Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1 -- 2318 2024-03-12 02:17:53 |
2 references update and layout Meta information modification 2318 2024-03-12 03:58:19 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Di Cola, S.; Lapenna, L.; Gazda, J.; Fonte, S.; Cusi, G.; Esposito, S.; Mattana, M.; Merli, M. Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt toward Liver Transplant. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/56136 (accessed on 16 April 2024).
Di Cola S, Lapenna L, Gazda J, Fonte S, Cusi G, Esposito S, et al. Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt toward Liver Transplant. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/56136. Accessed April 16, 2024.
Di Cola, Simone, Lucia Lapenna, Jakub Gazda, Stefano Fonte, Giulia Cusi, Samuele Esposito, Marco Mattana, Manuela Merli. "Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt toward Liver Transplant" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/56136 (accessed April 16, 2024).
Di Cola, S., Lapenna, L., Gazda, J., Fonte, S., Cusi, G., Esposito, S., Mattana, M., & Merli, M. (2024, March 12). Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt toward Liver Transplant. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/56136
Di Cola, Simone, et al. "Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt toward Liver Transplant." Encyclopedia. Web. 12 March, 2024.
Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt toward Liver Transplant
Edit

Liver transplantation is currently the only curative therapy for patients with liver cirrhosis. Not all patients in the natural course of the disease will undergo transplantation, but the majority of them will experience portal hypertension and its complications. In addition to medical and endoscopic therapy, a key role in managing these complications is played by the placement of a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS). Some indications for TIPS placement are well-established, and they are expanding and broadening over time. 

transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt liver transplantation

1. Introduction

Cirrhosis represents an advanced stage of chronic liver disease, characterized by an iz okunfavorable prognosis and associated with 2.4% of global deaths in 2019 [1] due to liver decompensation. Complications of liver cirrhosis arise from liver failure and the development of portal hypertension leading to a progressive worsening of the disease. The mortality rate ranges from less than 1% per year in patients with compensated cirrhosis to more than 20% per year after the first decompensation [2][3].
To treat complications of portal hypertension, chronic medical treatment is indicated, with diuretics and nonselective beta-blockers (NSBBs) [4][5] or endoscopic band ligation. However, during the natural history of cirrhosis, some patients may develop difficult-to-treat/refractory ascites or a high risk of recurrent gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, requiring a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) procedure [6]. Following TIPS placement, the pressure in the portal venous system drops, reducing the risk of variceal bleeding and improving ascites. Due to the treatment of portal hypertension (PH), a TIPS may even improve patient survival [7], but the progression of liver failure and its consequences frequently leave liver transplant as the only definitive treatment in these patients. For these reasons [8], during the clinical course of advanced liver disease, a TIPS may also be an opportunity to allow more patients to reach the time of liver transplant more safely.

2. Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt toward Liver Transplant

Liver transplantation represents the only curative treatment for patients with liver cirrhosis. Bridges to transplantation are used to manage patients who are listed for an organ transplant, acting to temporize whilst patients are on the waiting list. Various approaches can be chosen depending on the underlying medical condition and individual characteristics.
In patients awaiting liver transplant, TIPS placement can be an option to manage complications associated with portal hypertension, in order to reduce morbidity and mortality. Ascites, hydrothorax, and GI bleeding represent frequent and widely recognized indications for TIPS placement, based on the well-established literature data assessing complication management and mortality as outcomes [9][10]. However, a transplant perspective may anticipate the TIPS procedure to improve a patient’s clinical condition at the time of transplantation. Furthermore, in the case of portal vein thrombosis, the TIPS procedure could preserve the technical feasibility of the transplant itself.
As it is known, TIPS is sometimes needed to treat complications of portal hypertension in a bridge-to-transplant setting, even in patients at high risk of decompensation and mortality. A recent meta-analysis based on individual data showed that, compared with standard therapy, the use of TIPS reduces the incidence of further decompensation events, regardless of the indication, and so, it increases survival in highly selected patients with variceal bleeding and refractory ascites [7]. Patients on a liver transplant waiting list are mostly individuals with end-stage liver disease, who frequently have already experienced multiple episodes of liver decompensation. While waiting for a liver graft, they may experience further decompensation and die before being transplanted. As recently demonstrated in a further meta-analysis and a previous study on the clinical course of cirrhosis [11], most deaths occur when episodes of decompensation become recurrent.
