ArticleCVIR endovascular2024
Comparison of outcomes for transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt creation: Viatorr versus Fluency versus a bare stent/Fluency stent combination.
Article in CVIR endovascular, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hepatic Encephalopathy after Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt Using Dedicated versus Generic Stent-Grafts in Cirrhotic Patients.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2026Article
- Cranial extension of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts using dedicated venous stents.Journal of vascular surgery cases and innovative techniques · 2026Article
- A novel intravascular navigational ultrasound system for transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt procedures.CVIR endovascular · 2025Article
- Stent fracture after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt: A case report.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Controlled expansion stent grafts versus legacy stent grafts for transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt: a single-centre retrospective study on the incidence of hepatic encephalopathy.CVIR endovascular · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare clinical outcomes of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) created with the single covered-uncovered stent (Viatorr TIPS Endoprosthesis) versus covered stent (Fluency) versus a combination of covered and uncovered stent. MATERIALS AND
methodsFrom May 2016 and July 2019, a total of 180 liver cirrhosis patients with recurrent variceal bleeding underwent TIPS creation with single covered-uncovered stent (n = 63) or covered stent (n = 41) or a covered and uncovered stent combination (n = 76). Shunt dysfunction, rebleeding, overt hepatic encephalopathy and mortality was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the log-rank test.
resultsThe difference of baseline characteristics among these three groups were not significant. The included patients had a median age of 51 years (IQR 43-61), and 101 (56.1%) were men. The 1-year and 2-year shunt dysfunction rates were 1.6% and 3.2% in the single covered-uncovered stent group, 7.3% and 7.3% in the covered stent group and 5.3% and 6.6% in the combination group, respectively. There was no significant difference among groups [Hazard Ratio (HR) (95%CI): 1 vs 2.29 (0.38 - 13.72) vs 2.10 (0.41 - 10.83); P = 0.913]. No significant differences in the incidence of all-cause rebleeding were observed between the groups at 1 year (Viatorr vs Fluency vs combination: 11.1% vs 17.1% vs 10.5%) as well as 2 years (15.9% vs 17.1% vs 11.8%), with the HR (95%CI) being 1 vs 1.27 (0.5-3.21) vs 0.74 (0.30-1.82); P = 0.475). The 1-year and 2-year incidence of overt hepatic encephalopathy were 30.2% and 30.2% in the single covered-uncovered stent group, 22.0% and 22.0% in the covered stent group and 25.0% and 25.0% in the combination group, respectively. However, there was no significant difference among these three groups (P = 0.402). In addition, there was no significant difference in the 1-year and 2-year mortality (6.3% and 7.9% vs. 4.9% and 9.8% vs. 6.6% and 9.2%, P = 0.606).
conclusionNo significant difference was observed among different stent groups. Fluency covered stent and the generic bare stent/Fluency covered stent was not an unreasonable alternative to the Viatorr stent for TIPS creation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.