Users Online : 255 About us |  Subscribe |  e-Alerts  | Feedback | Login   |   
Journal of Minimal Access Surgery Current Issue | Archives | Ahead Of Print Journal of Minimal Access Surgery
           Print this page Email this page   Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
  Search
 
  
     Search Pubmed for
 
    -  Ren H
    -  Ding M
    -  Huang X
    -  Wang B
    -  Chi G
    -  Shao C
    -  Song S
    -  Song W
    -  Shi R
    Article in PDF
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


   Abstract
  Introduction
  Methods
  Results
  Discussion
  Conclusions
   References
   Article Figures
   Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed184    
    PDF Downloaded1    

Recommend this journal

 

Previous Article  Table of Contents   Next Article  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year :   |  Volume :   |  Issue :   |  Page :
 

A meta-analysis of combined generic-covered stent-graft with or without bare-metal stent for refractory variceal bleeding


 Department of Intervention Vascular, Aerospace Center Hospital, Beijing, China

Date of Submission14-Aug-2021
Date of Decision28-Jan-2022
Date of Acceptance10-Feb-2022
Date of Web Publication20-Jul-2022

Correspondence Address:
Mingchao Ding,
15, Yuquan Road, Haidian District, Beijing
China
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/jmas.jmas_262_21

PMID: 35915531

  Abstract 


Objectives: The meta-analysis was conducted to systematically assess the efficacy and safety of generic stent-graft/bare-stent combination compared with Fluency stent alone in transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt procedure for refractory variceal bleeding.
Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science and the Cochrane Database were searched for relevant studies from January 1990 to September 2020; outcome measures studied were primary patency, hepatic encephalopathy, survival, re-bleeding and portal venous pressure.
Results: Four studies (1 randomised controlled trial and 3 retrospective studies) with 449 subjects (157 patients in the combined stent group and 292 patients in the covered stent group) were included. No significant difference was observed in the incidence of mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.069, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.524, 2.178]), hepatic encephalopathy (odds ratio [OR] = 0.860, 95% CI [0.341, 2.169], P = 0.750) and re-bleeding (OR = 1.049, 95% CI [0.226, 4.881], P = 0.951). Compared with Fluency stent alone, combination therapy was associated with moderate decrease in outcomes on the post-operative portal venous pressure (standard mean difference [SMD] −0.210, 95% CI [−0.418, −0.001], P = 0.049) and was not associated with significant decrease in outcomes on the pre-operative portal venous pressure (SMD − 0.129, 95% CI [−0.336, 0.078], P = 0.223). The primary patency was significantly lower in the Fluency/bare-stent combination group (HR = 0.473, 95% CI [0.288, 0.776]).
Conclusions: Generic stent-graft/bare-stent combination therapy was associated with significantly lower primary patency compared to Fluency stent alone.


Keywords: Expand polytetrafluoroethylene covered stent, oesophagogastric variceal bleeding, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt



How to cite this URL:
Ren H, Ding M, Huang X, Wang B, Chi G, Shao C, Song S, Song W, Shi R. A meta-analysis of combined generic-covered stent-graft with or without bare-metal stent for refractory variceal bleeding. J Min Access Surg [Epub ahead of print] [cited 2022 Aug 14]. Available from: https://www.journalofmas.com/preprintarticle.asp?id=351248





  Introduction Top


Oesophagogastric variceal bleeding is a life-threatening complication of portal hypertension, associated with in-hospital mortality rate of 15%~16%.[1],[2] Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is a recommended minimally invasive method for the treatment and prevention of variceal bleeding refractory to pharmacological and endoscopic therapy.[3],[4],[5] At present, expand polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE)-covered stent-grafts are preferred to the bare metal stent (BMS) during TIPS procedure with better shunt patency and treatment efficacy, especially for specialised ePTFE-covered Viatorr stent graft.[6],[7],[8],[9] Meanwhile, recent studies have demonstrated that Fluency ePTFE-covered stent or Fluency/BMS combination, related to considerable primary shunt patency rates and cost-effectiveness of TIPS, provides an alternative choice under conditions of limited availability of Viatorr endoprostheses in some regions.[6],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15] It is uncertain, nevertheless, whether Fluency/BMS combination strategy performs better than Fluency stent alone. Dealing with this background, the meta-analysis was performed to assess the efficacy and safety of generic stent-graft/bare-stent combination compared with Fluency stent alone in TIPS procedure for refractory variceal bleeding.


