Systematic review with meta‐analysis: portal vein recanalisation and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for portal vein thrombosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Background Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt has been increasingly used in patients with portal vein thrombosis to obtain patency, but evidenced‐based decisions are challenging. Aim To evaluate published data on efficacy and safety of endovascular therapy in portal vein thrombosis. Methods Systematic search of PubMed, ISI, Scopus, and Embase for studies (in English, until October 2017) reporting feasibility, safety, 12‐month portal vein recanalisation, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt patency, and survival in patients with benign portal vein thrombosis undergoing endovascular treatment. An independent extraction of articles using predefined data fields and quality indicators was used; pooled analyses based on random‐effects models; heterogeneity assessment by Cochran's Q, I 2 statistic, subgroup analyses, and meta‐regression. Results Thirteen studies including 399 patients (92% cirrhosis; portal vein thrombosis: complete 46%, chronic 87%, cavernous transformation 17%, superior mesenteric vein involvement 55%) were included. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt was technically feasible in 95% (95% CI: 89%‐98%) with heterogeneity ( I 2 = 57%, P < 0.001) explained by cavernous transformation. Major complications occurred in 10% (95% CI: 6.0%‐18.0%; I 2 = 52%, P = 0.55). Additional catheter‐directed thrombolysis was associated with more complications compared to transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt alone or plus thrombectomy (17.6% vs 3.3%). Twelve‐month portal vein recanalisation was 79% (95% CI: 67%‐88%; I 2 = 78%, P < 0.01). Shunt patency at 12 months was 84% (95% CI: 76%‐90%; I 2 = 62%, P < 0.01). Overall 12‐month survival rate was 89%, with no heterogeneity. Conclusions Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for portal vein thrombosis recanalisation was highly feasible, effective, and safe. Cavernous transformation was the main determinant of technical failure. Additional catheter‐directed thrombolysis was associated with higher risk of severe complications.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.045 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".