Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Surgical portosystemic shunts versus transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for variceal haemorrhage in people with cirrhosis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 10 31; 10:CD001023.CD

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Variceal haemorrhage that is refractory or recurs after pharmacologic and endoscopic therapy requires a portal decompression shunt (either surgical shunts or radiologic shunt, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS)). TIPS has become the shunt of choice; however, is it the preferred option? This review assesses evidence for the comparisons of surgical portosystemic shunts versus TIPS for variceal haemorrhage in people with cirrhotic portal hypertension.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of surgical portosystemic shunts versus transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) for treatment of refractory or recurrent variceal haemorrhage in people with cirrhotic portal hypertension.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science. We also searched on-line trial registries, reference lists of relevant articles, and proceedings of relevant associations for trials that met the inclusion criteria for this review (date of search 8 March 2018).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing surgical portosystemic shunts versus TIPS for the treatment of refractory or recurrent variceal haemorrhage in people with cirrhotic portal hypertension.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials and extracted data using methodological standards expected by Cochrane. We assessed risk of bias according to domains and risk of random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We found four randomised clinical trials including 496 adult participants diagnosed with variceal haemorrhage due to cirrhotic portal hypertension. The overall risk of bias in all the trials was judged at high risk. All the trials were conducted in the United States of America (USA). Two of the trials randomised participants to selective surgical shunts versus TIPS. The other two trials randomised participants to non-selective surgical shunts versus TIPS. The diagnosis of liver cirrhosis was by clinical and laboratory findings. We are uncertain whether there is a difference in all-cause mortality at 30 days between surgical portosystemic shunts compared with TIPS (risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 1.99; participants = 496; studies = 4). We are uncertain whether there is a difference in encephalopathy between surgical shunts compared with TIPS (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.16; participants = 496; studies = 4). We found evidence suggesting an increase in the occurrence of the following harms in the TIPS group compared with surgical shunts: all-cause mortality at five years (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.90; participants = 496; studies = 4); variceal rebleeding (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.49; participants = 496; studies = 4); reinterventions (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.28; participants = 496; studies = 4); and shunt occlusion (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.51; participants = 496; studies = 4). We could not perform an analysis of health-related quality of life but available evidence appear to suggest improved health-related quality of life in people who received surgical shunt compared with TIPS. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for all-cause mortality at 30 days and five years, irreversible shunt occlusion, and encephalopathy to very low because of high risk of bias (due to lack of blinding); inconsistency (due to heterogeneity); imprecision (due to small sample sizes of the individual trials and few events); and publication bias (few trials reporting outcomes). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for variceal rebleeding and reintervention to very low because of high risk of bias (due to lack of blinding); imprecision (due to small sample sizes of the individual trials and few events); and publication bias (few trials reporting outcomes). The small sample sizes and few events did not allow us to produce meaningful trial sequential monitoring boundaries, suggesting plausible random errors in our estimates.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found evidence suggesting that surgical portosystemic shunts may have benefit over TIPS for treatment of refractory or recurrent variceal haemorrhage in people with cirrhotic portal hypertension. Given the very low-certainty of the available evidence and risks of random errors in our analyses, we have very little confidence in our review findings.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Surgery, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa, 0001.No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review

