Abstract
Background:
The optimal hemodynamic threshold for portal pressure gradient (PPG) following transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) for ascites remains uncertain.
Objective:
This study aimed to elucidate the relationship between post-TIPS PPG and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing small-diameter (8-mm) TIPS for ascites.
Design:
Single-center retrospective study.
Methods:
From June 2015 to June 2023, consecutive patients receiving small-diameter (8-mm) TIPS for refractory or recurrent ascites were considered for inclusion retrospectively. The impact of PPG on clinical outcomes—including ascites response, overt hepatic encephalopathy (OHE), further decompensation, and mortality—was evaluated using Fine and Gray competing risk regression models, both unadjusted and adjusted for potential confounders.
Results:
A total of 143 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 65.7% had refractory ascites, with a median Child-Pugh score of 9. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis identified post-TIPS PPG as a reliable predictor of ascites response (cutoff: 10.5 mmHg, area under curves (AUC): 0.733, p < 0.001) and OHE (cutoff: 7.5 mmHg, AUC: 0.716, p < 0.001). Univariate and multivariate Fine and Gray competing risk regression analyses further revealed that patients with PPG between 8 and 10 mmHg had favorable outcomes, including a lower incidence of ascites (>10 vs 8–10 mmHg: hazard ratio (HR) = 5.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.11–15.58, p < 0.001), a reduced risk of OHE (<8 vs 8–10 mmHg: HR = 2.87, 95% CI 1.29–6.35, p = 0.010), and a decreased risk of further decompensation (>10 vs 8–10 mmHg: HR = 2.78, 95% CI 1.43–5.41, p = 0.003; <8 vs 8–10 mmHg: HR = 2.42, 95% CI 1.20–4.90, p = 0.014) after TIPS placement.
Conclusion:
This study revealed that post-TIPS PPG was associated with clinical outcomes in patients with refractory or recurrent ascites undergoing small-diameter TIPS. A post-TIPS PPG of 8–10 mmHg seems to be the optimal range, effectively controlling ascites without significantly increasing the risk of shunt-related hepatic encephalopathy, while also reducing the risk of further decompensation.
Keywords: ascites, liver cirrhosis, portal hypertension, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt
Graphical abstract.
Introduction
Refractory/recurrent ascites are the hallmarks of complicated ascites in patients with end-stage liver disease and are strongly associated with poor prognosis, with a 1-year mortality rate of 20%–50%.1,2 Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) creation significantly reduces portal pressure and has been proposed as an effective treatment for ascites. 3 Compared to large-volume paracentesis (LVP) combined with intravenous albumin infusion, TIPS offers superior ascites control and improved transplant-free survival.4,5
The portal pressure gradient (PPG) represents the difference between the pressures in the portal vein and the inferior vena cava (IVC) and is routinely assessed during the TIPS procedure. 6 Post-TIPS PPG was associated with portal hypertension complications in patients receiving TIPS for variceal bleeding.7,8 Thus, the target of a post-TIPS PPG <12 mmHg or a 50% relative reduction from the pre-TIPS baseline was recommended by current guidelines. 9 However, there is no established consensus on the target post-TIPS PPG for ascites. A recent study indicated that greater PPG reduction after TIPS was associated with improved ascites control. 10 However, the majority of patients in that study received 10-mm bare stents, which are linked to a higher risk of shunt stenosis, overt hepatic encephalopathy (OHE), and mortality.11,12 Given that small-diameter covered stents are now more commonly used, the relationship between post-TIPS PPG and clinical outcomes in patients receiving small-diameter covered TIPS stents for ascites remains unclear.
This study aims to investigate the relationship between post-TIPS PPG and clinical outcomes and to determine the optimal PPG range in patients undergoing small-diameter (8-mm) covered TIPS for ascites.