According to a French study published in 2022 [12], the dropout rate due to death or disease worsening in a list of 15,584 patients waiting for liver transplantation, during a 10-year observation time, was approximately 22%. Overall, 46.6% of these patients were listed for HCC. Similar results were obtained from a study on portal vein thrombosis (PVT) [13], showing dropout rates even greater than 20%, considering that PVT may also compromise the technical feasibility of liver transplantation.
Indeed, PVT is a common event in cirrhosis, with a prevalence ranging from 2% to 26% in liver transplant candidates [14], and is associated with a 62% increase in the risk of mortality compared with cirrhotic patients without PVT [15]. PVT is also associated with increased mortality in the post-transplant period [16]. A large study conducted in a single center, involving over 3200 liver transplant candidates, found that those undergoing transplantation with an occlusive PVT had a sevenfold higher risk of mortality at 30 days compared with those without PVT [17]. One retrospective study using the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network (OPTN) database reported that the prevalence of PVT at candidate registration increased between 2002 and 2014 and that the presence of PVT was associated with an increased waitlist dropout [13].
TIPS placement can be difficult in the setting of PVT or cavernomatosis, even though recent studies suggest that the success rate of the procedure is improving due to new technical approaches [18][19]. In a recent randomized controlled study, the success rate of TIPS placement was very high and, in addition to excellent rebleeding control, TIPS also improved recanalization of the portal vein [20]. Anticoagulation (AC) represents the first-line therapeutic strategy for PTV. In a systematic review [21] and a recent prospective observational study [22], the efficacy of AC and TIPS placement in PVT were compared. Both strategies were found to be effective in achieving portal vein recanalization.
However, anticoagulation therapy takes some time to act and can be difficult to perform in patients with advanced liver disease and very low platelet count.
In a large systematic review, including 399 PVT patients (92% of whom had cirrhosis), the success rate of the TIPS procedure was approximately 95% (95% confidence interval, CI: 89–98%), even though patients were significantly heterogeneous, primarily due to a proportion of patients with cavernomatosis [23].
To face technical difficulties caused by a complete portal thrombosis or a portal cavernomatosis, alternative techniques have been described, such as the transhepatic and trans-splenic approaches, reaching almost 100% technical feasibility and allowing many patients previously excluded from transplantation to access it [18][19]. In the clinical practice, TIPS should be proposed when anticoagulant treatment is contraindicated or unsuccessful and the radiological approach is technically feasible, or in patients with transplant perspectives presenting with other complications of portal hypertension that would benefit from shunt placement. Indeed, portal vein recanalization and TIPS may improve a patient’s candidacy for liver transplantation [24].
Variceal bleeding represents one of the worst decompensations of liver cirrhosis, with a high rate of mortality. Endoscopic band ligation (EBL) and non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) represent the first step in the management of variceal bleeding, both in primary and secondary prophylaxis. However, there is an estimated 15–21% risk of treatment failure or rebleeding in these patients, causing a rate of mortality as high as 80% [25]. In this perspective, TIPS placement in high-risk variceal bleeding patients (pre-emptive TIPS) has been clearly demonstrated to be superior to the standard medical treatment in improving survival [26][27][28][29]. A recent individual patient meta-analysis showed that preemptive TIPS significantly increased the proportion of high-risk patients with cirrhosis and acute variceal bleeding who survived for 1 year, compared with drugs plus endoscopy (hazard ratio (HR) 0.443; 95% CI 0.323–0.607; p < 0.001) [30]. The placement of TIPS on time, reducing mortality and rapid deterioration of liver disease, allows more patients to access liver transplantation.
Refractory ascites is a common complication of advanced cirrhosis, involving 5–10% of patients [31]. Diuretics and repeated large volume paracentesis (LVP) are the first line strategy to manage ascites decompensation. However, as time passes, patients may experience a range of related complications, such as hypotension, acute kidney injury, hepatorenal syndrome, and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis.
TIPS placement is an effective therapy for refractory ascites and has been recently proposed also for recurrent ascites, even if results for survival benefits are controversial [32][33][34]. One meta-analysis analyzed aggregated individual patient data from four randomized controlled trials, revealing that TIPS led to a significant improvement in liver transplant-free (LTF) survival [35]. In another study, the proportions of liver disease-related deaths were 30% and 40% in the TIPS and paracentesis groups, respectively [36], and no significant difference was observed in the number of patients who underwent liver transplantation. Based on the presented data, it is apparent that two distinct patient cohorts (LVP versus TIPS) demonstrated comparable mortality rates but diverged significantly in terms of survival duration. The improved LTF observed in TIPS patients is primarily attributed to a reduction in portal hypertension-related mortality. Another contributing factor to enhanced LTF survival is the prolonged interval before liver transplantation, as demonstrated by two studies [37][38].
