Matthew L Hung, Abhishek Jairam, Matthew Carr, Zachary T Berman, Michael Taddonio, Jeet Minocha, Hamed Aryafar, Jeffrey I Mondschein, Michael C Soulen, Gregory J Nadolski, Jonas Redmond
{"title":"Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt creation using intravascular ultrasound <i>vs</i> fluoroscopic guidance: A dual-institution retrospective comparative study.","authors":"Matthew L Hung, Abhishek Jairam, Matthew Carr, Zachary T Berman, Michael Taddonio, Jeet Minocha, Hamed Aryafar, Jeffrey I Mondschein, Michael C Soulen, Gregory J Nadolski, Jonas Redmond","doi":"10.4254/wjh.v17.i5.106892","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The use of intravascular ultrasound (iUS) has been shown in multiple single-center retrospective studies to decrease procedure time, radiation exposure, and needle passes compared to conventional fluoroscopic guidance in the creation of a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS). However, there are few data regarding the impact of imaging guidance modality choice on clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To determine the impact of iUS <i>vs</i> fluoroscopic guidance during creation of a TIPS on procedural metrics, liver injury, shunt patency and mortality.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The retrospective study cohort consisted of 66 patients who underwent TIPS creation using iUS [\"iUS-guided TIPS (iTIPS) group\"] and 135 patients who underwent TIPS creation using fluoroscopic guidance [\"conventional fluoroscopic-guided TIPS (cTIPS) group\"] at 2 tertiary academic medical centers from 2015-2019. TIPS that required variceal embolization or portal vein recanalization were excluded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The technical success rate was 100% in the iTIPS group and 96% in the cTIPS group (<i>P</i> = 0.17). The iTIPS group had an air kerma (266 ± 254 mGy <i>vs</i> 1235 ± 1049 mGy, <i>P</i> < 0.00001), dose area product (5728 ± 6518 uGy × m<sup>2</sup> <i>vs</i> 28969 ± 19067 uGy × m<sup>2</sup>, <i>P</i> < 0.00001), fluoroscopy time (18.7 ± 9.6 minutes <i>vs</i> 32.3 ± 19.0 minutes, <i>P</i> < 0.00001), and total procedure time (93 ± 40 minutes <i>vs</i> 110 ± 51 minutes, <i>P</i> = 0.01) which were significantly lower than the cTIPS group. There was no significant difference in liver function test adverse event grade at 1 month. With a median follow-up of 26 months (inter quartile range: 6-61 months), there was no difference between the two groups in terms of thrombosis-free survival (<i>P</i> = 0.23), intervention-free survival (<i>P</i> = 0.29), or patient mortality (<i>P</i> = 0.61).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The use of iUS in the creation of TIPS reduces radiation exposure and procedure time compared with fluoroscopic guidance. At midterm follow-up, the imaging guidance modality did not affect shunt patency or mortality.</p>","PeriodicalId":23687,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Hepatology","volume":"17 5","pages":"106892"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12149909/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Hepatology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4254/wjh.v17.i5.106892","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: The use of intravascular ultrasound (iUS) has been shown in multiple single-center retrospective studies to decrease procedure time, radiation exposure, and needle passes compared to conventional fluoroscopic guidance in the creation of a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS). However, there are few data regarding the impact of imaging guidance modality choice on clinical outcomes.
Aim: To determine the impact of iUS vs fluoroscopic guidance during creation of a TIPS on procedural metrics, liver injury, shunt patency and mortality.
Methods: The retrospective study cohort consisted of 66 patients who underwent TIPS creation using iUS ["iUS-guided TIPS (iTIPS) group"] and 135 patients who underwent TIPS creation using fluoroscopic guidance ["conventional fluoroscopic-guided TIPS (cTIPS) group"] at 2 tertiary academic medical centers from 2015-2019. TIPS that required variceal embolization or portal vein recanalization were excluded.
Results: The technical success rate was 100% in the iTIPS group and 96% in the cTIPS group (P = 0.17). The iTIPS group had an air kerma (266 ± 254 mGy vs 1235 ± 1049 mGy, P < 0.00001), dose area product (5728 ± 6518 uGy × m2vs 28969 ± 19067 uGy × m2, P < 0.00001), fluoroscopy time (18.7 ± 9.6 minutes vs 32.3 ± 19.0 minutes, P < 0.00001), and total procedure time (93 ± 40 minutes vs 110 ± 51 minutes, P = 0.01) which were significantly lower than the cTIPS group. There was no significant difference in liver function test adverse event grade at 1 month. With a median follow-up of 26 months (inter quartile range: 6-61 months), there was no difference between the two groups in terms of thrombosis-free survival (P = 0.23), intervention-free survival (P = 0.29), or patient mortality (P = 0.61).
Conclusion: The use of iUS in the creation of TIPS reduces radiation exposure and procedure time compared with fluoroscopic guidance. At midterm follow-up, the imaging guidance modality did not affect shunt patency or mortality.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