  Methods Top


Study selection

A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science and the Cochrane Database from January 1990 up to September 2020 was performed. Search strategy was as follows: 'TIPS OR Corresponding Medical Subject Heading terms' AND 'Covered with bare stents OR Stent-graft/bare stent combination' AND 'Polytetrafluoroethylene covered OR Fluency'. Prospective randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective case–control studies were included. References for eligible literature were also manually searched. The non-human studies, case reports, editorials, conference, letters or comment and review articles were excluded.

Data extraction

Data were independently extracted by two authors (Hongcheng Ren and Bin Wang) according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, including the patient demographics, perioperative characteristics and clinical outcomes. The selected studies are summarised in [Table 1]. The clinical outcomes were primary patency, survival, hepatic encephalopathy, portal venous pressure and post-operative re-bleeding. Discrepancies were solved by discussing with a senior investigator (Mingchao Ding) until reaching a consensus if necessary.
Table 1: Characteristics of included studies

Click here to view


Quality assessment

The quality of included RCTs and observational studies was independently assessed by two authors utilising Jadad composite scale[16] and the modified New Castle–Ottawa Scale,[17] respectively.

Statistical analysis

The hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were evaluated for time-to-event data. The odds ratio (OR) and the standardised mean difference (SMD) were estimated for the dichotomous outcome and continuous outcomes, respectively. For studies without reporting HR, the survival data were obtained from the published Kaplan–Meier curves via Engauge Digitizer version 11.1 (Mark Mitchell, Baurzhan Muftakhidinov and Tobias Winchen et al., “Engauge Digitizer Software.” Webpage: http://markummitchell.github.io/engauge-digitizer). Then, HR and 95% CI were estimated by adopting the method reported by Tierney et al.[18] Heterogeneity among studies was assessed using the I2 test and Q statistic. I2 >50% or P < 0.10 denotes statistically significant, and the random-effects model was employed to pool results. Otherwise, a fixed-effects model was used in the absence of significant heterogeneity. Publication bias was detected by Harbord test and Peters' test for binary data while Egger test and Begg test for enumeration data and time-to-event data. All analyses were performed with the Stata version 13.1 (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA).


  Results Top


Characteristics of studies and patients

The initial search identified 906 potential records. After removing duplicates and examining the full text of each citation, four studies, including 1 RCT[19] and 3 retrospective studies[20],[21],[22] from 2015 to 2019, met the inclusion criteria and were suitable for further investigation [Figure 1]. The meta-analysis involves 394 patients (166 TIPS with the Fluency/BMS combination and 228 TIPS with Fluency-covered stent). The characteristics, quality assessment and demographics of the included studies are summarised in [Table 1] and [Table 2].
Table 2: Results of each study and pooled estimates for primary patency encephalopathy and survival

Click here to view


Survival

Four studies reported the survival rate [Figure 2]. TIPS with combination stent did not significantly differ from Fluency stent alone under the fixed-effects model (HR = 1.069, 95% CI [0.524, 2.178]). No statistically significant heterogeneity was observed (P = 0.129, I2 = 47.1%). There was no proof of publication bias (Begg P = 0.308, Egger P = 0.187).

Primary patency

The meta-analysis of three studies with 107 patients in the combination stent group and 163 patients in the Fluency stent group was performed. The primary patency was significantly lower in the Fluency/Wallstent stent combination group (HR = 0.473, 95% CI [0.288, 0.776]) [Figure 3]. No statistical heterogeneity was observed (P = 0.650, I2 = 0.0%), and a fixed-effect model was chosen. There was no proof of publication bias (Begg P = 1.000, Egger P = 0.323).

Portal venous pressure

Compared with Fluency stent alone, combination therapy was associated with moderate decrease in outcomes on the post-operative portal venous pressure [SMD −0.210, 95% CI [−0.418, −0.001], P = 0.049) [Figure 4] under the random-effects model (P = 0.023, I2 = 68.4%) and was not associated with significant decrease in outcomes on the pre-operative portal venous pressure (SMD −0.129, 95% CI [−0.336, 0.078], P = 0.223) [Figure 4] under the fixed-effect model (P = 0.428, I2 = 0.0%). No evidence of publication bias (Begg P = 1.000, Egger P = 0.856; Begg P = 0.089, Egger P = 0.148) was observed.

