门体分流术(TIPS),可能比内镜治疗(ET)更有利于治疗肝硬化门静脉高压症患者的静脉曲张出血;然而,它们之间是否存在生存获益仍不清楚。本研究旨在比较上述三种治疗方法对肝硬化患者短期和长期生存的影响。
使用“静脉曲张出血或静脉曲张出血或静脉曲张再出血”或“食管和胃静脉曲张”或“门静脉高压”和“肝硬化”等术语,通过 Cochrane 对照试验中心注册库、PubMed、Embase 以及确定的试验参考文献搜索了人类随机对照试验(RCT),以任何语言发表的全文或摘要(最后一次搜索 2017 年 6 月)。使用 Review Manager 中的随机效应模型计算风险比(RR)估计值和 95%置信区间(CI)。使用 Cochrane 协作组评估偏倚风险的工具评估纳入研究的质量。
共纳入 26 篇文献,包括 28 项 RCT。这些研究共纳入 2845 名患者:496 名患者(4 项 RCT)接受手术门体分流术或 TIPS,1244 名患者(9 项 RCT)接受手术门体分流术或 ET,1105 名患者(15 项 RCT)接受 TIPS 或 ET。三种干预措施之间的总死亡率和 30 天或 6 周生存率没有显著差异。与 TIPS 和 ET 相比,手术门体分流术均与较低的出血相关死亡率(RR=0.07,95%CI=0.01-0.32;P<0.001;RR=0.17,95%CI=0.06-0.51,P<0.005)和静脉曲张再出血率(RR=0.23,95%CI=0.10-0.51,P<0.001;RR=0.10,95%CI=0.04-0.24,P<0.001)相关,但术后肝性脑病发生率无显著差异(RR=0.52,95%CI=0.25-1.00,P=0.14;RR=1.09,95%CI=0.59-2.01,P=0.78)。TIPS 显示出较低的静脉曲张再出血率的趋势(RR=0.46,95%CI=0.36-0.58,P<0.001),但肝性脑病发生率高于 ET(RR=1.78,95%CI=1.34-2.36,P<0.001)。
总体分析表明,三种治疗方法之间似乎没有短期和长期生存优势,但手术门体分流术的出血相关死亡率最低。手术门体分流术可能是最有效的,而不会增加肝性脑病的风险,TIPS 优于 ET,但代价是肝性脑病的发生率更高。然而,由于证据水平较低和存在显著异质性,一些发现应谨慎解释。