Partial splenic embolization is superior to intravenous somatostatin for decreasing portal pressure in cirrhotic patients: a dynamic self-controlled cohort study.

AIMS: The efficacy of somatostatin in altering splanchnic hemodynamics in cirrhotic portal hypertension is still controversial. We aimed to establish the dynamic effect of somatostatin on portal pressure in cirrhotic patients and compared its effect with Partial Splenic Embolization (PSE). METHODS: Eighteen patients with cirrhotic portal hypertension were prospectively recruited. The wedged hepatic venous pressure (WHVP) and free hepatic venous pressure (FHVP) were repeatedly measured at baseline, 1-, 5-, 10- and 20-min after initiating somatostatin infusion. After somatostatin infusion cessation and washout, WHVP and FHVP were measured before and after PSE. The change in all the variables between time points was analyzed. RESULTS: Decreased hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) 5-min after initiation of infusion was identified compared with baseline level (19.6%; p-value: .042), which was achieved through elevated FHVP (37.5%; p-value: 9.26e - 04). There was no significant decrease in WHVP at any time point during somatostatin infusion. The HVPG (17.4%; p-value: 1.27e - 04) and WHVP (10.4%; p-value: 3.00e - 03) post-PSE significantly decreased compared to the washout level. No significant distribution differences in the number of patients with HVPG decrease by a percentage relative to the baseline level were identified between the 5-min time point and post-PSE. CONCLUSION: Our study indicates that somatostatin administration does not decrease WHVP within 20 min at clinically recommended doses. While somatostatin did decrease HVPG, this effect was achieved through increased FHVP, providing a possible explanation for its unclear efficacy. In contrast, PSE decreases both the WHVP and the HVPG.

Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt Placement for Portal Hypertension: Meta-Analysis of Safety and Efficacy of 8 mm vs. 10 mm Stents.

INTRODUCTION: Hepatic encephalopathy (HE) following transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) placement remains a leading adverse event. Controversy remains regarding the optimal stent diameter given that smaller stents may decrease the amount of shunted blood and decrease the risk of HE, but stent patency and/or clinical adequacy of portal decompression may also be affected. We aim to provide meta-analysis-based evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of 8 mm vs. 10 mm stents during TIPS placement. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched for studies comparing 8 mm and 10 mm stents during TIPS placement for portal hypertension decompression in cirrhotic patients. Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies were prioritized for inclusion. Overall evaluation of quality and bias for each study was performed. The outcomes assessed were the prevalence of HE, rebleeding or failure to control refractory ascites, and overall survival. Subgroup analysis based on TIPS indication was conducted. RESULTS: Five studies with a total number of 489 cirrhotic patients were identified. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) of post-TIPS HE was significantly lower in patients in the 8 mm stent group than in the 10 mm stent group (HR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.51~0.92, p value < 0.0001). The combined HR of post-TIPS rebleeding/the need for paracentesis was significantly higher in patients in the 8 mm stent group than in the 10 mm stent group (HR: 1.76, 95% CI: 1.22~2.55, p value < 0.0001). There was no statistically significant difference in the overall survival between the 8 mm and 10 mm stent groups. The combined risk of HE in the variceal bleeding subgroup was statistically lower (HR: 0.52, CI: 0.34-0.80) with an 8 mm stent compared with a 10 mm stent. The combined risk of both rebleeding/paracentesis and survival was not statistically significant between 8 mm and 10 mm stent use in subgroup analysis. CONCLUSION: 8 mm stents during TIPS placement are associated with a significant lower risk of HE compared to 10 mm stents (32% decreased risk), as well as a 76% increased risk of rebleeding/paracentesis. Meta-analysis results suggest that there is not one superior stent choice for all clinical scenarios and that the TIPS indication of variceal bleeding or refractory ascites might have different appropriate selection of the shunt diameter.