Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University in St. Louis, 510 S Kingshighway Blvd, CB 8131, Saint Louis, MO 63139, United States of America.
Weill Cornell Medicine, Department of Radiology, 525 East 68th Street, New York, NY 10065, United States of America.
Clin Imaging. 2019 Sep-Oct;57:40-44. doi: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2019.04.015. Epub 2019 May 11.
To compare procedure characteristics and outcomes when TIPS is performed under intracardiac echocardiography guidance (iTIPS) compared to conventional fluoroscopic guidance (cTIPS).
A retrospective propensity-matched study of 30 iTIPS and 30 cTIPS procedures from January 2014 to March 2017 at a single US high volume academic medical center was performed. iTIPS and cTIPS cases were propensity score matched using predictive variables: age, race, gender, etiology of liver disease, indication for TIPS, MELD score, and portal vein patency. Procedure characteristics and post- procedure outcomes were compared between propensity-matched groups including: total procedure time, technical success, radiation dose, contrast volume, complication rate, 30- day mortality, and revision rate within 3 months.
Radiation dose (875.3 vs 457.4 mGY, p = 0.039) and contrast volume (141 vs 103 mL, p = 0.005) were significantly decreased in the iTIPS versus the cTIPS group. There was no significant difference in procedure time (81.5 cTIPS vs 84 min iTIPS) or rate of TIPS revisions within 3 months. Average operator experience in the iTIPs group was 4.2 years and cTIPS group 11.0 years (p = 0.0004). All procedures were technically successful with no mortalities within 30 days.
iTIPS resulted in significantly reduced radiation dose and contrast volume. However, there was no difference in total procedure time or overall outcomes despite greater operator experience in the cTIPS group.
比较在心脏内超声引导下(iTIPS)与传统透视引导下(cTIPS)进行 TIPS 时的手术特点和结果。
对 2014 年 1 月至 2017 年 3 月在一家美国高容量学术医疗中心进行的 30 例 iTIPS 和 30 例 cTIPS 回顾性倾向评分匹配研究进行了分析。使用预测变量对 iTIPS 和 cTIPS 病例进行倾向评分匹配:年龄、种族、性别、肝病病因、TIPS 适应证、MELD 评分和门静脉通畅性。在倾向评分匹配组之间比较了手术特点和术后结果,包括:总手术时间、技术成功率、辐射剂量、造影剂体积、并发症发生率、30 天死亡率和 3 个月内的修订率。
与 cTIPS 组相比,iTIPS 组的辐射剂量(875.3 与 457.4 mGY,p=0.039)和造影剂体积(141 与 103 mL,p=0.005)显著降低。两组间手术时间(81.5 cTIPS 与 84 min iTIPS)或 3 个月内 TIPS 修订率均无显著差异。iTIPS 组的平均手术医生经验为 4.2 年,cTIPS 组为 11.0 年(p=0.0004)。所有手术均技术成功,30 天内无死亡。
iTIPS 可显著降低辐射剂量和造影剂体积。然而,尽管 cTIPS 组的手术医生经验更为丰富,但总手术时间或整体结果并无差异。