Patients and methods
Patients
We retrospectively screened all consecutive patients undergoing TIPS procedures at the West China Hospital of Sichuan University between June 2015 and June 2023. Patients who received TIPS for refractory or recurrent ascites were eligible for inclusion in this study. Refractory ascites (RA) is defined as ascites that cannot be mobilized or the early recurrence (within 4 weeks) of which (after the LVP) cannot be prevented by medical therapy. 13 Recurrent ascites was regarded as a requirement of >3 LVPs within 1 year. 9
Exclusion criteria included non-cirrhotic portal hypertension, previous TIPS or liver transplantation (LT), advanced hepatocellular carcinoma or extrahepatic malignancy, end-stage renal disease, or insufficient medical records. Clinical and laboratory variables were obtained from electronic medical records. This study was approved by the institutional review board of West China Hospital. Written informed consent was waived because of the retrospective nature of this study. This study conforms to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement. 14
TIPS procedure
All TIPS procedures were performed under general anesthesia by experienced interventional hepatologists on our team using standardized techniques previously described. 15 An 8-mm expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)-covered stent with Viatorr Endoprosthesis (Gore and Associates, Flagstaff, AZ, USA) or Fluency stent (Bard, Inc., Tempe, AZ, USA) was deployed and dilated to its full diameter. Viatorr stents became available at our center in 2019; prior to that, Fluency covered stents were routinely used. The PPG was defined as the difference between the pressure measured in the main stem of the portal vein and the pressure measured in the IVC and determined before (pre-TIPS PPG) and at the end of the stent implantation (post-TIPS PPG) by a pressure transducer system (SCW Medicath Ltd., Shenzhen, Guangdong, China) and a multichannel monitor (Mindray, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China).
Follow-up
Patients were followed at the outpatient clinic every 3–6 months after TIPS. Patients were followed until LT, death, or last follow-up. The outcomes regarding ascites response, OHE, variceal bleeding, liver transplant, and death were collected. Complete response of ascites was defined as the absence of ascites after TIPS. Partial response was defined as improved ascites with no further need for LVP. No response referred to the persistence or recurrence of ascites necessitating LVP after TIPS.10,16 OHE was defined as hepatic encephalopathy grades ⩾2 according to West-Haven criteria. 17 Based on a previous study, further decompensation after TIPS was defined as persistent/recurrent ascites requiring paracentesis, OHE, or variceal bleeding after TIPS. 18
Statistical analysis
Data are presented as medians and ranges or as the number of patients and percentages. Comparisons of two or more groups with continuous variables were performed using the Mann–Whitney U test and the Kruskal–Wallis H test. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and area under curves (AUC) were used to analyze the predictive power of PPG for OHE and ascites after TIPS, with the AUC used as a measure of performance. Clinical outcomes (OHE, ascites, variceal bleeding, mortality) were analyzed as time-to-event variables. The effects of PPG on these outcomes were estimated by a competing risk regression model using the Fine and Gray test. Both unadjusted and adjusted analyses were performed to account for potential confounders. Death and LT were regarded as competing events when investigating the risk of OHE, ascites, and further decompensation. For death, LT was considered the competing risk. Subdistribution hazard ratios (sHR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated. The differences were considered statistically significant at a p value of <0.05. Statistical analyses were performed using R, Version 4.1.2 (http://www.R-project.org/) and GraphPad Prism, Version 10 (GraphPad Software Inc., San Diego, CA, USA).
Result
Patient selection and characteristics
From June 2015 to June 2023, 155 consecutive patients undergoing TIPS for ascites in our hospital were screened. Twelve patients were excluded because of acute Budd-Chiari syndrome (n = 4), advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 5), and insufficient records (n = 3). Ultimately, 143 patients were included in the final study cohort (Figure 1). Baseline characteristics are shown in Table 1. Briefly, the median age was 55 years, and 67.1% of the patients were male. Chronic Viral hepatitis (52.4%) was the most common etiology of cirrhosis, followed by alcohol-related liver disease (19.6%). Portal vein thrombosis was present in 42 patients (29.4%). The median Child-Pugh score and model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores were 9 and 12, respectively. Among the cohort, 94 patients (65.7%) received TIPS for RA, while 49 (34.3%) for recurrent ascites. Additionally, 76 patients (53.1%) received Viatorr stents, while the remaining patients (46.9%) were treated with Fluency stents.
Figure 1.
Flowchart of patient enrollment.
HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; TIPS, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt.
