Decision-analysis of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt versus distal splenorenal shunt for portal hypertension

Authors

  • Steven L. Zacks,

    1. Departments of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Robert S. Sandler,

    1. Departments of Center for Gastrointestinal Biology and Disease, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Andrea K. Biddle,

    1. Departments of Health Policy and Administration, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Matthew A. Mauro,

    1. Departments of Radiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Robert S. Brown Jr M.D.

    Corresponding author
    1. Departments of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
    2. Departments of Center for Gastrointestinal Biology and Disease, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
    • Center for Liver Disease and Transplantation, Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center, 622 West 168 Street, PH 14, New York, NY 10032. fax: 212-305-9139
    Search for more papers by this author

Abstract

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) and surgical distal splenorenal shunt (DSRS) are treatments for complications of portal hypertension. TIPS is widely used because it is relatively easy to place. Because TIPS may malfunction over time, it is unclear whether TIPS is superiorto DSRS in patients with Child's class A cirrhosis who enjoy a longer survival. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of TIPS to DSRSfor portal hypertension in Child's class A cirrhosis. A decision analysis model was used to evaluate the number of procedures, life expectancy, and costs over the first 2 years in patients with Child's class A cirrhosis who underwent a TIPS or DSRS. Patients who received TIPS survived 1.96 years, required 1.7 procedures, and incurred $41,685 in costs. Patients who underwent a DSRS survived 1.86 years, required 1.0 procedure, and incurred $26,951 in costs. The cost-effectiveness of TIPS compared with DSRS was $147,340 per life-year saved. Adjusting the rate of TIPS dysfunction, 1-year survival, or the number of ultrasounds to detect TIPS dysfunction did not change the results. In patients with Child's class A cirrhosis, DSRS is a more cost-effective treatment than TIPS. Until the results of a randomized controlled trial comparing TIPS with DSRS are available, TIPS should be regarded as experimental and prohibitively expensive in Child's class A cirrhosis

Ancillary