TIPS与EBL治疗肝硬化合并门静脉血栓的临床效果比较。

Zhu Wang, He Zhao, Xiaoze Wang, Hailong Zhang, Mingshan Jiang, Jiaywei Tsauo, Xuefeng Luo, Li Yang, Xiao Li
{"title":"TIPS与EBL治疗肝硬化合并门静脉血栓的临床效果比较。","authors":"Zhu Wang,&nbsp;He Zhao,&nbsp;Xiaoze Wang,&nbsp;Hailong Zhang,&nbsp;Mingshan Jiang,&nbsp;Jiaywei Tsauo,&nbsp;Xuefeng Luo,&nbsp;Li Yang,&nbsp;Xiao Li","doi":"10.1007/s00261-014-0320-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The aim of this study is to compare the clinical outcomes of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) and endoscopic band ligation (EBL) in patients with cirrhosis and portal vein thrombosis (PVT). We retrospectively reviewed the January to September 2010 data from our database and included 25 patients with cirrhosis and PVT who underwent successful TIPS creation. We selected another 25 patients who underwent EBL matching for age, sex, and Child-Pugh-Turcotte class. The outcome measures included changes in the PVT status before and after the treatments, the rebleeding rate, and the overall survival. The mean follow-up was 25.1 ± 8.7 months in the EBL group and 25.6 ± 8.5 months in the TIPS group (P = 0.85). After treatments, the PVT severity improved in 40% and worsened in 25% of patients who did not undergo TIPS, compared with 87% and none of the patients who underwent TIPS (P < 0.001). Previous splenectomy (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02-0.76, P = 0.024) and patency status of TIPS (OR 20.8, 95% CI 3.0-141.8, P = 0.002) were the independent factors associated with PVT disappearance. The 1- and 2-year rebleeding rates were, respectively, 44.6% and 59.0% in the EBL group, and 12.5% and 25.2% in the TIPS group (P = 0.002). The 1- and 2-year survival rates were, respectively, 95.7% and 85.2% in the EBL group, and 96% and 78.7% in the TIPS group (P = 0.203). The MELD score was the only independent predictive factor for survival (HR 1.73, 95% CI 1.27-2.37, P = 0.001). Compared with EBL, TIPS contributed to PVT improvement and reduced the risk of rebleeding without providing a survival benefit for patients with PVT.</p>","PeriodicalId":7014,"journal":{"name":"Abdominal Imaging","volume":"40 6","pages":"1813-20"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s00261-014-0320-9","citationCount":"20","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical outcome comparison between TIPS and EBL in patients with cirrhosis and portal vein thrombosis.\",\"authors\":\"Zhu Wang,&nbsp;He Zhao,&nbsp;Xiaoze Wang,&nbsp;Hailong Zhang,&nbsp;Mingshan Jiang,&nbsp;Jiaywei Tsauo,&nbsp;Xuefeng Luo,&nbsp;Li Yang,&nbsp;Xiao Li\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00261-014-0320-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The aim of this study is to compare the clinical outcomes of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) and endoscopic band ligation (EBL) in patients with cirrhosis and portal vein thrombosis (PVT). We retrospectively reviewed the January to September 2010 data from our database and included 25 patients with cirrhosis and PVT who underwent successful TIPS creation. We selected another 25 patients who underwent EBL matching for age, sex, and Child-Pugh-Turcotte class. The outcome measures included changes in the PVT status before and after the treatments, the rebleeding rate, and the overall survival. The mean follow-up was 25.1 ± 8.7 months in the EBL group and 25.6 ± 8.5 months in the TIPS group (P = 0.85). After treatments, the PVT severity improved in 40% and worsened in 25% of patients who did not undergo TIPS, compared with 87% and none of the patients who underwent TIPS (P < 0.001). Previous splenectomy (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02-0.76, P = 0.024) and patency status of TIPS (OR 20.8, 95% CI 3.0-141.8, P = 0.002) were the independent factors associated with PVT disappearance. The 1- and 2-year rebleeding rates were, respectively, 44.6% and 59.0% in the EBL group, and 12.5% and 25.2% in the TIPS group (P = 0.002). The 1- and 2-year survival rates were, respectively, 95.7% and 85.2% in the EBL group, and 96% and 78.7% in the TIPS group (P = 0.203). The MELD score was the only independent predictive factor for survival (HR 1.73, 95% CI 1.27-2.37, P = 0.001). Compared with EBL, TIPS contributed to PVT improvement and reduced the risk of rebleeding without providing a survival benefit for patients with PVT.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7014,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Abdominal Imaging\",\"volume\":\"40 6\",\"pages\":\"1813-20\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s00261-014-0320-9\",\"citationCount\":\"20\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Abdominal Imaging\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0320-9\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Abdominal Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0320-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 20

摘要

本研究的目的是比较经颈静脉肝内门静脉分流术(TIPS)和内镜下结扎术(EBL)治疗肝硬化和门静脉血栓形成(PVT)患者的临床结果。我们回顾性地回顾了2010年1月至9月数据库中的数据,包括25例肝硬化和PVT患者,他们成功地进行了TIPS创建。我们选择了另外25名患者,根据年龄、性别和Child-Pugh-Turcotte类别进行EBL匹配。结果测量包括治疗前后PVT状态的变化、再出血率和总生存率。EBL组平均随访25.1±8.7个月,TIPS组平均随访25.6±8.5个月(P = 0.85)。治疗后,未接受TIPS治疗的患者中有40%的PVT严重程度改善,25%的PVT严重程度恶化,而接受TIPS治疗的患者中有87%的PVT严重程度改善(P < 0.001)。既往脾切除术(OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02 ~ 0.76, P = 0.024)和TIPS通畅状态(OR 20.8, 95% CI 3.0 ~ 141.8, P = 0.002)是与PVT消失相关的独立因素。EBL组1年和2年再出血率分别为44.6%和59.0%,TIPS组为12.5%和25.2% (P = 0.002)。EBL组1年、2年生存率分别为95.7%、85.2%,TIPS组为96%、78.7% (P = 0.203)。MELD评分是唯一独立的生存预测因子(HR 1.73, 95% CI 1.27-2.37, P = 0.001)。与EBL相比,TIPS有助于改善PVT,降低再出血风险,但不提高PVT患者的生存期。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Clinical outcome comparison between TIPS and EBL in patients with cirrhosis and portal vein thrombosis.

The aim of this study is to compare the clinical outcomes of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) and endoscopic band ligation (EBL) in patients with cirrhosis and portal vein thrombosis (PVT). We retrospectively reviewed the January to September 2010 data from our database and included 25 patients with cirrhosis and PVT who underwent successful TIPS creation. We selected another 25 patients who underwent EBL matching for age, sex, and Child-Pugh-Turcotte class. The outcome measures included changes in the PVT status before and after the treatments, the rebleeding rate, and the overall survival. The mean follow-up was 25.1 ± 8.7 months in the EBL group and 25.6 ± 8.5 months in the TIPS group (P = 0.85). After treatments, the PVT severity improved in 40% and worsened in 25% of patients who did not undergo TIPS, compared with 87% and none of the patients who underwent TIPS (P < 0.001). Previous splenectomy (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02-0.76, P = 0.024) and patency status of TIPS (OR 20.8, 95% CI 3.0-141.8, P = 0.002) were the independent factors associated with PVT disappearance. The 1- and 2-year rebleeding rates were, respectively, 44.6% and 59.0% in the EBL group, and 12.5% and 25.2% in the TIPS group (P = 0.002). The 1- and 2-year survival rates were, respectively, 95.7% and 85.2% in the EBL group, and 96% and 78.7% in the TIPS group (P = 0.203). The MELD score was the only independent predictive factor for survival (HR 1.73, 95% CI 1.27-2.37, P = 0.001). Compared with EBL, TIPS contributed to PVT improvement and reduced the risk of rebleeding without providing a survival benefit for patients with PVT.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Abdominal Imaging
Abdominal Imaging 医学-核医学
自引率
0.00%
发文量
334
审稿时长
2 months
×
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