ArticleCVIR endovascular2025
A comparative cost analysis of TIPS and BRTO for secondary prophylaxis in gastric variceal bleeding.
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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAfter a gastric variceal rupture, clinical practice guidelines recommend either transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) or balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) as interventional options for secondary prevention. This study aimed to generate and compare TIPS and BRTO costing data to calculate the secondary prevention cost following gastric variceal bleeding, to encourage consideration of resource cost within decision-making.
methodsAll costs were included for patients treated between 1 January 2017 and 1 January 2024. Data on procedure, non-procedure, and ward costs were collected. Ward costs were only calculated for elective admissions to reduce bias from inpatient emergency procedures. All costs were measured from a healthcare system perspective and included direct and indirect expenses where relevant. A 5% indexation for inflation was applied to non-fixed costs from 2017 to the 2024 cost year. The cost to prevent gastric re-bleeding was then calculated by adjusting the costing data generated based on existing outcome data in the literature, utilising the largest existing meta-analysis on the efficacy of TIPS and BRTO in preventing re-bleeding.
resultsThere were 38 patients in the study cohort, with a mean age 56.8 years (SD 12.0), and 25 patients (66%) were male. TIPS was performed in 27 patients (71%). The TIPS and BRTO groups had similar mean age, proportion of male sex, CP grading, and proportions of elective admissions. The median total cost for TIPS was AUD$11,922 (range $6307-$53,432), while the median total cost for BRTO was AUD$3632 (range $1818-$5174), p < 0.001. The adjusted cost to prevent future gastric re-bleed using TIPS was AUD$14,803, while the cost to prevent re-bleed using BRTO was AUD$3896.
conclusionThe cost magnitude of both TIPS and BRTO was both low in an Australian model, and both remain good options for patients. However, the use of BRTO was associated with significantly lower upfront procedural costs than for TIPS for secondary prevention of gastric variceal bleeding. Costs should form a key component of the value of IR to modern healthcare.
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.