Awad Abdelaziz A, Ramadan Alaa, Elettreby Abdelrahman M, Alnomani Yousef Radwan, Zabady Ahmed Hamdy, Abdelhafz Esraa, Elamin Yousef Ahmed, Ali Mahmoud, Roshdy Merna R, Abdelrahim Omar, Mohamed Moustafa S, Elmasry Mohamed, Al-Bawah Naji, Fakhry Mohamed
Faculty of Medicine, Ai-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt.
Faculty of Medicine, South Valley University, Qena, Egypt.
Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2025 Apr 2;87(5):2936-2947. doi: 10.1097/MS9.0000000000003215. eCollection 2025 May.
Variceal bleeding is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality among patients with cirrhosis. While both transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) and endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) are utilized for variceal rebleeding prevention, their comparative efficacy and safety remain debated.
A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to compare TIPS with EVL for variceal rebleeding prevention. A comprehensive search of electronic databases on PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science identified 16 studies meeting inclusion criteria. Data on outcomes including gastrointestinal bleeding, variceal rebleeding, hepatic encephalopathy, treatment failure, and mortality were extracted and analyzed.
TIPS was associated with significantly lower rates of gastrointestinal bleeding (RR = -0.69, 95% CI [-0.92, -0.47], < 0.001), variceal rebleeding (RR: -0.99, 95% CI [-1.2, -0.79], < 0.001), and bleeding from banding ulcers (RR: -1.51, 95% CI [-2.75, -0.27], = 0.02) compared to EVL. However, TIPS was linked to higher rates of hepatic encephalopathy (RR: 0.44, 95% CI [0.18, 0.71], < 0.001) and treatment failure (RR: -1.29, 95% CI [-2.01, -0.57], < 0.001). No significant differences were found in mortality, liver failure, hepatocellular carcinoma, or other clinical outcomes between the two interventions.
TIPS demonstrates superiority over EVL in reducing variceal rebleeding and gastrointestinal bleeding. However, it is associated with higher rates of hepatic encephalopathy and treatment failure. Individualized treatment decisions should consider patient characteristics and treatment goals to optimize outcomes in variceal bleeding management. Further research is warranted to refine treatment strategies and minimize adverse events associated with both interventions.
静脉曲张破裂出血是肝硬化患者发病和死亡的重要原因。虽然经颈静脉肝内门体分流术(TIPS)和内镜下静脉曲张结扎术(EVL)均用于预防静脉曲张再出血,但其相对疗效和安全性仍存在争议。
进行了一项系统评价和荟萃分析,以比较TIPS与EVL预防静脉曲张再出血的效果。通过对PubMed、Embase、Scopus和Web of Science等电子数据库进行全面检索,确定了16项符合纳入标准的研究。提取并分析了包括胃肠道出血、静脉曲张再出血、肝性脑病、治疗失败和死亡率等结局的数据。
与EVL相比,TIPS与胃肠道出血(RR = -0.69,95% CI [-0.92, -0.47],P < 0.001)、静脉曲张再出血(RR: -0.99,95% CI [-1.2, -0.79],P < 0.001)和套扎溃疡出血(RR: -1.51,95% CI [-2.75, -0.27],P = 0.02)的发生率显著降低相关。然而,TIPS与肝性脑病(RR: 0.44,95% CI [0.18, 0.71],P < 0.001)和治疗失败(RR: -1.29,95% CI [-2.01, -0.57],P < 0.001)的发生率较高相关。两种干预措施在死亡率、肝功能衰竭、肝细胞癌或其他临床结局方面未发现显著差异。
TIPS在减少静脉曲张再出血和胃肠道出血方面显示出优于EVL的优势。然而,它与肝性脑病和治疗失败的发生率较高相关。个体化的治疗决策应考虑患者特征和治疗目标,以优化静脉曲张出血管理的结局。有必要进一步研究以完善治疗策略并尽量减少与这两种干预措施相关的不良事件。