Table 1.
Baseline characteristics.
| Baseline | N = 143 |
|---|---|
| Age (year) | 55 (49–64) |
| Male, n (%) | 96 (67.1) |
| Etiology, n (%) | |
| Viral | 75 (52.4) |
| Alcohol | 28 (19.6) |
| Autoimmune | 15 (10.5) |
| Other | 25 (17.5) |
| Ascites types, n (%) | |
| Refractory ascites | 94 (65.7) |
| Recurrent ascites | 49 (34.3) |
| Stent types, n (%) | |
| Viatorr | 76 (53.1) |
| Fluency | 67 (46.9) |
| PVT, n (%) | 42 (29.4) |
| MELD score (points) | 12 (10–14) |
| Child-Pugh score (points) | 9 (8–9) |
| Child-Pugh class, n (%) | |
| B | 112 (78.3) |
| C | 31 (21.7) |
| Hemoglobin (g/L) | 85 (72–104) |
| White blood cell (G/L) | 3.39 (2.32–5.00) |
| Platelet count (G/L) | 69 (44–97) |
| Bilirubin (µmol/L) | 22.5 (15.5–31.1) |
| Albumin (g/L) | 32.0 (29.0–34.8) |
| Creatinine (µmol/L) | 76 (60–98) |
| Prothrombin time (s) | 15.9 (13.9–17.6) |
| INR | 1.31 (1.20–1.48) |
| Sodium (mmol/L) | 137.4 (134.2–139.7) |
Data are presented as median (interquartile range) or number (%).
INR, international normalized ratio; MELD, model for end-stage liver disease; PVT, portal vein thrombosis.
Median portal pressure decreased from 31 to 23 mmHg after TIPS (p < 0.001), while median IVC pressure increased from 8 to 13 mmHg (p < 0.001). Median PPG dropped significantly from 23 to 9 mmHg after TIPS (p < 0.001), representing a 60% reduction, as illustrated in Table 2.
Table 2.
Hemodynamics before and after TIPS insertion.
| Parameter | Median (interquartile range) |
|---|---|
| Pre-TIPS PV (mmHg) | 31 (28–36) |
| Pre-TIPS IVC (mmHg) | 8 (5–10) |
| Pre-TIPS PPG (mmHg) | 23 (19–27) |
| Post-TIPS PV (mmHg) | 23 (20–27) |
| Post-TIPS IVC (mmHg) | 13 (10–16) |
| Post-TIPS PPG (mmHg) | 9 (7–12) |
| PPG reduction (%) | 60 (48–68) |
IVC, inferior vena cava; PPG, portal pressure gradient; PV, portal vein; TIPS, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt.
Clinical outcomes after TIPS
The median follow-up period was 20.4 months after the TIPS procedure. As shown in Table 3, 67 patients (46.8%) had no ascites after TIPS, achieving a complete response. Improved ascites with no need for LVP was observed in 33 patients (23.1%), while 43 patients (30.1%) remained persistent or recurrent ascites requiring further LVP after TIPS. Forty-seven patients (32.9%) experienced OHE, of which 12 patients required hospitalization. A total of 78 patients (54.5%) developed further decompensation, including persistent or recurrent ascites in 33 patients, OHE in 43 patients, and variceal bleeding in 2 patients. TIPS dysfunction occurred in 11 patients (7.7%).
Table 3.
Clinical outcomes after TIPS.
| Outcomes | N (%) |
|---|---|
| Ascites, n (%) | |
| Persistent or recurrent ascites needing LVP | 43 (30.1) |
| Ascites without LVP | 33 (23.1) |
| No Ascites | 67 (46.8) |
| Gastrointestinal bleeding, n (%) | 18 (12.6) |
| Variceal bleeding | 7 (4.9) |
| Peptic ulcer bleeding | 2 (1.4) |
| Unknown | 9 (6.3) |
| OHE, n (%) | 47 (32.9) |
| Grade of first episode of OHE, n (%) | |
| Grade 2 | 28 (19.6) |
| Grade 3 | 11 (7.7) |
| Grade 4 | 8 (5.6) |
| Further decompensation, n (%) | 78 (54.5) |
| First episode of further decompensation, n (%) | |
| Persistent or worsening ascites | 33 (23.1) |
| OHE | 43 (30.0) |
| Variceal bleeding | 2 (1.4) |
| Death, n (%) | 51 (35.7) |
| Cause of death, n (%) | |
| Liver failure | 19 (13.3) |
| Gastrointestinal bleeding | 8 (5.6) |
| HCC | 4 (2.8) |
| Pulmonary infection | 6 (4.2) |
| Others | 5 (3.5) |
| Unknown | 9 (6.3) |
| Liver transplantation, n (%) | 3 (2.1) |
Data presented as the number of patients (percentage).
HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; LVP, Large-volume paracentesis; OHE, overt hepatic encephalopathy; TIPS, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt.
Fifty-one patients died during follow-up, and liver failure was the main cause (n = 19, 13.3%). Only three patients (2.1%) received LT.
The impact of post-TIPS PPG on ascites and OHE after TIPS implantation
Patients who showed no response, with ascites showed higher post-TIPS PPG values compared with those with partial response or complete response (Figure 2(a)). A lower PPG was observed in patients with OHE after TIPS insertion, compared with those without (Figure 2(b)). ROC analysis revealed the post-TIPS PPG had a favorable prediction for ascites (AUC: 0.733; p < 0.001) and OHE (AUC: 0.716; p < 0.001). The Youden index identified 10.5 mmHg as the optimal cutoff value for predicting persistent or recurrent ascites and 7.5 mmHg for predicting OHE following TIPS implantation (Figure 2(c) and (d)).
Figure 2.
The impact of post-TIPS PPG on ascites and OHE after TIPS implantation. Mann–Whitney test was used to analyze ascites response (a) and OHE (b) after TIPS, dependent on post-TIPS PPG value. Receiver operating characteristic analyses demonstrated the strong predictive value of post-TIPS PPG value for ascites response (c) and OHE (d).
OHE, overt hepatic encephalopathy; PPG, portal pressure gradient; TIPS, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt.
Post-TIPS PPG of 8–10 mmHg associated with favorable prognosis after TIPS
Based on the analysis of the Youden index, patients were classified into three groups according to post-TIPS PPG: <8, 8–10, and >10 mmHg. Patients with PPG >10 and <8 mmHg were observed to have a higher risk of no response for ascites and OHE after TIPS, respectively (Figure 3(a) and (c)). Patients with a post-TIPS PPG of 8–10 mmHg exhibited a lower risk of further decompensation compared to those with PPG <8 or >10 mmHg (Figure 3(e)). After adjusting for potential confounders, multivariable competing risk regression analysis identified higher PPG (>10 vs 8–10 mmHg: HR = 5.74, 95% CI 2.11–15.58, p < 0.001) and creatinine (HR = 1.00, 95% CI 1.00–1.01, p = 0.035) as independent risk factors for ascites persistence or recurrence (Figure 3(b)). Lower PPG (<8 vs 8–10 mmHg: HR = 2.87, 95% CI 1.29–6.35, p = 0.010) and MELD score (HR = 1.12, 95% CI 1.02–1.24, p = 0.017) were found to be key determinants for OHE (Figure 3(d)). Furthermore, both higher PPG (>10 vs 8–10 mmHg: HR = 2.78, 95% CI 1.43–5.41, p = 0.003) and lower PPG (<8 vs 8–10 mmHg: HR = 2.42, 95% CI 1.20–4.90, p = 0.014) were independently associated with further decompensation after TIPS (Figure 3(f)). Regarding mortality, no significant difference was observed in the competing risk regression (Figure 3(g)). Only Child-Pugh score (HR = 1.37, 95% CI 1.02–1.84, p = 0.036) and creatinine levels (HR = 1.01, 95% CI 1.00–1.01, p = 0.001) were recognized as major contributors to death in the multivariable competing risk regression analysis (Figure 3(h)). Similarly, subgroup analyses of patients stratified by stent type (Viatorr and Fluency) revealed that those with a post-TIPS PPG of 8–10 mmHg consistently exhibited better ascites response and lower risks of OHE and further decompensation (Supplemental Figures 1 and 2).