Hepatic encephalopathy and re-bleeding

Meta-analysis of two studies indicated that hepatic encephalopathy rate and re-bleeding rate were similar between the two groups in a fixed-effects model (OR = 0.860, 95% CI [0.341, 2.169], P = 0.750; OR = 1.049, 95% CI [0.226, 4.881], P = 0.951) [Figure 5]. No significant difference between the two groups was detected regarding statistical heterogeneity (P = 0.335, I2 = 0.0%; P = 0.270, I2 = 17.8%) and publication bias (Harbord P = 1.000, Peters P = 1.000; Harbord P = 1.000, Peters P = 1.000).


  Discussion Top


To the best of our knowledge, no prior meta-analysis has compared the safety and efficacy of Fluency ePTFE-covered stent/BMS combination versus Fluency ePTFE-covered stent alone in TIPS procedure for refractory variceal bleeding. In the present meta-analysis, the variceal gastric coronary vein was embolised with coils. The placement of stent into the left portal vein branch and the selection of 8-mm Fluency stent were adopted in the majority of TIPS procedures. Just as some scholars have considered, the 8-mm stents may be the optimal choice for the prophylaxis of hepatic encephalopathy, appropriate diversion and prolonged survival.[23],[24] Despite four publications contains three non-RCTs, most of the citations included in this review were relatively high quality. Moreover, no heterogeneity among studies on most outcomes was observed.

TIPS has been created to decompress the portal pressure gradient (PPG) and thereby prevent variceal re-bleeding.[25] Furthermore, reduction PPG to less than 12 mmHg (1 mmHg = 0.133 kPa) or by 20% or more of baseline significantly reduces the risk of recurrent haemorrhage.[26],[27],[28] Portal venous pressure was decreased more than 20% of original among included studies. The pre-TIPS portal venous pressure was similar between both groups (SMD −0.129, 95% CI [−0.336,0.078], P = 0.223), and the post-TIPS portal venous pressure was significant decrease in Fluency/BMS combination therapy (SMD −0.210, 95% CI [−0.418, −0.001], P = 0.049). However, re-bleeding rate was comparable between the two groups in a fixed-effects model (OR = 1.049, 95% CI [0.226, 4.881], P = 0.951). The result is in agreement with earlier studies that lesser reduction of PPG for cirrhotic patients receiving secondary prevention may not be associated with a lower incidence of recurrent haemorrhage but with a higher incidence of hepatic encephalopathy and liver failure as an increase shunt flow.[6],[25],[29]

Shunt dysfunction is a major concern after the TIPS procedure, which related to thrombosis and pseudointimal hyperplasia in the parenchymal tract or the hepatic vein outflow tract.[30] In comparison with the bare metal stent, the advent of ePTFE-covered stent tends to diminish most parenchymal tract TIPS stenoses.[9] Meanwhile, the prevalence of hepatic vein end TIPS stenosis has relatively increased.[10],[31] As a result, extending the TIPS stent graft to the hepatic vein/inferior vena cava junction is critical for reducing hepatic venous end stenosis and improving shunt patency.[10],[13] Considering the condition of single Fluency ePTFE-covered stent fall short of the hepatic vein/inferior vena cava junction and straighten back to its original configuration over time, the additional BMS deployment must be required. However, in the present study, significantly lower primary patency was reported in Fluency ePTFE-covered stent/BMS combination than Fluency ePTFE-covered stent alone (HR = 0.473, 95% CI [0.288, 0.776]). One possible reason for explaining lower primary patency in Fluency/BMS combination was that combination therapy was prone to cause alteration of shunt configuration due to poor flexibility, such as a block of the stent-grafts. Another explanation might be different definitions of shunt dysfunction and assessment techniques used in each centre.

Hepatic encephalopathy is another main drawback following TIPS placement. The incidence of new or worsening post-TIPS encephalopathy approximately 30%, regardless of whether the ePTFE-covered stent or BMS is applied.[32] Data from the results demonstrated a relatively lower risk of hepatic encephalopathy, which might be explained that during TIPS placement, 8-mm stent-grafts were deployed, and invasive portosystemic pressure gradient was measured. Although most patients with hepatic encephalopathy respond to standard therapy, the occurrence of post-TIPS hepatic encephalopathy significantly impacts the patient's quality of life.[33] Therefore, the prevention of hepatic encephalopathy is essential through controlling precipitating factors and taking non-absorbable disaccharides.[34]