Language

eng

PubMed ID

30378107

Citation

Brand, Martin, et al. "Surgical Portosystemic Shunts Versus Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt for Variceal Haemorrhage in People With Cirrhosis." The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, vol. 10, 2018, p. CD001023.
Brand M, Prodehl L, Ede CJ. Surgical portosystemic shunts versus transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for variceal haemorrhage in people with cirrhosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;10:CD001023.
Brand, M., Prodehl, L., & Ede, C. J. (2018). Surgical portosystemic shunts versus transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for variceal haemorrhage in people with cirrhosis. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 10, CD001023. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001023.pub3
Brand M, Prodehl L, Ede CJ. Surgical Portosystemic Shunts Versus Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt for Variceal Haemorrhage in People With Cirrhosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 10 31;10:CD001023. PubMed PMID: 30378107.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Surgical portosystemic shunts versus transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for variceal haemorrhage in people with cirrhosis. AU - Brand,Martin, AU - Prodehl,Leanne, AU - Ede,Chikwendu J, Y1 - 2018/10/31/ PY - 2018/11/1/pubmed PY - 2019/2/9/medline PY - 2018/11/1/entrez SP - CD001023 EP - CD001023 JF - The Cochrane database of systematic reviews JO - Cochrane Database Syst Rev VL - 10 N2 - BACKGROUND: Variceal haemorrhage that is refractory or recurs after pharmacologic and endoscopic therapy requires a portal decompression shunt (either surgical shunts or radiologic shunt, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS)). TIPS has become the shunt of choice; however, is it the preferred option? This review assesses evidence for the comparisons of surgical portosystemic shunts versus TIPS for variceal haemorrhage in people with cirrhotic portal hypertension. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of surgical portosystemic shunts versus transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) for treatment of refractory or recurrent variceal haemorrhage in people with cirrhotic portal hypertension. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science. We also searched on-line trial registries, reference lists of relevant articles, and proceedings of relevant associations for trials that met the inclusion criteria for this review (date of search 8 March 2018). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials comparing surgical portosystemic shunts versus TIPS for the treatment of refractory or recurrent variceal haemorrhage in people with cirrhotic portal hypertension. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials and extracted data using methodological standards expected by Cochrane. We assessed risk of bias according to domains and risk of random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We found four randomised clinical trials including 496 adult participants diagnosed with variceal haemorrhage due to cirrhotic portal hypertension. The overall risk of bias in all the trials was judged at high risk. All the trials were conducted in the United States of America (USA). Two of the trials randomised participants to selective surgical shunts versus TIPS. The other two trials randomised participants to non-selective surgical shunts versus TIPS. The diagnosis of liver cirrhosis was by clinical and laboratory findings. We are uncertain whether there is a difference in all-cause mortality at 30 days between surgical portosystemic shunts compared with TIPS (risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 1.99; participants = 496; studies = 4). We are uncertain whether there is a difference in encephalopathy between surgical shunts compared with TIPS (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.16; participants = 496; studies = 4). We found evidence suggesting an increase in the occurrence of the following harms in the TIPS group compared with surgical shunts: all-cause mortality at five years (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.90; participants = 496; studies = 4); variceal rebleeding (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.49; participants = 496; studies = 4); reinterventions (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.28; participants = 496; studies = 4); and shunt occlusion (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.51; participants = 496; studies = 4). We could not perform an analysis of health-related quality of life but available evidence appear to suggest improved health-related quality of life in people who received surgical shunt compared with TIPS. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for all-cause mortality at 30 days and five years, irreversible shunt occlusion, and encephalopathy to very low because of high risk of bias (due to lack of blinding); inconsistency (due to heterogeneity); imprecision (due to small sample sizes of the individual trials and few events); and publication bias (few trials reporting outcomes). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for variceal rebleeding and reintervention to very low because of high risk of bias (due to lack of blinding); imprecision (due to small sample sizes of the individual trials and few events); and publication bias (few trials reporting outcomes). The small sample sizes and few events did not allow us to produce meaningful trial sequential monitoring boundaries, suggesting plausible random errors in our estimates. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence suggesting that surgical portosystemic shunts may have benefit over TIPS for treatment of refractory or recurrent variceal haemorrhage in people with cirrhotic portal hypertension. Given the very low-certainty of the available evidence and risks of random errors in our analyses, we have very little confidence in our review findings. SN - 1469-493X UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/30378107/Surgical_portosystemic_shunts_versus_transjugular_intrahepatic_portosystemic_shunt_for_variceal_haemorrhage_in_people_with_cirrhosis_ DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -