Akabane Miho, Imaoka Yuki, Nakayama Toshihiro, Esquivel Carlos O, Sasaki Kazunari
Division of Abdominal Transplant, Department of Surgery, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, California, USA.
Liver Transpl. 2025 Feb 1;31(2):151-160. doi: 10.1097/LVT.0000000000000469. Epub 2024 Aug 26.
The impact of TIPS on waitlist mortality and liver transplantation (LT) urgency in patients with Budd-Chiari syndrome (BCS) remains unclear. We analyzed patients with BCS listed for LT in the UNOS database (2002-2024) to assess TIPS's impact on waitlist mortality and LT access through competing-risk analysis. We compared trends across 2 phases: phase 1 (2002-2011) and phase 2 (2012-2024). Of 815 patients with BCS, 263 (32.3%) received TIPS at listing. TIPS group had lower MELD-Na scores (20 vs. 22, p < 0.01), milder ascites ( p = 0.01), and fewer Status 1 patients (those at risk of imminent death while awaiting LT) (2.7% vs. 8.3%, p < 0.01) at listing compared to those without TIPS. TIPS patients had lower LT rates (43.3% vs. 56.5%, p < 0.01) and longer waitlist times (350 vs. 113 d, p < 0.01). TIPS use increased in phase 2 (64.3% vs. 35.7%, p < 0.01). Of 426 patients who underwent transplantation, 134 (31.5%) received TIPS, showing lower MELD-Na scores (24 vs. 27, p < 0.01) and better medical conditions (intensive care unit: 14.9% vs. 21.9%, p < 0.01) at LT. Status 1 patients were fewer (3.7% vs. 12.3%, p < 0.01), with longer waiting days (97 vs. 26 d, p < 0.01) in the TIPS group. TIPS use at listing increased from phase 1 (25.6%) to phase 2 (37.7%). From phase 1 to phase 2, ascites severity improved, re-LT cases decreased (phase 1: 9.8% vs. phase 2: 2.2%, p < 0.01), and cold ischemic time slightly decreased (phase 1: 7.0 vs. phase 2: 6.4 h, p = 0.14). Median donor body mass index significantly increased. No significant differences were identified in patient/graft survival at 1-/5-/10-year intervals between phases or TIPS/non-TIPS patients. While 90-day waitlist mortality showed no significant difference ( p = 0.11), TIPS trended toward lower mortality (subhazard ratio [sHR]: 0.70 [0.45-1.08]). Multivariable analysis indicated that TIPS was a significant factor in decreasing mortality (sHR: 0.45 [0.27-0.77], p < 0.01). TIPS group also showed significantly lower LT access (sHR: 0.65 [0.53-0.81], p < 0.01). Multivariable analysis showed that TIPS was a significant factor in decreasing access to LT (sHR: 0.60 [0.46-0.77], p < 0.01). Subgroup analysis excluding Status 1 or HCC showed similar trends. TIPS in patients with BCS listed for LT reduces waitlist mortality and LT access, supporting its bridging role.
经颈静脉肝内门体分流术(TIPS)对布加综合征(BCS)患者等待名单上的死亡率和肝移植(LT)紧迫性的影响尚不清楚。我们分析了器官共享联合网络(UNOS)数据库(2002 - 2024年)中登记等待LT的BCS患者,通过竞争风险分析评估TIPS对等待名单上的死亡率和LT可及性的影响。我们比较了两个阶段的趋势:第1阶段(2002 - 2011年)和第2阶段(2012 - 2024年)。在815例BCS患者中,263例(32.3%)在登记时接受了TIPS。与未接受TIPS的患者相比,TIPS组在登记时的终末期肝病模型钠(MELD - Na)评分较低(20对22,p < 0.01),腹水较轻(p = 0.01),1类患者(等待LT时有即将死亡风险的患者)较少(2.7%对8.3%,p < 0.01)。TIPS患者的LT率较低(43.3%对56.5%,p < 0.01),等待名单时间较长(350对113天,p < 0.01)。TIPS的使用在第2阶段有所增加(64.3%对35.7%,p < 0.01)。在426例接受移植的患者中,134例(31.5%)接受了TIPS,这些患者在LT时的MELD - Na评分较低(24对27,p < 0.01),医疗状况较好(重症监护病房:14.9%对21.9%,p < 0.01)。TIPS组的1类患者较少(3.7%对12.3%,p < 0.01),等待天数较长(97对26天,p < 0.01)。登记时TIPS的使用从第1阶段(25.6%)增加到第2阶段(37.7%)。从第1阶段到第2阶段,腹水严重程度改善,再次LT病例减少(第1阶段:9.8%对第2阶段:2.2%,p < 0.01),冷缺血时间略有下降(第1阶段:7.0对第2阶段:6.4小时,p = 0.14)。供体体重指数中位数显著增加。在各阶段之间或TIPS/非TIPS患者之间,1年/5年/10年的患者/移植物生存率未发现显著差异。虽然90天等待名单死亡率无显著差异(p = 0.11),但TIPS有降低死亡率的趋势(亚风险比[sHR]:0.70[0.45 - 1.08])。多变量分析表明,TIPS是降低死亡率的一个重要因素(sHR:0.45[0.27 - 0.77],p < 0.01)。TIPS组的LT可及性也显著较低(sHR:0.65[0.53 - 0.81],p < 0.01)。多变量分析显示,TIPS是降低LT可及性的一个重要因素(sHR:0.60[0.46 - 0.77],p < 0.01)。排除1类患者或肝细胞癌的亚组分析显示了类似的趋势。登记等待LT的BCS患者使用TIPS可降低等待名单死亡率和LT可及性,支持其桥接作用。