Skip to main content
Log in

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt vs. small-diameter prosthetic H-graft portacaval shunt: Extended follow-up of an expanded randomized prospective trial

  • Published:
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery

Abstract

We report herein the results of extended follow-up of an expanded randomized clinical trial comparing transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) to 8 mm prosthetic H-graft portacaval shunt as definitive treatment for variceal bleeding due to portal hypertension. Beginning in 1993, through this trial, both shunts were undertaken as definitive therapy, never as a “bridge to transplantation.” All patients had bleeding esophageal/gastric varices and failed or could not undergo sclerotherapy/banding. Patients were excluded from randomization if the portal vein was occluded or if survival was hopeless. Failure of shunting was defined as inability to shunt, irreversible shunt occlusion, major variceal rehemorrhage, hepatic transplantation, or death. Median follow-up after each shunt was 4 years; minimum follow-up was 1 year. Patients undergoing placement of either shunt were very similar in terms of age, sex, cause of cirrhosis, Child’s class, and circumstances of shunting. Both shunts provided partial portal decompression, although the portal vein-inferior vena cava pressure gradient was lower after H-graft portacaval shunt (P<0.01). TIPS could not be placed in two patients. Shunt stenosis/occlusion was more frequent after TIPS. After TIPS, 42 patients failed (64%), whereas after H-graft portacaval shunt 23 failed (35%) (P <0.01). Major variceal rehemorrhage, hepatic transplantation, and late death were significantly more frequent after TIPS (P <0.01). Both TIPS and H-graft portacaval shunt achieve partial portal decompression. TIPS requires more interventions and leads to more major rehemorrhage, irreversible occlusion, transplantation, and death. Despite vigilance in monitoring shunt patency, TIPS provides less optimal outcomes than H-graft portacaval shunt for patients with portal hypertension and variceal bleeding.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rosemurgy AS, Goode SE, Zweibel BR, et al.. A prospective trial of transjugular intrahepatic portasysteinic stcnt shunts ver- sus small-diameter prosthetic H-graft portacaval shunts in the treatment of bleeding varices. Ann Surg 1996;224:378–386.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Rosemurgy AS, Bloomston M, Zervos EE, et al.. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt versus H-graft portacaval shunt in the management of bleeding varices: A cost-benefit analysis. Surgery 1997;122:794–799.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rosemurgy AS. Small diameter interposition shunt. In Nyhus L, Baker R, Fischer J, eds. Mastery of Surgery, vol 2, 3rd ed. Boston: Little, Brown, 1996, pp 1301–1307.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Rossle M, Haag K, Ochs A, et al.. The transjugular intrahe- patic portosystemic stent-shunt procedure for variceal bleed- ing. N EnglJ Med 1994;330:165–171.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Sanyl AJ, Freedman AM, Luketic VA, et al.. Transjugular in- trahepatic portosystemic shunts for patients with active variceal hemorrhage unresponsive to sclerotherapy. Gastro- enterology 1996;111:138–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Malinchoc M, Kamath PS, Gordon FD, et al.. A model to pre- dict poor survival in patients undergoing transjugular intra- hepatic portosystemic shunts. Hepatology 2000;31:864–871.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Rypins EB, Sarfeh IJ. Small diameter portacaval H-graft for variceal hemorrhage. Surg Clin North Am 1990;70:395–404.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Darling C, Shah DM, Chang BB, et al.. Long-term follow-up of poor risk patients undergoing small diameter portacaval shunt. AmJ Surg 1992;164:225–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Johansen K. Partial portal decompression for variceal hemor- rhage. AmJ Surg 1989;157:479–482.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Rosemurgy AS, Serafini FM, Zervos EE, Goode SE. Small- diameter prosthetic H-graft portacaval shunt: Definitive ther- apy for variceal bleeding. J Gastrointest Surg 1998;2:585–591.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Rosemurgy AS, Zervos EE, Goode SE, et al.. Differential ef- fects on portal and effective hepatic blood flow: A comparison between transjugular intrahepatic portasystemic shunt and small-diameter H-graft portacaval shunt. Ann Surg 1997; 225:601–608.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Zervos EE, Goode SE, Rosemurgy AS. Small-diameter H-graft portacaval shunt reduces portal flow yet maintains effective hepatic blood flow. Am Surg 1998;64:71–75.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Zervos EE, Goode SE, Rosemurgy AS. Intermediate and long-term portal hemodynamic consequences of small-diameter H-graft portacaval shunt. J Surg Res 1998;74:71–75.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Zervos EE, Rosemurgy AS. Small-diameter portacaval shunt vs. transjugular intrahepatic portasystemic shunt for portal hy- pertension. Adv Surg 1998;31:105–125.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander S. Rosemurgy M.D..

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rosemurgy, A.S., Serafini, F.M., Zweibel, B.R. et al. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt vs. small-diameter prosthetic H-graft portacaval shunt: Extended follow-up of an expanded randomized prospective trial. J Gastrointest Surg 4, 589–597 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1016/S1091-255X(00)80107-9

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1091-255X(00)80107-9

Key words

Navigation