切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版) ›› 2026, Vol. 20 ›› Issue (04) : 331 -336. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3946.2026.04.009

论著

肝静脉压力梯度对TIPS与EVL治疗肝硬化食管胃底静脉曲张出血临床研究
刘涛1, 冯蓓2,(), 李晓勇1   
  1. 1 716000 陕西延安,延安大学附属医院肝胆胰外科
    2 716000 陕西延安,延安大学附属医院肿瘤科
  • 收稿日期:2026-01-15 出版日期:2026-08-26
  • 通信作者: 冯蓓

Clinical study on hepatic venous pressure gradient in TIPS versus EVL for bleeding due to esophagogastric varices secondary to liver cirrhosis

Tao Liu1, Bei Feng2,(), Xiaoyong Li1   

  1. 1 Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of Yan'an University, Yan'an Shaanxi Province 716000, China
    2 Department of Oncology, Affiliated Hospital of Yan'an University, Yan'an Shaanxi Province 716000, China
  • Received:2026-01-15 Published:2026-08-26
  • Corresponding author: Bei Feng
  • Supported by:
    Yan'an Science and Technology Program Project(2024-SFGG-193)
引用本文:

刘涛, 冯蓓, 李晓勇. 肝静脉压力梯度对TIPS与EVL治疗肝硬化食管胃底静脉曲张出血临床研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2026, 20(04): 331-336.

Tao Liu, Bei Feng, Xiaoyong Li. Clinical study on hepatic venous pressure gradient in TIPS versus EVL for bleeding due to esophagogastric varices secondary to liver cirrhosis[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Operative Procedures of General Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2026, 20(04): 331-336.

目的

研究肝静脉压力梯度(HVPG)对经颈静脉肝内门体分流术(TIPS)与内镜下曲张静脉套扎术(EVL)治疗肝硬化食管胃底静脉曲张出血临床意义。

方法

回顾性队列研究,纳入2022年1月至2024年12月确诊肝硬化食管胃底静脉曲张出血并接受治疗的152例患者。按实际干预措施分为TIPS组(n=74)和 EVL 组(n=78)。采用χ²检验或t检验比较两组主要疗效终点(涵盖 HVPG的术前水平、术后变化幅度及减压达标情况以及即时止血成功率)与次要疗效终点(包括1年累计再出血率、1年累计生存率及再出血中位时间),同时对比围手术期指标,P<0.05表示差异具有统计学意义。

结果

TIPS组患者总操作时间、穿刺/套扎时间、镇静/麻醉时间均显著长于EVL组,术中出血量、镇静药物用量多于EVL组;术后 24hVAS疼痛评分显著低于EVL组(P<0.001);术后HVPG、HVPG绝对降幅及HVPG下降率的两组间差异均具有统计学意义(P<0.001);减压达标者中,TIPS组患者1年累计再出血率更低、生存率更高、再出血中位时间更长(P<0.05);减压未达标者中,TIPS组患者1年累计再出血率更高、生存率更低,再出血中位时间更短(P<0.05);两组患者术后并发症肝性脑病、支架狭窄/闭塞、食管溃疡/狭窄、静脉曲张再发比较,差异均具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。

结论

TIPS与EVL的HVPG改善程度与术后再出血风险直接相关;TIPS操作难度大,但在远期再出血防控及生存获益方面更具优势;EVL虽操作简便,却存在远期再出血风险较高的不足;因此,HVPG水平较高、需长期降低再出血风险的肝硬化食管胃底静脉曲张出血患者,建议选择TIPS;HVPG相对偏低、无法耐受长时间手术操作且可接受短期局部并发症风险的患者,建议选择EVL。

Objective

To investigate the clinical value of hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) in transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) and endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) for the treatment of cirrhotic esophagogastric variceal bleeding.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was conducted. A total of 152 patients diagnosed with cirrhotic esophagogastric variceal bleeding and receiving corresponding treatment from January 2022 to December 2024 were enrolled. The patients were divided into the TIPS group (n=74) and the EVL group (n=78) according to the actual intervention measures. The chi-square test and t-test were used to compare primary efficacy endpoints (including preoperative HVPG level, postoperative HVPG change amplitude, pressure reduction compliance rate and immediate hemostasis success rate) and secondary efficacy endpoints (1-year cumulative rebleeding rate, 1-year cumulative survival rate and median time to rebleeding) between the two groups. Perioperative indicators were also compared. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

The total procedural time, puncture/ligation time and sedation/anesthesia time in the TIPS group were significantly longer than those in the EVL group, with more intraoperative blood loss and higher dosage of sedatives. The 24-hour postoperative Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain score of the TIPS group was markedly lower than that of the EVL group (P<0.001). Statistically significant differences were observed in postoperative HVPG, absolute HVPG reduction and HVPG reduction rate between the two groups (P<0.001). Among patients with successful pressure reduction, the TIPS group presented a lower 1-year cumulative rebleeding rate, higher survival rate and longer median time to rebleeding (P<0.05). For patients with failed pressure reduction, the TIPS group had a higher 1-year cumulative rebleeding rate, lower survival rate and shorter median time to rebleeding (P<0.05). Significant differences were found between the two groups in the incidence of postoperative complications including hepatic encephalopathy, stent stenosis/occlusion, esophageal ulcer/stenosis and recurrent varices (P<0.05).

Conclusion

The improvement of HVPG after TIPS and EVL is directly correlated with the risk of postoperative rebleeding. TIPS is technically demanding, but it shows superior performance in long-term rebleeding prevention and survival benefit. EVL is simple to perform but associated with a higher long-term rebleeding risk. Therefore, TIPS is recommended for patients with elevated HVPG who require long-term reduction of rebleeding risk. EVL is preferable for patients with relatively low HVPG, intolerance to prolonged procedures and acceptance of short-term local complication risks.

表1 两组肝硬化食管胃底静脉曲张出血患者基线资料比较
表2 两组肝硬化食管胃底静脉曲张出血患者围手术期操作效率与技术细节对比分析(
±s
表3 两组肝硬化食管胃底静脉曲张出血患者术后近期止血与远期预后比较
表4 再出血与未出血患者达标情况及相关指标比较
表5 两组肝硬化食管胃底静脉曲张出血患者术后并发症比较[例(%)]
[1]
朱振玲,顾玲. 替诺福韦与恩替卡韦在治疗慢性乙型肝炎肝硬化有效性和安全性的meta 分析[J]. 世界临床药物202546(5):501.
[2]
Xu XTang CLinghu E,et al. Guidelines for the Management of Esophagogastric Variceal Bleeding in Cirrhotic Portal Hypertension[J]. J Clin Transl Hepatol202311(7):1565-1579.
[3]
Ryu HKim TUYoon KT,et al. Predicting the risk of early bleeding following endoscopic variceal ligation in cirrhotic patients with computed tomography[J]. BMC Gastroenterol202323(1):410.
[4]
Cervoni JPWeil DDesmarets M,et al. Pre-emptive TIPS for gastric variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis(GAVAPROSEC): an open-label randomised clinical trial[J]. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepato202510(8):726-733.
[5]
Bochnakova T. Hepatic Venous Pressure Gradient[J]. Clin Liver Dis(Hoboken)202117(3):144-148.
[6]
Weichselbaum LLepida AMarot A,et al. Salvage transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in patients with cirrhosis and refractory variceal bleeding: A systematic review with meta-analysis[J]. United European Gastroenterol J202210(8):874-887.
[7]
中华医学会外科学分会脾及门静脉高压外科学组. 肝硬化门静脉高压症食管、胃底静脉曲张破裂出血诊治专家共识(2025版)[J]. 中华消化外科杂志202524(3):271-280.
[8]
Téllez LGuerrero AAlbillos A. Update on the diagnosis and management of portal hypertension in cirrhosis according to the Baveno Ⅶ Consensus Conference recommendations[J]. Rev Esp Enferm Dig2022114(9):534-542.
[9]
李建美,邓静娟,杨倩. 两种术式联合治疗肝癌合并肝硬化门静脉高压的安全性及随访评价[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版)202418(1):41-44.
[10]
莫闲,杨闯. 肝硬化患者并发门静脉血栓危险因素的Meta分析[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版)202317(6):678-683.
[11]
Bureau CThabut DJezequel C,et al. The Use of Rifaximin in the Prevention of Overt Hepatic Encephalopathy After Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt: A Randomized Controlled Trial[J]. Ann Intern Med2021174(5):633-640.
[12]
Tevethia HVPande AVijayaraghavan R,et al. Combination of carvedilol with variceal band ligation in prevention of first variceal bleed in Child-Turcotte-Pugh B and C cirrhosis with high-risk oesophageal varices: the ‘CAVARLY TRIAL’[J]. Gut202473(11):1844-1853.
[13]
de Felice IRidola LRiggio O,et al. Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt Placement: Effects on Nutritional Status in Cirrhotic Patients[J]. J Clin Med202312(22):7029.
[14]
Anis MAMajeed AAAbid S. Road to recompensation: Baveno VII criteria and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in liver cirrhosis[J]. World J Gastroenterol202430(32):3743-3747.
[15]
Boike JRThornburg BGAsrani SK,et al. North American Practice-Based Recommendations for Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunts in Portal Hypertension[J]. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol202220(8):1636-1662.e36.
[16]
Larrue HBureau C. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in portal hypertension: How to go further while staying on track?[J]. Hepatology202377(2):344-346.
[17]
Lee HLLee SW. The role of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in patients with portal hypertension: Advantages and pitfalls[J]. Clin Mol Hepatol202228(2):121-134.
[18]
Shaaban HEAbdellatef AOkasha HH. Hepatic recompensation according to Baveno VII criteria via transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt[J]. World J Gastroenterol202430(12):1777-1779.
[19]
Wang ZZhang ZGuo X,et al. Efficacy,feasibility and safety of TIPS in the treatment of recurrent portal hypertension with variceal bleeding after open splenectomy and esophagogastric devascularization[J]. Abdom Radiol(NY)202550(1):393-399.
[20]
Singh VKumar PVerma N,et al. Propranolol vs. band ligation for primary prophylaxis of variceal hemorrhage in cirrhotic patients with ascites: a randomized controlled trial[J]. Hepatol Int202216(4):944-953.
[1] 叶美妮, 刘思嘉, 臧玉玮, 刘云建. 肝硬化门静脉血栓形成的研究进展[J/OL]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 379-384.
[2] 中国门静脉高压联盟(CHESS)中华医学会消化病学分会微创介入协作组. 中国肝静脉压力梯度临床应用专家共识(2023 版)[J/OL]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2024, 18(02): 81-91.
[3] 杨汉文, 徐诗扬, 王强, 张朋朋, 成柯, 赵于军. 混合型肝硬化合并经颈静脉肝内门体分流术后肝性脊髓病行肝移植一例[J/OL]. 中华移植杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(02): 117-119.
[4] 吴俊嶺, 孟科, 刘江涛, 孙刚. 基于HVPG分层的门脉高压内镜治疗中远期疗效研究[J/OL]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(02): 100-105.
[5] 石洋, 郭辉, 李坚. 门静脉高压症TIPS操作规范及其手术相关并发症处理[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(03): 372-378.
[6] 刘起帆, 蒋安. 肝硬化门静脉高压症门静脉压力无创测量进展[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2024, 13(03): 270-275.
[7] 王玉琳, 王中华, 刘子文, 吕梦鑫, 于源滋, 李涛, 胡锦华, 张小茜. 肝硬化消化道出血患者经颈静脉肝内门体分流术前后肠道微生态的宏基因组学分析[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2025, 15(02): 135-143.
[8] 戚泽雪, 赵连晖, 王广川, 张春清. 从国内专家共识推荐意见更新探讨经颈静脉肝内门体分流术的临床应用进展[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2024, 14(03): 193-196.
[9] 宋学栋, 夏杰军, 庞宁东, 刘国珩, 韦树长. 经颈静脉肝内门体分流术治疗肝硬化门静脉高压患儿一例[J/OL]. 中华介入放射学电子杂志, 2026, 14(02): 216-218.
[10] 董丽, 张永慧, 成德雷, 周春泽, 殷亮, 胡成文. 校正后低体质量指数与门静脉高压症患者经颈静脉肝内门体分流术预后相关性研究[J/OL]. 中华介入放射学电子杂志, 2026, 14(01): 12-19.
[11] 王聪, 姜华, 彭文凯, 汪祖鑫, 李松蔚. 经颈静脉肝内门体分流术与肝性脑病相关研究的文献计量学分析[J/OL]. 中华介入放射学电子杂志, 2025, 13(02): 152-163.
[12] 漆琳, 洪婷, 魏欣, 胡鸿, 蒲嘉骐, 廖运国, 邓兴, 李超, 邓丹, 唐梓瑜, 冯志鹏, 邱世香. 构建肝脏体模实施经颈静脉肝内门体分流术训练的方法学研究[J/OL]. 中华介入放射学电子杂志, 2025, 13(01): 62-67.
[13] 吴佳霖, 罗骏阳, 钟胜, 王有枝, 姜在波. 肝内小直径覆膜支架联合抽栓、溶栓治疗门静脉血栓二例[J/OL]. 中华介入放射学电子杂志, 2023, 11(04): 377-379.
[14] 何青华, 蚁锐娟, 邓碧丽, 杨康娣, 万贻丹, 史桂华, 陈荃敏, 张晶晶. 基于CiteSpace的经颈静脉肝内门体分流术文献计量学分析[J/OL]. 中华介入放射学电子杂志, 2023, 11(04): 330-335.
[15] 蒋文艳, 陈卫. 经颈静脉肝内门体静脉分流术联合导管吸栓术治疗症状性门静脉血栓临床疗效观察[J/OL]. 中华胃肠内镜电子杂志, 2026, 13(02): 114-117.
阅读次数
全文


摘要


AI


AI小编
你好!我是《中华医学电子期刊资源库》AI小编,有什么可以帮您的吗?