Figure 3.
Impact of the post-TIPS PPG values on clinical outcomes. Cumulative incidence curves of (a) ascites, (c) OHE, (e) further decompensation, and (g) death according to the threshold of 8 and 10 mmHg of post-TIPS PPG. Forest plot showing the adjusted effect of post-TIPS PPG on (b) ascites, (d) OHE, (f) further decompensation, and (h) death in multivariate analysis.
OHE, overt hepatic encephalopathy; PPG, portal pressure gradient; TIPS, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt; WBC, white blood cell.
Discussion
The current retrospective study included patients receiving small-diameter TIPS for ascites and demonstrated that post-TIPS PPG was a critical determinant of clinical outcomes. Excessive PPG reduction (<8 mmHg) or insufficient reduction (>10 mmHg) was associated with unfavorable outcomes, and 8–10 mmHg might be an optimal range of post-TIPS PPG with a lower risk of further decompensation. However, no clear relationship between PPG and mortality was observed in our cohort.
More than two-thirds of the patients achieved an ascites response in our research, with 67% achieving complete resolution, which is comparable to previous studies.19–21 Theoretically, lower post-TIPS PPG values could reduce portal pressure more effectively and improve ascites control, but the relationship between PPG reduction and ascites outcomes remains controversial. Several previous studies found no clear correlation between PPG reduction and recurrence of ascites.22,23 By contrast, a recent study by Queck et al. 10 revealed that patients with higher PPG reduction had improved ascites. It should be further highlighted that most of these studies included patients who received bare stents, with a higher rate of shunt stenosis, which may lead to a gradual increase in the post-TIPS PPG. 11 Additionally, the lack of standardized definitions and measurement protocols for PPG across centers during earlier studies might contribute to inconsistent findings. In our study, PPG was calculated according to current guidelines by measuring the main portal vein pressure and IVC pressure before and after TIPS placement.9,24 Furthermore, at variance with these studies, a competing risk regression model was performed to eliminate the impact of death or LT on evaluating ascites outcomes in our study. Both univariate and multivariate regression analyses confirmed that patients with PPG >10 mmHg had a higher risk of ascites progression. In addition to PPG, serum creatinine levels were identified as a risk factor, consistent with findings reported in previous studies.19,25
Hepatic encephalopathy (HE) remains a significant problem after TIPS insertion. 26 In our cohort, the rate of OHE was 32.9%, which was lower than reported in previous studies of patients undergoing TIPS for ascites.20,21 This might be partly attributable to the use of small-diameter stents in our study. Excessive reduction of PPG by TIPS is associated with a higher risk of shunt-related HE.27,28 In our cohort, in line with these findings, our study found that patients with PPG <8 mmHg had a higher risk of OHE after TIPS. Mechanistically, the lower PPG allows a greater volume of portal venous blood to bypass hepatic detoxification and flow directly to the IVC via the stent, thereby increasing the risk of post-TIPS hepatic encephalopathy. 29 Therefore, based on our findings, maintaining a post-TIPS PPG of ⩾8 mmHg might be beneficial in mitigating the incidence of HE following TIPS.
Further decompensation is associated with poor outcomes in patients with cirrhosis.18,30 Our study found that patients with a post-TIPS PPG between 8 and 10 mmHg had a lower risk of further decompensation, largely due to better ascites response and a reduced incidence of OHE. However, the lower risk of further decompensation did not result in a survival benefit in our cohort, possibly due to the proportions of decompensation events. OHE was the most common further decompensation event in our cohort, accounting for over 30%. This aligned with recent evidence indicating that episodic OHE following TIPS was not significantly associated with mortality in patients treated for ascites or variceal bleeding. 31 Consequently, we did not find an appropriate PPG range to reduce post-TIPS mortality. Furthermore, beyond portal hypertension, the progressive deterioration of liver function, as demonstrated in our multivariate analysis, and systemic inflammation play critical roles in the development of end-stage liver disease. 32 A reduction in portal pressure alone is insufficient to reverse the progression of cirrhosis. 33
Several factors may influence the accuracy of PPG measurements during TIPS procedures, including timing of measurement, catheter position, and anesthesia method.34,35 A recent prospective study by Lv et al. 36 demonstrated that the early PPG (1–3 days after the TIPS procedure) is a better reflection of long-term PPG and was significantly associated with clinical outcomes. Consistent with the retrospective study by Silva-Junior et al., 35 the early PPG avoids the confounding effects of anesthesia and hemodynamic instability, thereby allowing a more accurate assessment of true portal pressure. These key findings provide valuable evidence for optimizing post-TIPS pressure targets and management. Importantly, whether these findings can be extended to patients with ascites remains to be further investigated.
