BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Meta-Analysis
Copyright: ©Author(s) 2026. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license. No commercial re-use. See permissions. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc.
World J Transl Med. Sep 28, 2026; 12(3): 124020
Published online Sep 28, 2026. doi: 10.5528/wjtm.124020
Efficacy and safety of 6-mm vs 8-mm covered stents for tips creation: A meta-analysis
Muhammad Arsalan, FNU Sawaira, Umna Bhatti, Taimoor Hassan, Shafi Muhammad Shah, Safdar Ullah Dawar, Syed Nouman Ali Shah, Rasheeda Shehroz, Muhammad Mughees, Muhammad Yasir, Madho Mal, Abdul Haseeb Hasan
Muhammad Arsalan, Department of Internal Medicine, St. Luke’s Hospital, Chesterfield, MO 63017, United States
FNU Sawaira, Department of Medicine, Khyber Girls Medical College, Peshawar 25120, Pakistan
Umna Bhatti, Shafi Muhammad Shah, Department of Medicine, Jinnah Sindh Medical University, Karachi 75510, Pakistan
Taimoor Hassan, Department of Medicine, King Edward Medical University, Lahore 54000, Pakistan
Safdar Ullah Dawar, Department of Medicine, Khalifa Gul Nawaz Teaching Hospital, Bannu 28100, Pakistan
Syed Nouman Ali Shah, Department of Medicine, Semey Medical University, Semey 071400, Kazakhstan
Rasheeda Shehroz, Department of Medicine, Liaquat University of Medical and Health Sciences, Jamshoro 76090, Pakistan
Muhammad Mughees, Department of Medicine, Bahria University Health Sciences Campus Karachi, Karachi 75500, Pakistan
Muhammad Yasir, Department of Medicine, Bach Khan Medical College, Mardan 23200, Pakistan
Madho Mal, Department of Internal Medicine, Marshall Community Health Consortium, Huntington, WV 25701, United States
Abdul Haseeb Hasan, Department of Research, Oli Health Magazine Organization, Kigali 250, Rwanda
Author contributions: Arsalan M conceived the study; Arsalan M, Sawaira F, Bhatti U, Hassan T, Shah SM, Dawar SU, Shah SNA, Shehroz R, Mughees M, Mal M and Yasir M performed study screening, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessment, data interpretation and drafting of the manuscript; Hasan AH contributed to writing-review and editing; all authors read and approved the final manuscript.
AI contribution statement: No Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tool was used in the preparation of this manuscript.
Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
PRISMA 2009 Checklist statement: The authors have read the PRISMA 2009 Checklist, and the manuscript was prepared and revised according to the PRISMA 2009 Checklist.
Corresponding author: Abdul Haseeb Hasan, MD, Department of Research and Education, Oli Health Magazine Organization, Kigali 250, Rwanda. abdulhaseebhassan60@gmail.com
Received: June 4, 2026
Revised: July 11, 2026
Accepted: July 28, 2026
Published online: September 28, 2026
Processing time: 91 Days and 17.5 Hours
Abstract
BACKGROUND

Hepatic encephalopathy (HE) remains a major complication of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) creation, occurring in approximately 30% of patients despite the widespread adoption of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)-covered stents. Stent diameter influences the volume of portal blood diverted to the systemic circulation and may thereby modulate the risk of post-procedural HE. Whether 6-mm covered stents can reduce encephalopathy without compromising hemodynamic efficacy or survival relative to the standard 8-mm configuration is uncertain.

AIM

To compare the efficacy and safety of 6-mm vs 8-mm covered stents in adults undergoing TIPS for cirrhotic portal hypertension.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidance. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through the end of 2025. Studies comparing 6-mm and 8-mm PTFE-covered stents for TIPS creation in adults with cirrhotic portal hypertension were eligible. Risk of bias was assessed with RoB 2 for randomised trials and ROBINS-I for non-randomised studies. Pooled risk ratios (RR) and mean differences were estimated under a random-effects model. Certainty of evidence was rated with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework.

RESULTS

Five studies were included: One randomised controlled trial (Zhang et al) and four non-randomised cohort studies (Liu et al, Yan et al, Xia et al, Yao et al), enrolling a combined 2060 patients. The 6-mm stent was associated with a significant reduction in overall HE (RR = 0.56; 95%CI: 0.41-0.75; P = 0.0001; I² = 0%) and in overt HE (RR = 0.62; 95%CI: 0.41-0.93; P = 0.02; I² = 54%). Achievement of the target portal pressure gradient below 12 mmHg did not differ significantly between stent diameters (RR = 0.93; 95%CI: 0.83-1.03; P = 0.16; I² = 0%). Overall survival at 2 years (RR = 1.04; 95%CI: 0.96-1.13; P = 0.32), shunt dysfunction (RR = 0.97; 95%CI: 0.71-1.32; P = 0.83), and variceal rebleeding (RR = 1.28; 95%CI: 0.96-1.69; P = 0.09) were not significantly different.

CONCLUSION

A 6-mm effective shunt diameter was associated with a lower risk of HE after TIPS than an 8-mm diameter, without a detectable difference in survival, shunt patency, or portal decompression, and with a possible increase in variceal rebleeding. Because the certainty of evidence was low to very low and most data derived from non-randomised studies, these findings are hypothesis-generating and are not sufficient to recommend a preferred stent configuration; individualised consideration is required, particularly for patients at elevated baseline rebleeding risk.

Keywords: Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt; Stent diameter; Hepatic encephalopathy; Portal hypertension; Variceal rebleeding; Covered stent; Meta-analysis

Core Tip: This systematic review and meta-analysis of one randomised trial and four non-randomised studies compared 6-mm and 8-mm covered stents for transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt. A 6-mm effective diameter was associated with a lower risk of hepatic encephalopathy, with no detectable difference in portal-pressure-gradient target achievement, survival or shunt dysfunction, and a possible increase in variceal rebleeding. Because the certainty of evidence was low to very low, these findings are hypothesis-generating and should not yet guide the choice of stent diameter in clinical practice.

Write to the Help Desk