[Analysis of the long-term prognosis of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt treatment for esophagogastric variceal hemorrhage concomitant with sarcopenia in cirrhotic patients].

Q3 Medicine
X X Wang, M Zhang, X C Yin, B Gao, L L Gu, W Li, J Q Xiao, S Zhang, W Zhang, X Zhang, X P Zou, L Wang, Y Z Zhuge, F Zhang
{"title":"[Analysis of the long-term prognosis of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt treatment for esophagogastric variceal hemorrhage concomitant with sarcopenia in cirrhotic patients].","authors":"X X Wang, M Zhang, X C Yin, B Gao, L L Gu, W Li, J Q Xiao, S Zhang, W Zhang, X Zhang, X P Zou, L Wang, Y Z Zhuge, F Zhang","doi":"10.3760/cma.j.cn501113-20240414-00203","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> To explore whether transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) can improve the prognosis of esophagogastric variceal bleeding (EGVB) combined with sarcopenia in cirrhotic patients. <b>Methods:</b> A retrospective cohort study was performed. A total of 464 cases with cirrhotic EGVB who received standard or TIPS treatment between January 2017 and December 2019 were selected. Regular follow-up was performed for the long-term after treatment. The primary outcome was transplantation-free survival. The secondary endpoints were rebleeding and overt hepatic encephalopathy (OHE). The obtained data were statistically analyzed. The <i>t</i>-test and Wilcoxon rank-sum test were used to compare continuous variables between groups. The <i>χ</i><sup>2</sup> test, or Fisher's exact probability test, was used to compare categorical variables between groups. <b>Results:</b> The age of the included patients was 55.27±13.86 years, and 286 cases were male. There were 203 cases of combined sarcopenia and 261 cases of non-combined sarcopenia. The median follow-up period was 43 months. The two groups had no statistically significant difference in follow-up time. There was no statistically significant difference in transplant-free survival between the TIPS group and the standard treatment group in the overall cohort (<i>HR</i>=1.31, 95%<i>CI</i>: 0.97-1.78, <i>P</i>=0.08). The TIPS patient group with cirrhosis combined with sarcopenia had longer transplant-free survival (median survival: 47.76 vs. 52.45, <i>χ</i><sup>2</sup>=4.09; <i>HR</i>=1.55, 95<i>CI</i>: 1.01~2.38, <i>P</i>=0.04). There was no statistically significant difference in transplant-free survival between the two kinds of treatments for patients without sarcopenia (<i>HR</i>=1.22, 95%<i>CI</i>: 0.78~1.88, <i>P</i>=0.39). Rebleeding time was prolonged in TIPS patients with or without sarcopenia combination (patients without combined sarcopenia: median rebleeding time: 39.48 vs. 53.61, <i>χ</i><sup>2</sup>=18.68; <i>R</i>=2.47, 95<i>CI</i>: 1.67~3.65, <i>P</i><0.01; patients with sarcopenia: median rebleeding time: 39.91 vs. 50.68, <i>χ</i><sup>2</sup>=12.36; <i>HR</i>=2.20, 95<i>CI</i>: 1.42~3.40, <i>P</i><0.01). TIPS patients had an increased 1-year OHE incidence rate compared to the standard treatment group (sarcopenia patients: 6.93% vs. 16.67%, <i>χ</i><sup>2</sup>=3.87, <i>P</i>=0.049; patients without sarcopenia combination: 2.19% vs. 9.68%, <i>χ</i><sup>2</sup>=8.85, <i>P</i>=0.01). There was no statistically significant difference in the long-term OHE incidence rate between the two kinds of treatment groups (<i>P</i>>0.05). <b>Conclusion:</b> TIPS can significantly prolong transplant-free survival compared to standard treatment as a secondary prevention of EGVB concomitant with sarcopenia in patients with cirrhosis. However, its advantage is not prominent for patients with cirrhosis in EGVB without sarcopenia.