In a retrospective study, cirrhotic patients who underwent TIPS for refractory ascites were compared to similar patients who underwent serial paracentesis. After adjusting for patient characteristics, TIPS patients showed improved survival compared with those who underwent paracentesis, with significant differences in survival rates at 1, 2, and 3 years [39]. However, the patient eligible for TIPS should be carefully selected, taking into account the stage of liver disease, which serves as a warning for the high rate of decompensation and death after the procedure, although a retrospective study from 2019 showed that mortality in this kind of patient (MELD > 18) appears to be independent of the therapeutic strategy (LVP vs. TIPS) [40].
Malnutrition is a common feature of cirrhosis and significantly impacts the disease’s prognosis [41][42][43][44]. The rate of sarcopenia is directly related to the stage of liver disease [45]; for this reason, alterations in nutritional status can significantly impact the prognosis in patients waiting for liver transplantation [46]. Sarcopenia can sometimes represent a relative contraindication for surgery due to the higher rate of death or complication during and after liver transplantation [45][47].
A strong interrelation has been reported between TIPS placement and patient nutritional status. On the one hand, patients with advanced sarcopenia have a worse prognosis after TIPS in terms of hepatic decompensation, acute-on-chronic liver failure, and survival [48][49][50]. On the other hand, TIPS placement may improve nutritional status and sometimes can even reverse the condition of sarcopenia [51]. Montomoli et al., in a prospective observational study, investigated the effect of TIPS on malnutrition in portal hypertensive cirrhotic patients, and they observed that dry lean mass increased in low- or normal-weight patients after TIPS placement but did not in overweight patients [52]. It is still under debate whether TIPS placement could be anticipated in some patients with complications of portal hypertension and also to prevent advanced malnutrition and sarcopenia [51].
In this context, TIPS placement within a “therapeutic window” may lead to improved nutritional status for the patient and prevent advanced malnutrition from also becoming a risk factor for liver transplant surgery.
Lastly, it is important to note that cirrhosis is a chronic condition characterized by persistent and recurring complications, which significantly contribute to the overall burden of healthcare costs. In this context, TIPS, allowing a reduction in the rate of liver decompensation, a decrease in portal hypertension-related complications, and limiting frequent hospitalizations may lead to cost reduction, better management, and an improved economic impact [53]. This consideration could be particularly true if researchers consider patients with refractory/recurrent ascites who require frequent LVP, access to day hospitals or hospitalizations, and treatment for further decompensations. This savings would allow for a larger amount of resources to be available for diagnostic and therapeutic needs for patients awaiting liver transplantation.
The choice of the best timing for TIPS placement during the natural history of cirrhosis is at present an important topic with no definitive answers. However, even if researchers cannot provide, based on the current literature, a specific recommendation regarding the timing of TIPS placement, researchers suggest carefully considering and balancing indications and contraindications of the procedure at any new clinical event in order to manage portal hypertension complications and timely predict potentially unfavorable conditions for LT. In some patients, a multidisciplinary discussion and a team decision could be helpful to take care, accurately, of the complete patient’s individual context. Indeed, it is well-known that TIPS placement can also give rise to several adverse effects, including an acceleration of liver failure due to decreased blood supply [54][55], the exacerbation of cardiomyopathy [56][57], and the occurrence of HE [58][59], which stands out as the most prevalent clinical complication during the early period following TIPS placement. All these adverse events need to be taken carefully into account before the TIPS procedure. Nonetheless, recent evidence indicates that HE is preventable [60] and treatable in the majority of patients and does not impact a patient’s long-term prognosis [61].
Interestingly, a retrospective, single-center study purposely investigated the role of TIPS as a bridge therapy in liver transplant-eligible patients [62]. Of the 98 patients who were enrolled, 73 had TIPS placed before being listed, and 25 underwent the TIPS procedure while on the waiting list. Both groups were compared to a control group of 60 patients without TIPS. The timing of TIPS placement, before or after being listed, did not impact the survival rate before transplantation. The mortality rate of the patients on the waiting list was reported to have decreased after TIPS placement was introduced as an option, according to clinical indications compared with historical data reported in the same center. Some patients were even delisted due to clinical improvement after TIPS placement; in this latter group, the authors showed a similar 5-year overall survival rate compared with those who underwent liver transplantation.
In the past, TIPS was investigated as a potential technique to mitigate intraoperative blood loss during transplantation, thereby positively influencing short-term outcomes [63][64][65][66]. Moreno et al. conducted an extensive comparative longitudinal retrospective study of 875 patients aimed at assessing the short- and long-term outcomes of liver transplantation by comparing individuals with TIPS and those without. The study evaluated various endpoints, including the duration of surgery, cold ischemia time, warm ischemia time, blood product need, postoperative complications (both vascular and non-vascular), length of stay in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), total hospital stay, re-transplantation rates, and 1- and 3-year survival rates. Remarkably, no statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups in any of these parameters [67]. Similar conclusions were reported by Dell’Era et al., who found no significant differences between patients with prior TIPS placement and a control group with regard to transfusion requirements, operative time, overall length of hospital stay, ICU length of stay, and complication rates [68].

References

  1. Available online: https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/mortality-and-global-health-estimates/ghe-leading-causes-of-death (accessed on 1 December 2023).
  2. D’Amico, G.; Garcia-Tsao, G.; Pagliaro, L. Natural history and prognostic indicators of survival in cirrhosis: A systematic review of 118 studies. J. Hepatol. 2006, 44, 217–231.
  3. D’Amico, G.; Morabito, A.; D’Amico, M.; Pasta, L.; Malizia, G.; Rebora, P.; Valsecchi, M.G. Clinical states of cirrhosis and competing risks. J. Hepatol. 2018, 68, 563–576.
  4. Rudler, M.; Mallet, M.; Sultanik, P.; Bouzbib, C.; Thabut, D. Optimal management of ascites. Liver Int. 2020, 40 (Suppl. 1), 128–135, Erratum in Liver Int. 2020, 40, 1247.
  5. Jakab, S.S.; Garcia-Tsao, G. Evaluation and Management of Esophageal and Gastric Varices in Patients with Cirrhosis. Clin. Liver Dis. 2020, 24, 335–350.
  6. Smith, M.; Durham, J. Evolving Indications for Tips. Tech. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 2016, 19, 36–41.
  7. Larrue, H.; D’Amico, G.; Olivas, P.; Lv, Y.; Bucsics, T.; Rudler, M.; Sauerbruch, T.; Hernandez-Gea, V.; Han, G.; Reiberger, T.; et al. TIPS prevents further decompensation and improves survival in patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension in an individual patient data meta-analysis. J. Hepatol. 2023, 79, 692–703.
  8. Bodzin, A.S.; Baker, T.B. Liver Transplantation Today: Where We Are Now and Where We Are Going. Liver Transplant. 2018, 24, 1470–1475.
  9. De Franchis, R.; Bosch, J.; Garcia-Tsao, G.; Reiberger, T.; Ripoll, C.; Baveno VII Faculty. Baveno VII—Renewing consensus in portal hypertension. J. Hepatol. 2022, 76, 959–974.
  10. Tripathi, D.; Stanley, A.J.; Hayes, P.C.; Travis, S.; Armstrong, M.J.; Tsochatzis, E.A.; Rowe, I.A.; Roslund, N.; Ireland, H.; Lomax, M.; et al. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent-shunt in the management of portal hypertension. Gut 2020, 69, 1173–1192.
  11. Villanueva, C.; Torres, F.; Sarin, S.K.; Shah, H.A.; Tripathi, D.; Brujats, A.; Rodrigues, S.G.; Bhardwaj, A.; Azam, Z.; Hayes, P.C.; et al. Carvedilol reduces the risk of decompensation and mortality in patients with compensated cirrhosis in a competing-risk meta-analysis. J. Hepatol. 2022, 77, 1014–1025.
  12. Delacôte, C.; Favre, M.; El Amrani, M.; Ningarhari, M.; Lemaitre, E.; Ntandja-Wandji, L.C.; Bauvin, P.; Boleslawski, E.; Millet, G.; Truant, S.; et al. Morbid obesity increases death and dropout from the liver transplantation waiting list: A prospective cohort study. United Eur. Gastroenterol. J. 2022, 10, 396–408.
  13. Montenovo, M.; Rahnemai-Azar, A.; Reyes, J.; Perkins, J. Clinical Impact and Risk Factors of Portal Vein Thrombosis for Patients on Wait List for Liver Transplant. Exp. Clin. Transplant. 2018, 16, 166–171.
