PurposeEvaluate the efficacy and safety of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) insertion on patients with schistosomiasis-induced liver fibrosis, and compare with that of patients with HBV-induced cirrhosis.Materials and MethodsThis was a retrospective study from November 2015 to December 2018 including 82 patients diagnosed with portal hypertension, one group of which is induced by schistosomiasis (n = 20), the other by hepatitis B virus (HBV) (n = 62). Both groups of subjects underwent TIPS placement for the management of portal hypertension complications.ResultsTIPS was inserted successfully in all patients (technical success 100%). After a median follow-up of 14 months following TIPS insertion, portal pressure gradient (PPG) value in both schistosomiasis-induced group and HBV-induced group underwent a significant decrease with no major difference between the two groups. There exists no significant difference demonstrated by Kaplan–Meier curves between two groups concerning cumulative rate of hepatic encephalopathy (HE) (log-rank p = 0.681), variceal rebleeding (log-rank p = 0.837) and survival (log-rank p = 0.429), and no statistically difference was found in terms of alleviation of portal vein thrombosis (PVT). In addition, splenectomy (HR 19, 95% CI 4–90, p < 0.001) was identified as independent predictor of PVT.ConclusionsTIPS placement is well-founded to be considered as a safe and effective treatment in patients with schistosomiasis-induced portal hypertension and relevant severe complications. We also found the risk of PVT is 19 times higher in patients who underwent splenectomy than in untreated patients.Level of EvidenceHistorically controlled studies, level 4.

Background and Aim This study aims to evaluate and compare the survival and other portal hypertension‐related complications of patients with portal pressure gradient (PPG) ≥ 25 mmHg using transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) as the first‐line and second‐line therapies in secondary prophylaxis of variceal hemorrhage. Methods Fifty patients diagnosed with liver cirrhosis were enrolled in this retrospective study, with 35 of whom received TIPS as the first‐line therapy in secondary prophylaxis of variceal hemorrhage and 15 of whom as second‐line treatment. We observed and analyzed the survival, occurrence of variceal rebleeding and hepatic encephalopathy (HE) of patients in the two groups during the follow up. Results The technical success rate was 100%. In a median follow‐up time of 12 (1–37) and 15 (2–27) months, respectively, significant statistical difference was observed between the first‐line group and the second‐line group concerning cumulative survival rate (94.3% vs 66.7%, log–rank P = 0.01). But that was not the case when it comes to the cumulative rate of variceal rebleeding (8.6% vs 26.7%, log–rank P = 0.164) and HE (22.9% vs 20.0%, log–rank P = 0.793). And multivariate analysis indicated that group assignment (hazard ratio = 8.250, 95% confidence interval = 1.383–49.213, P = 0.021) was the only predictor of survival. Interestingly, we found that spleen diameter (hazard ratio = 0.578, 95% confidence interval = 0.393–0.849, P = 0.005) could be regarded as independent predictor of the occurrence of HE. Conclusions For patients with PPG ≥ 25 mmHg who have recovered from an episode of acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage, utilizing TIPS as the first‐line therapy to prevent rebleeding is demonstrated effective in improving the survival and therefore should be recommended to a wider range of clinical practice.

No abstract