Our study has several limitations. First, this was a single-center retrospective analysis, inherently susceptible to selection and outcome-reporting biases. However, the inclusion of consecutive patients was intended to mitigate these biases.
Second, only self-expanding PTFE-covered stents were used due to the unavailability of controlled-expansion stents during the study period. Third, only approximately 30% of patients in our cohort achieved a post-TIPS PPG of 8–10 mmHg. Hence, our findings remain to be confirmed in larger prospective studies. Lastly, as most patients had viral liver disease, no definitive conclusion can be drawn for patients with other chronic liver diseases.
In conclusion, the current study revealed that the post-TIPS PPG was associated with clinical outcomes following small-diameter TIPS implantation in patients with ascites. Patients with PPG ⩽10 mmHg had better ascites control; meanwhile, patients with PPG ⩾8 mmHg had a lower risk for OHE. Hence, a post-TIPS PPG range of 8–10 mmHg may represent an optimal target for reducing further decompensation, despite no survival benefit. Further large-scale prospective studies, particularly involving controlled-expansion stents, are needed to establish the optimal post-TIPS PPG range for ascites.
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-tag-10.1177_17562848251372265 for Determining the optimal portal pressure gradient after small-diameter TIPS for ascites: a retrospective study by Guofeng Liu, Songchi Xiao, Xiaoze Wang, Yi Shen, Yuping He, Li Yang and Xuefeng Luo in Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology
Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-tag-10.1177_17562848251372265 for Determining the optimal portal pressure gradient after small-diameter TIPS for ascites: a retrospective study by Guofeng Liu, Songchi Xiao, Xiaoze Wang, Yi Shen, Yuping He, Li Yang and Xuefeng Luo in Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology
Acknowledgments
None.
Appendix
Abbreviations
AUC area under curves
HCC hepatocellular carcinoma
INR international normalized ratio
IVC inferior vena cava
LT liver transplantation
OHE overt hepatic encephalopathy
PPG portal pressure gradient
PV portal vein
PVT portal vein thrombosis
RA refractory ascites
ROC receiver operating characteristic
sHR subdistribution hazard ratios
TIPS transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt
WBC white blood cell
Footnotes
ORCID iDs: Guofeng Liu 
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2835-9547
Supplemental material: Supplemental material for this article is available online.
Contributor Information
Guofeng Liu, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Sichuan University—University of Oxford Huaxi Joint Centre for Gastrointestinal Cancer, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, People’s Republic of China.
Songchi Xiao, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Sichuan University—University of Oxford Huaxi Joint Centre for Gastrointestinal Cancer, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, People’s Republic of China.
Xiaoze Wang, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Sichuan University—University of Oxford Huaxi Joint Centre for Gastrointestinal Cancer, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, People’s Republic of China.
Yi Shen, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Sichuan University—University of Oxford Huaxi Joint Centre for Gastrointestinal Cancer, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, People’s Republic of China.
Yuping He, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Sichuan University—University of Oxford Huaxi Joint Centre for Gastrointestinal Cancer, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, People’s Republic of China.
Li Yang, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Sichuan University—University of Oxford Huaxi Joint Centre for Gastrointestinal Cancer, West ChinaHospital, Sichuan University, 37 Guoxue Lane, Chengdu, Sichuan 610041, People’s Republic of China.
