4.4 Article

Short-Term Rebleeding Rates for Isolated Gastric Varices Managed by Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt versus Balloon-Occluded Retrograde Transvenous Obliteration

Journal

JOURNAL OF VASCULAR AND INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY
Volume 25, Issue 3, Pages 355-361

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvir.2013.12.001

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To assess the short-term rebleeding rate associated with the use of a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) compared with balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) for management of gastric varices (GV). Materials and Methods: A single-center retrospective comparison of 50 patients with bleeding from GV treated with a TIPS or BRTO was performed. Of 50 patients, 27 (17 men and 10 women; median age, 55 y; range, 31-79 y) received a TIPS with covered stents, and 23 (12 men and 11 women; median age, 52 y; range, 23-83 y) underwent a BRTO procedure with a foam sclerosant. All study subjects had clinical and endoscopic evidence of isolated bleeding GV and were hemodynamically stable at the time of the procedure. Clinical and endoscopic follow-up was performed. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to evaluate rebleeding rates from the GV. Results: The technical success rate was 100% in the TIPS group and 91% in the BRTO group (P = .21). Major complications occurred in 4% of the patients receiving TIPS and 9% of patients the undergoing BRTO (P = .344). Encephalopathy was reported in 4 of 27 (15%) patients in the TIPS group and in none Of the patients in the BRTO group (0%; P = .12), At 12 months, the incidence of rebleeding from a GV source was 11% in the TIPS group and 0% in the BRTO group (P = .25). Conclusions: BRTO appears to be equivalent to TIPS in the short-term for management of bleeding GV. Further comparative studies are warranted to determine optimal management strategies in individual patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available