PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 11097733

Budd-Chiari Syndrome.

Abstract

Many options are available to diagnose and treat patients with the Budd-Chiari syndrome who present with either thrombotic or non-thrombotic occlusion of the major hepatic veins and or vena cava. The goal of therapy is to alleviate venous obstruction and to preserve hepatic function. Low-sodium diets, diuretics, and therapeutic paracentesis are generally ineffective, except for the rare patient who presents with volume overload and incomplete hepatic venous occlusion. Anticoagulants and thrombolytics may be appropriate for selected patients with acute thrombotic venous obstruction. Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) of hepatic venous stenoses or caval webs with or without placement of intraluminal stents yield excellent short-term results, but additional studies are warranted to assess long-term efficacy. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPS) may be effective for patients with subacute or chronic disease and ascites refractory to sodium restriction and diuretics. Intrahepatic stents may also serve as a bridge to transplantation for selected patients presenting with fulminant hepatic failure consequent to hepatic venous occlusion. Additional studies will be necessary to assess the role of TIPS in the armamentarium of therapies for patients with the Budd-Chiari syndrome. Decompressive shunts, reconstruction of the vena cava and hepatic venous ostia, transatrial membranotomy, and dorsocranial resection of the liver with hepatoatrial anastomosis are appropriate options for patients with acute or subacute disease who are not candidates for, or fail less invasive therapies. The majority of patients benefit with improvement in liver function tests, ascites, and liver histology; however, hepatic function may deteriorate in patients with marginal reserve. Liver transplantation is reserved for patients with Budd-Chiari syndrome who present with fulminant hepatic failure or end-stage liver disease with portal hypertensive complications. Transplantation is also appropriate for patients who deteriorate after failed attempts at surgical shunting.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

TW Faust. 1999. Budd-Chiari Syndrome.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11938-999-0053-y

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