Xuefeng Luo, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Sichuan University—University of Oxford Huaxi Joint Centre for Gastrointestinal Cancer, West ChinaHospital, Sichuan University, 37 Guoxue Lane, Chengdu, Sichuan 610041, People’s Republic of China.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate: The study was approved by the Biomedical Research Ethics Committee of West China Hospital, Sichuan University (no. 2023-1446). Written informed consent was waived because of the retrospective nature of this study.
Consent for publication: Not applicable.
Author contributions: Guofeng Liu: Data curation; Formal analysis; Methodology; Writing – original draft.
Songchi Xiao: Methodology; Resources.
Xiaoze Wang: Data curation; Formal analysis.
Yi Shen: Formal analysis; Investigation; Software.
Yuping He: Data curation.
Li Yang: Supervision; Writing – review & editing.
Xuefeng Luo: Supervision; Writing – review & editing.
Funding: The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Xuefeng Luo received the fund from National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 82470640).
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Availability of data and materials: The data and materials of this article could be available by contacting the corresponding author.
References
- 1. European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of patients with decompensated cirrhosis. J Hepatol 2018; 69(2): 406–460. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Jepsen P, Ott P, Andersen PK, et al. Clinical course of alcoholic liver cirrhosis: a Danish population-based cohort study. Hepatology 2010; 51(5): 1675–1682. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Deltenre P, Zanetto A, Saltini D, et al. The role of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in patients with cirrhosis and ascites: recent evolution and open questions. Hepatology 2023; 77(2): 640–658. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Bureau C, Thabut D, Oberti F, et al. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts with covered stents increase transplant-free survival of patients with cirrhosis and recurrent ascites. Gastroenterology 2017; 152(1): 157–163. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Bucsics T, Hoffman S, Grünberger J, et al. EPTFE-TIPS vs repetitive LVP plus albumin for the treatment of refractory ascites in patients with cirrhosis. Liver Int 2018; 38(6): 1036–1044. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. La Mura V, Abraldes JG, Berzigotti A, et al. Right atrial pressure is not adequate to calculate portal pressure gradient in cirrhosis: a clinical-hemodynamic correlation study. Hepatology 2010; 51(6): 2108–2116. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Casado M, Bosch J, García-Pagán JC, et al. Clinical events after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt: correlation with hemodynamic findings. Gastroenterology 1998; 114(6): 1296–1303. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Rössle M, Siegerstetter V, Olschewski M, et al. How much reduction in portal pressure is necessary to prevent variceal rebleeding? A longitudinal study in 225 patients with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts. Am J Gastroenterol 2001; 96(12): 3379–3383. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. de Franchis R, Bosch J, Garcia-Tsao G, et al. Baveno VII—renewing consensus in portal hypertension. J Hepatol 2022; 76(4): 959–974. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Queck A, Schwierz L, Gu W, et al. Targeted decrease of portal hepatic pressure gradient improves ascites control after TIPS. Hepatology 2023; 77(2): 466–475. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Maleux G, Perez-Gutierrez NA, Evrard S, et al. Covered stents are better than uncovered stents for transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts in cirrhotic patients with refractory ascites: a retrospective cohort study. Acta Gastroenterol Belg 2010; 73(3): 336–341. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Trebicka J, Bastgen D, Byrtus J, et al. Smaller-diameter covered transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt stents are associated with increased survival. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019; 17(13): 2793–2799.e1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Moore KP, Wong F, Gines P, et al. The management of ascites in cirrhosis: report on the consensus conference of the International Ascites Club. Hepatology 2003; 38(1): 258–266. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Ann Intern Med 2007; 147(8): 573–577. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Luo X, Zhao M, Wang 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(2): e0212658. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Narahara Y, Kanazawa H, Fukuda T, et al. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt versus paracentesis plus albumin in patients with refractory ascites who have good hepatic and renal function: a prospective randomized trial. J Gastroenterol 2011; 46(1): 78–85. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases; European Association for the Study of the Liver. Hepatic encephalopathy in chronic liver disease: 2014 practice guideline by the European Association for the Study of the Liver and the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. J Hepatol 2014; 61(3): 642–659. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Larrue H, D’Amico G, Olivas P, et al. TIPS prevents further decompensation and improves survival in patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension in an individual patient data meta-analysis. J Hepatol 2023; 79(3): 692–703. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Piecha F, Radunski UK, Ozga AK, et al. Ascites control by TIPS is more successful in patients with a lower paracentesis frequency and is associated with improved survival. JHEP Rep 2019; 1(2): 90–98. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Bercu ZL, Fischman AM, Kim E, et al. TIPS for refractory ascites: a 6-year single-center experience with expanded polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stent-grafts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015; 204(3): 654–661. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Tan HK, James PD, Sniderman KW, et al. Long-term clinical outcome of patients with cirrhosis and refractory ascites treated with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt insertion. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015; 30(2): 389–395. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Nair S, Singh R, Yoselewitz M. Correlation between portal/hepatic vein gradient and response to transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt creation in refractory ascites. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2004; 15(12): 1431–1434. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Parvinian A, Bui JT, Knuttinen MG, et al. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for the treatment of medically refractory ascites. Diagn Interv Radiol 2014; 20(1): 58–64. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Boike JR, Thornburg BG, Asrani SK, et al. North American practice-based recommendations for transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts in portal hypertension. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022; 20(8): 1636–1662.e36. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Taki Y, Kanazawa H, Narahara Y, et al. Predictive factors for improvement of ascites after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in patients with refractory ascites. Hepatol Res 2014; 44(8): 871–877. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Thornburg B. Hepatic encephalopathy following transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt placement. Semin Intervent Radiol 2023; 40(3): 262–268. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Riggio O, Merlli M, Pedretti G, et al. Hepatic encephalopathy after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt. Incidence and risk factors. Dig Dis Sci 1996; 41(3): 578–584. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Chung HH, Razavi MK, Sze DY, et al. Portosystemic pressure gradient during transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt with Viatorr stent graft: what is the critical low threshold to avoid medically uncontrolled low pressure gradient related complications? J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 23(1): 95–101. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Riggio O, Nardelli S, Moscucci F, et al. Hepatic encephalopathy after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt. Clin Liver Dis 2012; 16(1): 133–146. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Garcia-Guix M, Ardevol A, Sapena V, et al. Influence of further decompensation on survival across clinical stages of decompensated cirrhosis: the role of portal hypertension and HVPG changes. Liver Int 2024; 44(8): 1971–1989. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Nardelli S, Riggio O, Marra F, et al. Episodic overt hepatic encephalopathy after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt does not increase mortality in patients with cirrhosis. J Hepatol 2024; 80(4): 596–602. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Arroyo V, Angeli P, Moreau R, et al. The systemic inflammation hypothesis: towards a new paradigm of acute decompensation and multiorgan failure in cirrhosis. J Hepatol 2021; 74(3): 670–685. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Karagiannakis DS. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for recompensating decompensated cirrhosis? World J Gastroenterol 2024; 30(20): 2621–2623. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Reverter E, Blasi A, Abraldes JG, et al. Impact of deep sedation on the accuracy of hepatic and portal venous pressure measurements in patients with cirrhosis. Liver Int 2014; 34(1): 16–25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Silva-Junior G, Turon F, Baiges A, et al. Timing affects measurement of portal pressure gradient after placement of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts in patients with portal hypertension. Gastroenterology 2017; 152(6): 1358–1365. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Lv Y, Wang Q, Luo B, et al. Identifying the optimal measurement timing and hemodynamic targets of portal pressure gradient after TIPS in patients with cirrhosis and variceal bleeding. J Hepatol 2025; 82(2): 245–257. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-tag-10.1177_17562848251372265 for Determining the optimal portal pressure gradient after small-diameter TIPS for ascites: a retrospective study by Guofeng Liu, Songchi Xiao, Xiaoze Wang, Yi Shen, Yuping He, Li Yang and Xuefeng Luo in Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology
Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-tag-10.1177_17562848251372265 for Determining the optimal portal pressure gradient after small-diameter TIPS for ascites: a retrospective study by Guofeng Liu, Songchi Xiao, Xiaoze Wang, Yi Shen, Yuping He, Li Yang and Xuefeng Luo in Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology