MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1518514376 · doi:10.1111/jgh.12725

Long‐term clinical outcome of patients with cirrhosis and refractory ascites treated with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt insertion

2014· article· en· W1518514376 on OpenAlexaff
Hiang Keat Tan, Paul D. James, Kenneth W. Sniderman, Florence Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsToronto General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAscitesTransjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shuntCirrhosisHazard ratioGastroenterologyInternal medicineConfidence intervalOdds ratioSurgeryPortal hypertensionLiver diseaseRenal functionRefractory (planetary science)Urology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is indicated for the treatment of refractory ascites in cirrhosis. The long-term outcome of TIPS for refractory ascites is unknown. The aim of this study is to describe the natural history of patients with refractory ascites post-TIPS, and compare between polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)-covered versus bare stents. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of patients who had TIPS for refractory ascites was conducted. Prospectively collected data include demographics, angiographic data, blood work, and urinary sodium excretion. RESULTS: There were 136 patients who received TIPS (bare = 104, covered = 32) for over 22 years. Patients with PTFE stents had lower international normalized ratio and model for end-stage liver disease score. More patients with bare stents developed shunt dysfunction (74.0% vs 24.1%, P < 0.0001) and required more TIPS revisions (1.6 ± 0.2/patient vs 0.2 ± 0.1, P < 0.0001). Urinary sodium excretion increased significantly from first month and progressed to 98 ± 9 mmol/day at 12th month post-TIPS (P < 0.001 vs baseline), concurrent with improved renal function. Most patients (77.6%) completely cleared the ascites without diuretics, but many achieved this beyond 2 years. Number of TIPS revision was predictive of complete response at 12 months (odds ratio [OR] 0.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.5-0.9, P < 0.05). Age (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.05 [95% CI 1.02-1.08], P < 0.01), complete response (HR = 0.22 [95% CI 0.12-0.40], P < 0.0001) and polytetrafluoroethylene stents (HR = 0.23 [95% CI 0.05-0.97], P < 0.05) were predictive of survival. CONCLUSION: TIPS is an effective treatment for cirrhotic refractory ascites. Ascites clearance is dependent on number of TIPS revision, whereas survival is predicted by younger age, complete response, and covered stent use, although era effect likely contributed to improved survival with covered stent use.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations86
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Gastroenterology and HepatologySame topicLiver Disease and TransplantationFrench-language works237,207