Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

National Trends and Outcomes of Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt Creation Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample.

PURPOSE: To elucidate trends in transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) use and outcomes over the course of a decade, including predictors of inpatient mortality and extended length of hospital stay.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample was interrogated for the most recent 10 years available: 2003-2012. TIPS procedures and associated diagnoses were identified via International Classification of Diseases (version 9) codes, with the latter categorized into primary diagnoses in a hierarchy of disease severity. Linear regression analysis was used to determine trends of TIPS use and outcomes over time. Independent predictors of mortality and extended length of stay were determined by logistic regression.

RESULTS: A total of 55,145 TIPS procedures were captured during the study period. Annual procedural volume did not change significantly (5,979 in 2003, 5,880 in 2012). The majority of TIPSs were created for ascites and/or varices (84%). Inpatient mortality (12.5% in 2003, 10.6% in 2012; P < .05) decreased but varied considerably by diagnosis (from 3.7% to 59.3%), with a disparity between bleeding and nonbleeding varices (18.7% vs 3.8%; P < .01). Multivariate predictors of mortality (P < .001 for all) included primary diagnoses (bleeding varices, hepatorenal and abdominal compartment syndromes), patient characteristics (age > 80 y, black race), and sequelae of advanced cirrhosis (comorbid hepatocellular carcinoma, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, encephalopathy, and coagulopathy).

CONCLUSIONS: National TIPS inpatient mortality has decreased since 2003 while procedural volume has not changed. Postprocedural outcome is a function of patient demographic and socioeconomic factors and associated diagnoses. Independent predictors of poor outcome identified in this large national population study may aid clinicians in better assessing preprocedural risk.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app