ArticleBMC gastroenterology2025
Comparative efficacy and safety of endovascular intervention versus conservative therapy in Budd-Chiari syndrome: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis retrospective cohort study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of endovascular intervention with conservative therapy in patients with Budd-Chiari syndrome (BCS). METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 188 patients diagnosed with BCS were divided into endovasular intervention (n = 108) and conservative therapy (n = 80) groups. Primary endpoints were clinical success and overall survival (OS) at 24 months. Clinical success was defined as a ≥ 50% reduction in ascites and the absence of variceal bleeding within 6 months. Secondary outcomes included improvement in liver function and incidence of major complications.
resultsThe clinical success rate was significantly higher in the endovasular intervention group compared to the conservative therapy group [77.0% vs. 41.3%; p< 0.001; relative risk (RR) = 1.86; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.41-2.45]. The 24-month OS was superior in the endovasular intervention group [95.4%vs. 85.0%; hazard ratio (HR) = 0.30, 95% CI: 0.09-0.80; p= 0.02]. Patients receiving endovascular intervention demonstrated greater improvement in liver function. No significant difference was found in the incidence of major complications between the two groups (1.6% vs. 2.5%; p= 0.64).
conclusionEndovascular intervention is associated with significantly higher clinical success rate and a 70% reduction in 2-year mortality compared to conservative therapy, without an increase in major complications. These results support the use of endovascular intervention as a preferred first-line treatment in appropriately selected patients with BCS. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The clinical advantages of endovascular intervention underscore the need for standardized treatment protocols in BCS. Early implementation of interventional strategies by hepatologists and radiologists may enhance both OS and quality of life for patients.
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.