  14. Ponziani, F.R.; Zocco, M.A.; Senzolo, M.; Pompili, M.; Gasbarrini, A.; Avolio, A.W. Portal vein thrombosis and liver transplantation: Implications for waiting list period, surgical approach, early and late follow-up. Transplant. Rev. 2014, 28, 92–101.
  15. Stine, J.G.; Shah, P.M.; Cornella, S.L.; Rudnick, S.R.; Ghabril, M.S.; Stukenborg, G.J.; Northup, P.G. Portal vein thrombosis, mortality and hepatic decompensation in patients with cirrhosis: A meta-analysis. World J. Hepatol. 2015, 7, 2774–2780.
  16. Ghabril, M.; Agarwal, S.; Lacerda, M.; Chalasani, N.; Kwo, P.; Tector, A.J. Portal Vein Thrombosis Is a Risk Factor for Poor Early Outcomes after Liver Transplantation: Analysis of Risk Factors and Outcomes for Portal Vein Thrombosis in Waitlisted Patients. Transplantation 2016, 100, 126–133.
  17. Englesbe, M.J.; Kubus, J.; Muhammad, W.; Sonnenday, C.J.; Welling, T.; Punch, J.D.; Lynch, R.J.; Marrero, J.A.; Pelletier, S.J. Portal vein thrombosis and survival in patients with cirrhosis. Liver Transpl. 2010, 16, 83–90.
  18. Thornburg, B.; Desai, K.; Hickey, R.; Kulik, L.; Ganger, D.; Baker, T.; Abecassis, M.; Lewandowski, R.J.; Salem, R. Portal Vein Recanalization and Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt Creation for Chronic Portal Vein Thrombosis: Technical Considerations. Tech. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 2016, 19, 52–60.
  19. Salem, R.; Vouche, M.; Baker, T.; Herrero, J.I.; Caicedo, J.C.; Fryer, J.; Hickey, R.; Habib, A.; Abecassis, M.; Koller, F.; et al. Pretransplant Portal Vein Recanalization-Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt in Patients with Complete Obliterative Portal Vein Thrombosis. Transplantation 2015, 99, 2347–2355.
  20. Lv, Y.; Qi, X.; He, C.; Wang, Z.; Yin, Z.; Niu, J.; Guo, W.; Bai, W.; Zhang, H.; Xie, H.; et al. Covered TIPS versus endoscopic band ligation plus propranolol for the prevention of variceal rebleeding in cirrhotic patients with portal vein thrombosis: A randomised controlled trial. Gut 2018, 67, 2156–2168.
  21. Davis, J.P.E.; Ogurick, A.G.; Rothermel, C.E.; Sohn, M.W.; Intagliata, N.M.; Northup, P.G. Anticoagulation and Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunting for Treatment of Portal Vein Thrombosis in Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clin. Appl. Thromb./Hemost. 2019, 25, 1076029619888026.
  22. Lv, Y.; Bai, W.; Li, K.; Wang, Z.; Guo, W.; Luo, B.; Wang, J.; Wang, Q.; Wang, E.; Xia, D.; et al. Anticoagulation and Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt for the Management of Portal Vein Thrombosis in Cirrhosis: A Prospective Observational Study. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2022, 116, 1447–1464, Erratum in Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2022, 117, 200.
  23. Rodrigues, S.G.; Sixt, S.; Abraldes, J.G.; De Gottardi, A.; Klinger, C.; Bosch, J.; Baumgartner, I.; Berzigotti, A. Systematic review with meta-analysis: Portal vein recanalisation and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for portal vein thrombosis. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2019, 49, 20–30.
  24. Lee, E.W.; Eghtesad, B.; Garcia-Tsao, G.; Haskal, Z.J.; Hernandez-Gea, V.; Jalaeian, H.; Kalva, S.P.; Mohanty, A.; Thabut, D.; Abraldes, J.G. AASLD Practice Guidance on the use of TIPS, variceal embolization, and retrograde transvenous obliteration in the management of variceal hemorrhage. Hepatology 2024, 79, 224–250.
  25. Asrani, S.K.; Kamath, P.S. Natural history of cirrhosis. Curr. Gastroenterol. Rep. 2013, 15, 308.
  26. Monescillo, A.; Martínez-Lagares, F.; Ruiz-del-Arbol, L.; Sierra, A.; Guevara, C.; Jiménez, E.; Marrero, J.M.; Buceta, E.; Sánchez, J.; Castellot, A.; et al. Influence of portal hypertension and its early decompression by TIPS placement on the outcome of variceal bleeding. Hepatology 2004, 40, 793–801.
