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

Abstract

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 (≥20 mmHg) for secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding. This study was designed to evaluate the benefit of TIPS in cirrhotic patients with a high HVPG (≥20 mmHg) for rebleeding and survival.

Material and methods: We included 46 cirrhotic patients with a history of variceal bleeding and a high HVPG (≥20 mmHg) 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 (≥20 mmHg). During the limited follow-up, survival was similar in the two groups.

Keywords:

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

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Wang Shuai, MD for statistical advice. Thanks to Dr. Edward C. Mignot, Shandong University, for linguistic advice.

Disclosure statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of this article.