Abstract:Hepatorenal syndrome is a condition that occurs in people with chronic liver disease (such as alcoholic hepatitis, advanced cirrhosis, or fulminant liver failure) and portal hypertension. The prognosis is dismal, often with a survival of weeks to months. Hepatorenal syndrome is characterised by the development of intense splanchnic vasodilation favouring ascites and hypotension leading to renal vasoconstriction and acute renal failure. Therefore, treatment attempts focus on improving arterial pressure through the use of vasopressors, paracentesis, and increasing renal perfusion pressure. Several authors have reported that the placement of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPS) may be a therapeutic option because it decreases portal pressure and improves arterial and renal pressures. However, the evidence is not clearly documented and TIPS may cause adverse events. Accordingly, it is necessary to evaluate the evidence of the benefits and harms of TIPS to assess its value in people with hepatorenal syndrome. To evaluate the benefits and harms of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPS) in adults with hepatorenal syndrome compared with sham, no intervention, conventional treatment, or other treatments. We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 2 June 2023. We included only randomised clinical trials with a parallel‐group design, which compared the TIPS placement with sham, no intervention, conventional therapy, or other therapies, in adults aged 18 years or older, regardless of sex or ethnicity, diagnosed with chronic liver disease and hepatorenal syndrome. We excluded trials of adults with kidney failure due to causes not related to hepatorenal syndrome, and we also excluded data from quasi‐randomised, cross‐over, and observational study designs as we did not design a separate search for such studies. We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. all‐cause mortality, 2. morbidity due to any cause, and 3. serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were 1. health‐related quality of life, 2. non‐serious adverse events, 3. participants who did not receive a liver transplant, 4. participants without improvement in kidney function, and 5. length of hospitalisation. We performed fixed‐effect and random‐effects meta‐analyses using risk ratio (RR) or Peto odds ratio (Peto OR), with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for the continuous outcomes. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence. We included two randomised clinical trials comparing TIPS placement (64 participants) versus conventional treatment (paracentesis plus albumin 8 g/L of removed ascites) (66 participants). The co‐interventions used in the trials were dietary treatment (sodium less than 60 mmoL/day), spironolactone (300 mg/day to 400 mg/day), and furosemide (120 mg/day). Follow‐up was up to 24 months. Both were multicentre trials from Spain and the USA, and Germany, conducted between 1993 and 2002. Most participants were men (aged 18 to 75 years). We are uncertain about the effect of TIPS placement compared with conventional treatment, during the first 24 months of follow‐up, on all‐cause mortality (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.38; 2 trials, 130 participants; I 2 = 58%; very low‐certainty evidence) and on the development of any serious adverse event (RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.10 to 24.59; 2 trials, 130 participants; I 2 = 78%; very low‐certainty evidence). The use of TIPS may or may not result in a decrease in overall morbidity such as bacterial peritonitis, encephalopathy, or refractory ascites, during the first 24 months of follow‐up, compared with the conventional treatment (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.18; 2 trials, 130 participants; I 2 = 0%; low‐certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of TIPS placement versus conventional treatment on the number of people who did not receive a liver transplant (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.14; 2 trials, 130 participants; I 2 = 0%; very low‐certainty evidence) or on the length of hospitalisation (MD −20.0 days, 95% CI −39.92 to −0.08; 1 trial, 60 participants; very low‐certainty evidence). Kidney function may improve in participants with TIPS placement (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.02; 1 trial, 70 participants; low‐certainty evidence). No trials reported health‐related quality of life, non‐serious adverse events, or number of participants with improvement in liver function associated with the TIPS placement. Funding No trials reported sources of commercial funding or conflicts of interest between researchers. Ongoing studies We found one ongoing trial comparing TIPS with conventional therapy (terlipressin plus albumin) and listed one study as awaiting classification as no full‐text article could be found. TIPS placement was co -Abstract Truncated-

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt after liver transplantation: is patient selection the key to success?

Role of Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt in the Liver Transplant Setting

Predictors of long-term clinical outcomes after TIPS: An ALTA group study

P- 63 UTILITY OF TRANSJUGULAR INTRAHEPATIC PORTOSYSTEMIC SHUNT IN TREATING COMPLICATIONS OF PORTAL HYPERTENSION: EXPERIENCE IN UNIT OF LIVER TRANSPLANTATION IN URUGUAY

Long-term patency and clinical outcome of the transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt using the expanded polytetrafluoroethylene stent-graft

Identifying Optimal Candidates for Early TIPS among Patients with Cirrhosis and Acute Variceal Bleeding: a Multicentre Observational Study

Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt Is Associated With Better Waitlist Management of Liver Transplant Candidates With Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Comparison of Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt in the Treatment of Cirrhosis With or Without Portal Vein Thrombosis: A Retrospective Study

Shunting Branch of Portal Vein and Stent Position Predict Survival after Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt

Pre-transjugular-intrahepatic-portosystemic-shunt measurement of hepatic venous pressure gradient and its clinical application: A comparison study

Elective Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt Using Viatorr Stent-Grafts: A Single-Center Experience from China

Predictors of Re-bleeding and Mortality Among Patients with Refractory Variceal Bleeding Undergoing Salvage Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt (TIPS)

Lower Ratio of Liver Volume and Body Weight Is a Negative Predictor of Survival after Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt

Indications and outcomes of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt insertion in two regional Australian hepatology centres

[Clinical study of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt with Viatorr stent in 43 cases]

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts for adults with hepatorenal syndrome

Clinical outcome using the fluency stent graft for transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in patients with portal hypertension.

End-procedural complete haemodynamic response may not be essential for the clinical success of TIPS in patients with cirrhosis

Clinical events after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt: correlation with hemodynamic findings

Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Main Portal Vein Tumor Thrombus-Related Symptomatic Portal Hypertension

High Prevalence and Clinical Relevance of Intrapulmonary Vascular Dilatations in Patients Undergoing TIPS Implantation