</p>","PeriodicalId":24006,"journal":{"name":"中华肝脏病杂志","volume":"32 8","pages":"744-752"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"中华肝脏病杂志","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn501113-20240414-00203","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To explore whether transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) can improve the prognosis of esophagogastric variceal bleeding (EGVB) combined with sarcopenia in cirrhotic patients. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed. A total of 464 cases with cirrhotic EGVB who received standard or TIPS treatment between January 2017 and December 2019 were selected. Regular follow-up was performed for the long-term after treatment. The primary outcome was transplantation-free survival. The secondary endpoints were rebleeding and overt hepatic encephalopathy (OHE). The obtained data were statistically analyzed. The t-test and Wilcoxon rank-sum test were used to compare continuous variables between groups. The χ2 test, or Fisher's exact probability test, was used to compare categorical variables between groups. Results: The age of the included patients was 55.27±13.86 years, and 286 cases were male. There were 203 cases of combined sarcopenia and 261 cases of non-combined sarcopenia. The median follow-up period was 43 months. The two groups had no statistically significant difference in follow-up time. There was no statistically significant difference in transplant-free survival between the TIPS group and the standard treatment group in the overall cohort (HR=1.31, 95%CI: 0.97-1.78, P=0.08). The TIPS patient group with cirrhosis combined with sarcopenia had longer transplant-free survival (median survival: 47.76 vs. 52.45, χ2=4.09; HR=1.55, 95CI: 1.01~2.38, P=0.04). There was no statistically significant difference in transplant-free survival between the two kinds of treatments for patients without sarcopenia (HR=1.22, 95%CI: 0.78~1.88, P=0.39). Rebleeding time was prolonged in TIPS patients with or without sarcopenia combination (patients without combined sarcopenia: median rebleeding time: 39.48 vs. 53.61, χ2=18.68; R=2.47, 95CI: 1.67~3.65, P<0.01; patients with sarcopenia: median rebleeding time: 39.91 vs. 50.68, χ2=12.36; HR=2.20, 95CI: 1.42~3.40, P<0.01). TIPS patients had an increased 1-year OHE incidence rate compared to the standard treatment group (sarcopenia patients: 6.93% vs. 16.67%, χ2=3.87, P=0.049; patients without sarcopenia combination: 2.19% vs. 9.68%, χ2=8.85, P=0.01). There was no statistically significant difference in the long-term OHE incidence rate between the two kinds of treatment groups (P>0.05). Conclusion: TIPS can significantly prolong transplant-free survival compared to standard treatment as a secondary prevention of EGVB concomitant with sarcopenia in patients with cirrhosis. However, its advantage is not prominent for patients with cirrhosis in EGVB without sarcopenia.

[肝硬化患者经颈静脉肝内门体分流术治疗食管胃底静脉曲张出血并伴有肌肉疏松症的长期预后分析]。
目的探讨经颈静脉肝内门体系统分流术(TIPS)能否改善肝硬化患者食管胃底静脉曲张出血(EGVB)合并肌肉疏松症的预后。方法:回顾性队列研究进行了一项回顾性队列研究。共选取了 464 例在 2017 年 1 月至 2019 年 12 月期间接受标准或 TIPS 治疗的肝硬化 EGVB 患者。治疗后进行了长期定期随访。主要结果是无移植生存期。次要终点为再出血和明显肝性脑病(OHE)。获得的数据进行了统计分析。组间连续变量的比较采用t检验和Wilcoxon秩和检验。χ2检验或费雪精确概率检验用于比较组间的分类变量。结果纳入患者的年龄为(55.27±13.86)岁,286 例为男性。其中 203 例合并肌少症,261 例非合并肌少症。中位随访时间为 43 个月。两组的随访时间在统计学上没有明显差异。在总体队列中,TIPS组与标准治疗组的无移植生存率无明显统计学差异(HR=1.31,95%CI:0.97-1.78,P=0.08)。肝硬化合并肌肉疏松症的 TIPS 患者组的无移植生存期更长(中位生存期:47.76 对 52.45,χ2=4.09;HR=1.55,95CI:1.01~2.38,P=0.04)。对于无肌肉疏松症的患者,两种治疗方法的无移植生存率差异无统计学意义(HR=1.22,95%CI:0.78~1.88,P=0.39)。合并或不合并肌肉疏松症的 TIPS 患者再出血时间延长(不合并肌肉疏松症的患者:中位再出血时间:39.48 对 53.61):39.48 vs. 53.61,χ2=18.68;R=2.47,95CI:1.67~3.65,Pχ2=12.36;HR=2.20,95CI:1.42~3.40,Pχ2=3.87,P=0.049;未合并肌少症患者:2.19% vs. 9.68%,χ2=8.85,P=0.01)。两种治疗组的长期 OHE 发生率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论与标准治疗相比,TIPS可明显延长肝硬化患者的无移植生存期,作为EGVB并发肌肉疏松症的二级预防。然而,对于无肌肉疏松症的肝硬化 EGVB 患者,TIPS 的优势并不突出。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
中华肝脏病杂志
中华肝脏病杂志 Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7574
期刊介绍:
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信