  27. García-Pagán, J.C.; Caca, K.; Bureau, C.; Laleman, W.; Appenrodt, B.; Luca, A.; Abraldes, J.G.; Nevens, F.; Vinel, J.P.; Mössner, J.; et al. Early use of TIPS in patients with cirrhosis and variceal bleeding. N. Engl. J. Med. 2010, 362, 2370–2379.
  28. Manning, C.; Elzubeir, A.; Alam, S. The role of pre-emptive Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt in acute variceal bleeding: A literature review. Ther. Adv. Chronic Dis. 2021, 12, 2040622321995771.
  29. Hussain, I.; Wong, Y.J.; Lohan, R.; Lin, S.; Kumar, R. Does preemptive transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt improve survival after acute variceal bleeding? Systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis of randomized trials. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2022, 37, 455–463.
  30. Nicoară-Farcău, O.; Han, G.; Rudler, M.; Angrisani, D.; Monescillo, A.; Torres, F.; Casanovas, G.; Bosch, J.; Lv, Y.; Thabut, D.; et al. Effects of Early Placement of Transjugular Portosystemic Shunts in Patients with High-Risk Acute Variceal Bleeding: A Meta-analysis of Individual Patient Data. Gastroenterology 2021, 160, 193–205.e10.
  31. Arroyo, V.; Colmenero, J. Ascites and hepatorenal syndrome in cirrhosis: Pathophysiological basis of therapy and current management. J. Hepatol. 2003, 38 (Suppl. 1), S69–S89.
  32. Ginès, P.; Uriz, J.; Calahorra, B.; Garcia-Tsao, G.; Kamath, P.S.; Del Arbol, L.R.; Planas, R.; Bosch, J.; Arroyo, V.; Rodés, J. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunting versus paracentesis plus albumin for refractory ascites in cirrhosis. Gastroenterology 2002, 123, 1839–1847.
  33. Narahara, Y.; Kanazawa, H.; Fukuda, T.; Matsushita, Y.; Harimoto, H.; Kidokoro, H.; Katakura, T.; Atsukawa, M.; Taki, Y.; Kimura, Y.; et al. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt versus paracentesis plus albumin in patients with refractory ascites who have good hepatic and renal function: A prospective randomized trial. J. Gastroenterol. 2011, 46, 78–85.
  34. D’Amico, G.; Luca, A.; Morabito, A.; Miraglia, R.; D’Amico, M. Uncovered transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for refractory ascites: A meta-analysis. Gastroenterology 2005, 129, 1282–1293.
  35. Salerno, F.; Cammà, C.; Enea, M.; Rössle, M.; Wong, F. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for refractory ascites: A meta-analysis of individual patient data. Gastroenterology 2007, 133, 825–834, Erratum in Gastroenterology 2007, 133, 1746.
  36. Bai, M.; Qi, X.S.; Yang, Z.P.; Yang, M.; Fan, D.M.; Han, G.H. TIPS improves liver transplantation-free survival in cirrhotic patients with refractory ascites: An updated meta-analysis. World J. Gastroenterol. 2014, 20, 2704–2714.
  37. Sanyal, A.J.; Genning, C.; Reddy, K.R.; Wong, F.; Kowdley, K.V.; Benner, K.; McCashland, T.; North American Study for the Treatment of Refractory Ascites Group. The North American Study for the Treatment of Refractory Ascites. Gastroenterology 2003, 124, 634–641.
  38. Salerno, F.; Cazzaniga, M.; Pagnozzi, G.; Cirello, I.; Nicolini, A.; Meregaglia, D.; Burdick, L. Humoral and cardiac effects of TIPS in cirrhotic patients with different “effective” blood volume. Hepatology 2003, 38, 1370–1377.
  39. Gaba, R.C.; Parvinian, A.; Casadaban, L.C.; Couture, P.M.; Zivin, S.P.; Lakhoo, J.; Minocha, J.; Ray, C.E., Jr.; Knuttinen, M.G.; Bui, J.T. Survival benefit of TIPS versus serial paracentesis in patients with refractory ascites: A single institution case-control propensity score analysis. Clin. Radiol. 2015, 70, e51–e57.
  40. Ronald, J.; Rao, R.; Choi, S.S.; Kappus, M.; Martin, J.G.; Sag, A.A.; Pabon-Ramos, W.M.; Suhocki, P.V.; Smith, T.P.; Kim, C.Y. No Increased Mortality After TIPS Compared with Serial Large Volume Paracenteses in Patients with Higher Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Score and Refractory Ascites. Cardiovasc. Interv. Radiol. 2019, 42, 720–728.
  41. Bischoff, S.C.; Bernal, W.; Dasarathy, S.; Merli, M.; Plank, L.D.; Schütz, T.; Plauth, M. ESPEN practical guideline: Clinical nutrition in liver disease. Clin. Nutr. 2020, 39, 3533–3562.
  42. European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines on nutrition in chronic liver disease. J. Hepatol. 2019, 70, 172–193.
  43. Amodio, P.; Bemeur, C.; Butterworth, R.; Cordoba, J.; Kato, A.; Montagnese, S.; Uribe, M.; Vilstrup, H.; Morgan, M.Y. The nutritional management of hepatic encephalopathy in patients with cirrhosis: International Society for Hepatic Encephalopathy and Nitrogen Metabolism Consensus. Hepatology 2013, 58, 325–336.
  44. Merli, M.; Giusto, M.; Molfino, A.; Bonetto, A.; Rossi, M.; Ginanni Corradini, S.; Baccino, F.M.; Rossi Fanelli, F.; Costelli, P.; Muscaritoli, M. MuRF-1 and p-GSK3β expression in muscle atrophy of cirrhosis. Liver Int. 2013, 33, 714–721.
  45. Kim, G.; Kang, S.H.; Kim, M.Y.; Baik, S.K. Prognostic value of sarcopenia in patients with liver cirrhosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0186990.
  46. Lattanzi, B.; Nardelli, S.; Pigliacelli, A.; Di Cola, S.; Farcomeni, A.; D’Ambrosio, D.; Gioia, S.; Ginanni Corradini, S.; Lucidi, C.; Mennini, G.; et al. The additive value of sarcopenia, myosteatosis and hepatic encephalopathy in the predictivity of model for end-stage liver disease. Dig. Liver Dis. 2019, 51, 1508–1512.
  47. Merli, M.; Giusto, M.; Giannelli, V.; Lucidi, C.; Riggio, O. Nutritional status and liver transplantation. J. Clin. Exp. Hepatol. 2011, 1, 190–198.
  48. Mangana Del Rio, T.; Sacleux, S.C.; Vionnet, J.; Ichaï, P.; Denys, A.; Schneider, A.; Coilly, A.; Fraga, M.; Wetzel, A.; Koerfer, J.; et al. Body composition and short-term mortality in patients critically ill with acute-on-chronic liver failure. JHEP Rep. 2023, 5, 100758.
  49. Nardelli, S.; Lattanzi, B.; Torrisi, S.; Greco, F.; Farcomeni, A.; Gioia, S.; Merli, M.; Riggio, O. Sarcopenia Is Risk Factor for Development of Hepatic Encephalopathy After Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt Placement. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2017, 15, 934–936.
  50. Praktiknjo, M.; Clees, C.; Pigliacelli, A.; Fischer, S.; Jansen, C.; Lehmann, J.; Pohlmann, A.; Lattanzi, B.; Krabbe, V.K.; Strassburg, C.P.; et al. Sarcopenia Is Associated with Development of Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure in Decompensated Liver Cirrhosis Receiving Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt. Clin. Transl. Gastroenterol. 2019, 10, e00025.
  51. Gazda, J.; Di Cola, S.; Lapenna, L.; Khan, S.; Merli, M. The Impact of Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt on Nutrition in Liver Cirrhosis Patients: A Systematic Review. Nutrients 2023, 15, 1617.
  52. Montomoli, J.; Holland-Fischer, P.; Bianchi, G.; Grønbaek, H.; Vilstrup, H.; Marchesini, G.; Zoli, M. Body composition changes after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in patients with cirrhosis. World J. Gastroenterol. 2010, 16, 348–353.
  53. Bañares, R.; Albillos, A.; Nakum, M.; Gea, S.; Varghese, A.; Green, W. An Economic Analysis of Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Covered Stent Shunt for Variceal Bleeding and Refractory Ascites in a Spanish Setting. Adv. Ther. 2023, 40, 3006–3020.
  54. Casadaban, L.C.; Parvinian, A.; Couture, P.M.; Minocha, J.; Knuttinen, M.G.; Bui, J.T.; Gaba, R.C. Characterization of liver function parameter alterations after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt creation and association with early mortality. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 2014, 203, 1363–1370.
  55. Vizzutti, F.; Arena, U.; Rega, L.; Zipoli, M.; Abraldes, J.G.; Romanelli, R.G.; Tarquini, R.; Laffi, G.; Pinzani, M. Liver failure complicating segmental hepatic ischaemia induced by a PTFE-coated TIPS stent. Gut 2009, 58, 582–584.
  56. Cazzaniga, M.; Salerno, F.; Pagnozzi, G.; Dionigi, E.; Visentin, S.; Cirello, I.; Meregaglia, D.; Nicolini, A. Diastolic dysfunction is associated with poor survival in patients with cirrhosis with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt. Gut 2007, 56, 869–875.
  57. Billey, C.; Billet, S.; Robic, M.A.; Cognet, T.; Guillaume, M.; Vinel, J.P.; Péron, J.M.; Lairez, o.; Bureau, C. A prospective study identifying predictive factors of cardiac decompensation after TIPS: The Toulouse algorithm. Hepatology 2019, 70, 1928–1941.
  58. Riggio, O.; Angeloni, S.; Salvatori, F.M.; De Santis, A.; Cerini, F.; Farcomeni, A.; Attili, A.F.; Merli, M. Incidence, natural history, and risk factors of hepatic encephalopathy after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt with polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stent grafts. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2008, 103, 2738–2746.
  59. Riggio, O.; Nardelli, S.; Moscucci, F.; Pasquale, C.; Ridola, L.; Merli, M. Hepatic encephalopathy after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt. Clin. Liver Dis. 2012, 16, 133–146.
  60. Bureau, C.; Thabut, D.; Jezequel, C.; Archambeaud, I.; D’Alteroche, L.; Dharancy, S.; Borentain, P.; Oberti, F.; Plessier, A.; De Ledinghen, V.; et al. The Use of Rifaximin in the Prevention of Overt Hepatic Encephalopathy After Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Ann. Intern. Med. 2021, 174, 633–640.
  61. Nardelli, S. Hepatic encephalopathy after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt does not increase mortality in patients with cirrhosis. In Proceedings of the EASL Congress 2023, Vienna, Austria, 21–24 June 2023.
  62. Unger, L.W.; Stork, T.; Bucsics, T.; Rasoul-Rockenschaub, S.; Staufer, K.; Trauner, M.; Maschke, S.; Pawloff, M.; Soliman, T.; Reiberger, T.; et al. The role of TIPS in the management of liver transplant candidates. United Eur. Gastroenterol. J. 2017, 5, 1100–1107.
  63. Freeman, R.B., Jr.; FitzMaurice, S.E.; Greenfield, A.E.; Halin, N.; Haug, C.E.; Rohrer, R.J. Is the transjugular intrahepatic portocaval shunt procedure beneficial for liver transplant recipients? Transplantation 1994, 58, 297–300, Erratum in Transplantation 1994, 58, 1144.
  64. Menegaux, F.; Baker, E.; Keeffe, E.B.; Monge, H.; Egawa, H.; Esquivel, C.O. Impact of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt on orthotopic liver transplantation. World J. Surg. 1994, 18, 866–870, discussion 870–871.
  65. Martin, M.; Zajko, A.B.; Orons, P.D.; Dodd, G.; Wright, H.; Colangelo, J.; Tartar, R. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in the management of variceal bleeding: Indications and clinical results. Surgery 1993, 114, 719–726, discussion 726–727.
  66. Woodle, E.S.; Darcy, M.; White, H.M.; Perdrizet, G.A.; Vesely, T.M.; Picus, D.; Hicks, M.; So, S.K.; Jendrisak, M.D.; McCullough, C.S.; et al. Intrahepatic portosystemic vascular stents: A bridge to hepatic transplantation. Surgery 1993, 113, 344–351.
  67. Moreno, A.; Meneu, J.C.; Moreno, E.; Fraile, M.; García, I.; Loinaz, C.; Abradelo, M.; Jiménez, C.; Gomez, R.; García-Sesma, A.; et al. Liver transplantation and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt. Transplant. Proc. 2003, 35, 1869–1870.
  68. Dell’Era, A.; Grande, L.; Barros-Schelotto, P.; Turnes, J.; Fuster, J.; Charco, R.; García-Valdecasas, J.C.; Bosch, J.; García-Pagán, J.C. Impact of prior portosystemic shunt procedures on outcome of liver transplantation. Surgery 2005, 137, 620–625.
More
Information
Subjects: Pathology
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register : , , , , , , ,
View Times: 47
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 12 Mar 2024
1000/1000