4.3 Article

Second prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients with a high HVPG

期刊

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 51, 期 12, 页码 1502-1506

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00365521.2016.1193218

关键词

Hepatic encephalopathy; individualized treatment; second prophylaxis; survival; variceal bleeding

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) could be used to stratify patients in different risk groups. No studies have reported the role of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) placement in a subgroup of patients with a high HVPG (20mmHg) for secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding. This study was designed to evaluate the benefit of TIPS in cirrhotic patients with a high HVPG (20mmHg) for rebleeding and survival.Material and methods: We included 46 cirrhotic patients with a history of variceal bleeding and a high HVPG (20mmHg) admitted to our hospital between January 2013 and June 2014 (TIPS group). Patients were matched by Child-Pugh scores to patients in our historical cohort hospitalized for prophylaxis of variceal rebleeding between April 2011 and December 2012 (propranolol+EVL group). The end points included time to significant rebleeding from portal hypertensive sources, 1-year survival, and time to the occurrence of hepatic encephalopathy (HE).Results: The 1-year actuarial probability of remaining free of variceal rebleeding was significantly higher in the TIPS group than in the propranolol+EVL group (85% vs. 54%, p=0.01). The 1-year survival rates were not different between the two groups (85% vs. 89%, p=0.591). The 1-year actuarial probability of remaining free of HE was significantly lower in the TIPS group than in the propranolol+EVL group (67% vs. 91%, p=0.003).Conclusions: TIPS was more effective than propranolol+EVL in preventing variceal rebleeding in cirrhotic patients with a high HVPG (20mmHg). During the limited follow-up, survival was similar in the two groups.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据