TIPS procedure-related complications such as intra-peritoneal bleeding and infection may cause perioperative death, nothing but the rate of mortality is rare. In two retrospective studies of 1750 and 389 patients, the incidence of fatal technical complications was 1.7%[6] and 0.5%,[35] respectively. These results are in accordance with the present study. In most situations, mortality following TIPS placement not be attributed to the TIPS procedure itself but the progression of underlying hepatic cirrhosis.[36] Child–Turcotte–Pugh and the model of end-stage liver diseases scores were the most common to predict hepatic reserve and mortality in patients after TIPS.[37]

Several potential limitations should be taken into account in this meta-analysis. First, over half of the studies were retrospective and the sample size was limited. Hence, the risk of certain selection and publication bias exists. Second, the type of bare metal stent and the measurement of portal venous pressure were heterogeneous. Third, all the studies are restricted to Asian populations. Last, clinical outcome data were not reported in some studies and the estimated HR data extracted from published Kaplan–Meier curves may not correspond with reality.


  Conclusions Top


Generic stent-graft/bare-stent combination therapy was associated with significantly lower primary patency compared to Fluency stent alone.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Sato M, Tateishi R, Yasunaga H, Horiguchi H, Yoshida H, Fushimi K, et al. Variceal hemorrhage: Analysis of 9987 cases from a Japanese nationwide database. Hepatol Res 2015;45:288-93.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Jairath V, Rehal S, Logan R, Kahan B, Hearnshaw S, Stanworth S, et al. Acute variceal haemorrhage in the United Kingdom: Patient characteristics, management and outcomes in a nationwide audit. Dig Liver Dis 2014;46:419-26.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
de Franchis R; Baveno VI Faculty. Expanding consensus in portal hypertension: Report of the Baveno VI consensus workshop: Stratifying risk and individualizing care for portal hypertension. J Hepatol 2015;63:743-52.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Holster IL, Tjwa ET, Moelker A, Wils A, Hansen BE, Vermeijden JR, et al. Covered transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt versus endoscopic therapy+β-blocker for prevention of variceal rebleeding. Hepatology 2016;63:581-9.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Loffroy R, Favelier S, Pottecher P, Estivalet L, Genson PY, Gehin S, et al. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for acute variceal gastrointestinal bleeding: Indications, techniques and outcomes. Diagn Interv Imaging 2015;96:745-55.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Boyer TD, Haskal ZJ; American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. The role of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) in the management of portal hypertension: Update 2009. Hepatology 2010;51:306.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Sommer CM, Gockner TL, Stampfl U, Bellemann N, Sauer P, Ganten T, et al. Technical and clinical outcome of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent shunt: Bare metal stents (BMS) versus viatorr stent-grafts (VSG). Eur J Radiol 2012;81:2273-80.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Perarnau JM, Le Gouge A, Nicolas C, d'Alteroche L, Borentain P, Saliba F, et al. Covered vs. uncovered stents for transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt: A randomized controlled trial. J Hepatol 2014;60:962-8.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Triantafyllou T, Aggarwal P, Gupta E, Svetanoff WJ, Bhirud DP, Singhal S. Polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stent graft versus bare stent in transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2018;28:867-79.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Saad WE, Darwish WM, Davies MG, Waldman DL. Stent-grafts for transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt creation: Specialized TIPS stent-graft versus generic stent-graft/bare stent combination. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2010;21:1512-20.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Qi XS, Bai M, Yang ZP, Fan DM. Selection of a TIPS stent for management of portal hypertension in liver cirrhosis: An evidence-based review. World J Gastroenterol 2014;20:6470-80.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Wu Q, Jiang J, He Y, Jiang T, Zhou S. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt using the FLUENCY expanded polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stent. Exp Ther Med 2013;5:263-6.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Luo X, Zhao M, Wang X, Jiang M, Yu J, Li X, et al. Long-term patency and clinical outcome of the transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt using the expanded polytetrafluoroethylene stent-graft. PLoS One 2019;14:e0212658.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Wan YM, Li YH, Xu Y, Wu HM, Li YC, Wu XN, et al. Predictors of shunt dysfunction and overall survival in patients with variceal bleeding treated with transjugular portosystemic shunt creation using the fluency stent graft. Acad Radiol 2018;25:925-34.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Wu X, Ding W, Cao J, Han J, Huang Q, Li N, et al. Favorable clinical outcome using a covered stent following transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in patients with portal hypertension. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 2010;17:701-8.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996;17:1-12.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol 2010;25:603-5.