ArticleCVIR endovascular2025
Right versus Middle Hepatic Vein access and One-Year TIPS Outcomes.
Article in CVIR endovascular, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study evaluates one-year clinical outcomes of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) placement using a middle hepatic vein (MHV) versus right hepatic vein (RHV) access. Primary end points were shunt patency and one-year survival. Secondary outcomes included incidence of de novo hepatic encephalopathy (HE) and recurrence of portal hypertension related complications such as ascites, hepatic hydrothorax, and gastrointestinal bleeding. While prior studies have examined portal vein target selection, the clinical relevance of hepatic vein choice remains understudied.
methodsA retrospective chart review of adult patients who underwent TIPS using a Viatorr stent graft between January 2014 and December 2022 was conducted. Patients were included if the procedure used either RHV or the MHV. Intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) was employed to select a direct path from hepatic to portal vein. Shunts were dilated to 8 or 10 mm to achieve a post-procedural portosystemic gradient (PSG) ≤ 12 mmHg or a 50% reduction from baseline. Clinical and imaging data was analyzed to assess outcomes, stratified by hepatic vein of access.
resultsOne-year survival (84% MHV vs 75% RHV, p = 0.2) and overall one-year patency rates (96% MHV vs 87% RHV, p = 0.5) were similar between the groups. However, MHV access significantly reduced de novo hepatic encephalopathy (30% MHV vs 62% RHV, p = 0.008) and moderate to severe cases (16% MHV vs 42% RHV, p = 0.017). Despite more frequent use of smaller diameter shunts (8 mm: 72% MHV vs 47% of RHV, p < 0.001), MHV access achieved similar post-TIPS portosystemic gradient reductions (Average Pre-TIPS gradient: 17 mmHg MHV & 17 mmHg RHV, p = 0.8; Average Post-TIPS gradient: 8 mmHg MHV & 7.5 mmHg RHV, p = 0.12). Hepatic vein choice did not affect outcomes for ascites, hydrothorax, or gastrointestinal bleeding.
conclusionMHV and RHV access routes provided similar patency, survival, and TIPS indication outcomes, but MHV access had decreased incidence of hepatic encephalopathy and achieved similar portosystemic gradient reduction while using a smaller diameter shunt. MHV may be a preferred option for patients at higher risk of developing hepatic encephalopathy.
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.