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Tierney JF, Stewart LA, Ghersi D, Burdett S, Sydes MR. Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis. Trials 2007;8:16.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Wang CM, Li X, Fu J, Luan JY, Li TR, Zhao J, et al. Construction of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt: Bare metal stent/stent-graft combination versus single stent-graft, a prospective randomized controlled study with long-term patency and clinical analysis. Chin Med J (Engl) 2016;129:1261-7.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Cai W, Zhuge Y, Zhang J, Li Z, He Q, Zhang M, et al. Safety and clinical efficacy of TIPS with various stents for treatment of cirrhosis with esophageal gastric varices bleeding. Zhonghua Gan Zang Bing Za Zhi 2015;23:258-64.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Li YH, Xu ZY, Wu HM, Yang LH, Xu Y, Wu XN, et al. Long-term shunt patency and overall survival of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt placement using covered stents with bare stents versus covered stents alone. Clin Radiol 2018;73:580-7.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Xu B, Liu J, Liu S, Xiang X, Lai L. Clinical effect of single covered stent and double covered stent on TIPS in the treatment of hemorrhage due to rupture of esophageal and gastric varices in cirrhosis and its influence on immune function. Exp Ther Med 2019;18:4259-64.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Huang Z, Yao Q, Zhu J, He Y, Chen Y, Wu F, et al. Efficacy and safety of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) created using covered stents of different diameters: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Diagn Interv Imaging 2021;102:279-85.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Trebicka J, Bastgen D, Byrtus J, Praktiknjo M, Terstiegen S, Meyer C, et al. Smaller-diameter covered transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt stents are associated with increased survival. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019;17:2793-9.e1.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Biecker E, Roth F, Heller J, Schild HH, Sauerbruch T, Schepke M. Prognostic role of the initial portal pressure gradient reduction after TIPS in patients with cirrhosis. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007;19:846-52.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Tripathi D, Therapondos G, Jackson E, Redhead DN, Hayes PC. The role of the transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent shunt (TIPSS) in the management of bleeding gastric varices: Clinical and haemodynamic correlations. Gut 2002;51:270-4.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Feu F, García-Pagán JC, Bosch J, Luca A, Terés J, Escorsell A, et al. Relation between portal pressure response to pharmacotherapy and risk of recurrent variceal haemorrhage in patients with cirrhosis. Lancet 1995;346:1056-9.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Villanueva C, Balanzó J, Novella MT, Soriano G, Sáinz S, Torras X, et al. Nadolol plus isosorbide mononitrate compared with sclerotherapy for the prevention of variceal rebleeding. N Engl J Med 1996;334:1624-9.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Liu C, Liu Y, Shao R, Wang S, Wang G, Wang L, et al. The predictive value of baseline hepatic venous pressure gradient for variceal rebleeding in cirrhotic patients receiving secondary prevention. Ann Transl Med 2020;8:91.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Cura M, Cura A, Suri R, El-Merhi F, Lopera J, Kroma G. Causes of TIPS dysfunction. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008;191:1751-7.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Li Z, Jiao DC, Si G, Han X, Zhang W, Li Y, et al. Use of fenestration to revise shunt dysfunction after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2020;45:556-62.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Rössle M. TIPS: 25 years later. J Hepatol 2013;59:1081-93.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Riggio O, Angeloni S, Salvatori FM, De Santis A, Cerini F, Farcomeni A, et al. Incidence, natural history, and risk factors of hepatic encephalopathy after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt with polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stent grafts. Am J Gastroenterol 2008;103:2738-46.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Coronado WM, Ju C, Bullen J, Kapoor B. Predictors of occurrence and risk of hepatic encephalopathy after TIPS creation: A 15-year experience. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2020;43:1156-64.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Bettinger D, Schultheiss M, Boettler T, Muljono M, Thimme R, Rössle M. Procedural and shunt-related complications and mortality of the transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPSS). Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2016;44:1051-61.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Ronald J, Wang Q, Choi SS, Suhocki PV, Hall MD, Smith TP, et al. Albumin-bilirubin grade versus MELD score for predicting survival after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) creation. Diagn Interv Imaging 2018;99:163-8.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Zhou C, Hou C, Cheng D, Tang W, Lv W. Predictive accuracy comparison of MELD and Child-Turcotte-Pugh scores for survival in patients underwent TIPS placement: A systematic meta-analytic review. Int J Clin Exp Med 2015;8:13464-72.  Back to cited text no. 37
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
Previous Article  Next Article

    

2004 Journal of Minimal Access Surgery
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
Online since 15th August '04