• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for Budd-Chiari syndrome: A comprehensive review

    2020-10-09 08:54:22RiccardoInchingoloAlessandroPosaMartinMariappanTiagoKojunTibanaThiagoFranchiNunesStavrosSpiliopoulosEliasBrountzos
    World Journal of Gastroenterology 2020年34期

    Riccardo Inchingolo, Alessandro Posa, Martin Mariappan, Tiago Kojun Tibana, Thiago Franchi Nunes, Stavros Spiliopoulos, Elias Brountzos

    Abstract Budd-Chiari syndrome (BCS) is a relatively rare clinical condition with a wide range of symptomatology, caused by the obstruction of the hepatic venous outflow. If left untreated, it has got an high mortality rate. Its management is based on a step-wise approach, depending on the clinical presentation, and includes different treatment from anticoagulation therapy up to Interventional Radiology techniques, such as transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS). TIPS is today considered a safe and highly effective treatment and should be recommended for BCS patients, including those awaiting orthotopic liver transplantation. In this review the pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment options of BCS are presented, with a special focus on published data regarding the techniques and outcomes of TIPS for the treatment of BCS. Moreover, unresolved issues and future research will be discussed.

    Key Words: Budd-Chiari syndrome; Liver; Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt; Orthotopic liver transplantation; Interventional radiology; Portal hypertension

    INTRODUCTION

    Budd-Chiari syndrome (BCS), first described by the British physician George Budd in 1845 and the Austrian pathologist Hans Chiari in 1898, is a relatively rare clinical condition with a wide range of symptomatology, caused by the obstruction of the hepatic venous outflow, involving small hepatic venules, larger hepatic veins, the entire inferior vein cava (IVC) or all of above[1-3]. Based on the nature of obstruction, BCS is classified as primary if the obstruction is attributed to venous pathology such as thrombosis, webs, or endophlebitis and secondary in cases of extraluminal compression such as tumours, abscess, cysts, and pericardial conditions[4,5]. Based on the anatomical location of the obstruction, primary BCS is classified as “classical BCS” if the obstruction involves the hepatic veins, usually presenting with more acute and severe symptomatology and the “hepatic vena cava BCS” if the intra- and/or suprahepatic portion of the IVC is obstructed, presenting with chronic evolution and more favorable prognosis[6]. The mean, age-standardized, incidence and prevalence rates of BCS has been estimated to be 0.8 per million per year and 1.4 per million inhabitants, respectively in Sweden, and 0.2 per million and 2.4 per million inhabitants respectively in Japan[7,8]. Although the incidence of BCS is consistent throughout the European countries, it varies significantly among the Asian populations[9]. Classical BCS is the most common type of primary BCS in the western countries, whereas hepatic vena cava BCS is more frequent within the East Asian population[10].

    If left untreated, the natural course of the disease is extremely unfavorable with a mortality rate of 50% in 2 years, while the 3-year survival rate of untreated patients is < 10%, as the venous outflow obstruction leads to hepatic congestion and fulminant fibrosis, typically within 3 mo[11].

    Management should be based on a step-by-step approach, with regard to clinical presentation, time of thrombosis and liver function reserve and includes anticoagulation therapy, orthotopic liver transplant (OLT), surgical shunts and percutaneous Interventional Radiology techniques, such as catheter-directed local thrombolysis combined with angioplasty and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS)[12]. In the latter, shunt creation between the systemic and portal circulation leads to a reduction of portal vein pressure and therefore splanchnic congestion, allowing for a retrograde perfusion of the sinusoids of the periportal zone 1 and 2 of the liver acinus. As a result the hypoxic damage of the hepatocytes is reduced allowing the recovery of hepatic histology and function[13]. This review summarizes the clinical and pathophysiological implications of BCS, focuses on the available data regarding the safety and efficacy of TIPS for the treatment of BCS and discusses unresolved issues and future perspectives.

    PATHOPHYSIOLOGY

    BCS develops from a spectrum of diseases determining hepatic venous outflow obstruction, both thrombotic and non-thrombotic. The obstruction can occur at every point in the hepatic drainage system, from the small intrahepatic veins to the larger hepatic veins to the junction to inferior vena cava and right atrium. Usually, at least two hepatic veins must be obstructed for the disease to be clinically detectable. The obstruction of the hepatic veins results in increase of hepatic sinusoidal pressure, sinusoid dilation, and filtration of interstitial fluid, which leads to ascites; in addition, there is increase in the intrahepatic resistances and, therefore, decrease in portal venous flow, leading to hypoxic damage of hepatocytes[14].

    Diseases causing thrombotic hepatic venous outflow obstruction (primary BCS) include: Hypercoagulability disorders (Figure 1) (factor V Leiden mutation[15,16], protein C or S and antithrombin-III deficiency), infections/sepsis, oral contraceptive therapy[17-19], pregnancy and post-partum, chronic inflammatory or autoimmune diseases (antiphospholipid syndrome, Beh?et, systemic erythematous lupus), myeloproliferative disorders (polycythemia vera, essential thrombocythemia, myelofibrosis, and paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria[20,21]), dehydration, chemoradiotherapy, sickle cell disease, paraneoplastic syndromes or neoplastic thrombosis, leiomyosarcoma of the inferior vena cava, complication of liver transplantation[22,23], and total parenteral nutrition[24].

    External, ab-estrinseco compression of hepatic veins (secondary BCS) is present in 25% of patients, with various etiology, ranging from neoplasm to pregnancy to hydatid cyst.

    Membranous occlusion of the vena cava or hepatic veins, sustained by endoluminal fibrous webs, is a rare cause of BCS, more common in the Asian population, and can be both congenital and derived from a previous venous thrombosis[25-28].

    Idiopathic causes account for 20%-30% 5 of cases of BCS and, among these, up to 87% can have occult myeloproliferative diseases[29].

    Hepatic vein thrombosis may be associated with concurrent portal vein thrombosis (10%-20% of cases)[30], underlining a prothrombotic state of the patient.

    CLINICAL DIAGNOSIS

    The diagnostic work-up for BCS is based on physical examination, which shows a cohort of signs and symptoms, associated with altered laboratory exams and suggestive imaging.

    The typical and most common form of clinical presentation of BCS is the chronic one, with a slow-onset pain in the right upper abdomen, jaundice (not always present in chronic form), hepatosplenomegaly, progressive abdominal swelling/stretching (due to ascites), haematemesis (due to esophageal varices caused by portal hypertension); 50% of patients can manifest renal impairment[31-33]. This form is usually caused by fibrosis of intraparenchymal veins, mostly due to chronic inflammation. The blockage of hepatic veins causes liver damage and can lead to cirrhosis and, on longterm, to hepatocellular carcinoma development; therefore, these serum alphafetoprotein levels must be monitored in these patients[34].

    Acute/subacute/fulminant forms are also described, although less common, with rapid development of abdominal pain, ascites, hepatomegaly, jaundice, and renal failure; the fulminant form is characterized by development of hepatic encephalopathy within 8 wk from the onset of jaundice. These forms are caused by acute occlusion of the hepatic veins, mostly due to thrombosis, and there is no time to for the body to develop collateral venous channels[17,35]. Up to 15% of patients can be asymptomatic[36].

    Laboratory diagnosis

    Laboratory exams could be suggestive of liver damage, with abnormally high values of hepatic enzymes as transaminases (ALT and AST); serum bilirubin and alkaline phosphatase levels can also increase.

    In addition, ascitic fluid examination can help provides useful clues to the diagnosis of Budd-Chiari syndrome, including the following: High protein concentrations (> 2 g/dL), although; it may not be seen in patients with acute disease. White blood cell (WBC) count usually < 500 g/μL. Serum/ascites albumin gradient > 1.1 g/dL, although it may not be seen in patients with acute disease[25].

    Imaging

    Diagnostic imaging plays a crucial role in diagnosis of BCS[37,38]. Ultrasound (US) examination and US-Doppler evaluation play a fundamental role in diagnosis, allowing hepatic vein obstruction assessment - usually with no flow signal inside -, intrahepatic and subcapsular collaterals visualization, and portal vein flow inversion (from hepatopetal to hepatofugal)[39,40].

    Figure 1 Twenty-nine years old girl with Budd-Chiari syndrome and leiden factor V positive for heterozygote. A: Gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted magnetic resonance image (MRI) obtained during arterial phase. Hyperintense structures represent portal venules, which are visible because of postsinusoidal portal hypertension; B: T2-weighted MRI shows hyperintensity ascites and splenomegaly; C: Using a R?sch-Uchida transjugular liver access set, a small collateral hepatic vein branch was accessed, the portal vein was punctured (D), and wire access into the superior mesenteric vein was achieved. A 10-mm diameter, 6-cm long Viatorr stent (W. L. Gore and Associates, Flagstaff, AZ, United States) was deployed, extending from the right portal vein to the inferior vena cava (E, F).

    Computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are secondlevel imaging modalities that can show the cause of the obstruction of hepatic vein flow, as well as helping assess the activation of the portal venous collateral system, and evaluate liver vascular anatomy for the planning of a TIPS. Compensatory hypertrophy of the caudate lobe of the liver is frequently seen, due to its autonomous drainage in the inferior vena cava, and can lead to inferior vena cava compression.

    Hepatic venography is mandatory to assess hepatic veins anatomy, the extent of thrombosis and, most important, to measure venous pressure and gradients. Hepatic venography in BCS usually shows a “spider-web” pattern of hepatic veins.

    Percutaneous liver biopsy can be useful in determining the cause of the obstruction: pathologic findings are represented by high-grade venous congestion with sinusoidal dilation, centrilobular liver cell atrophy and fibrosis, and thrombosis of the terminal hepatic venules.

    Differential diagnosis

    BCS must not be mistaken with toxin-induced venous-occlusive disease (VOD) or sinusoidal obstruction syndrome (SOS), usually seen in patients undergoing high-dose chemotherapy before bone marrow transplantation: in fact, SOS is characterized by sinusoidal and small hepatic veins’ narrowing and occlusion, due to endothelial damage and necrosis, predominantly occurring as a complication of high doses of chemotherapy with alkylating agents for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation; ultrasound examination plays a critical role in the differential diagnosis, as the large hepatic veins are patent in SOS, whereas must be occluded on BCS[41].

    CONSERVATIVE TREATMENT AND TRANSPLANT

    The management of BCS depends on the severity of disease. Nowadays, a step-wise approach has been proposed[12,33]. The major treatment options include anticoagulation, thrombolysis, TIPS and OLT.

    All patients should receive anticoagulant therapy, even if they are asymptomatic[42,43], because in BSC prothrombotic states are frequently observed, thus the potential risk of increase and recurrence of venous thrombosis; moreover, use of anticoagulation therapy improve the prognosis of BCS[44]. In presence of symptoms, diuretics and paracentesis for ascites and in combination with pharmacological and endoscopic therapy for the management of portal hypertension-related bleeding should be added.

    OLT is indicated as a rescue therapy and should be considered after the failure of conventional treatment, in patients with fulminant BCS, as well as in patients with chronic forms of BCS accompanied by established cirrhosis and hepatic decompensation[12,45].

    The outcome of transplantation has remarkably improved over the years[46,47]. One of the largest series of patients reported in literature includes 248 patients[47]. They reported 1-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates of 76%, 71%, and 68%. In these patients, most deaths were caused by infection, multiorgan failure and graft failure, or hepatic artery thrombosis, and occurred in the first 3 mo after transplantation. Late mortality resulted from recurrent BCS in 9 patients (13%).

    Prior TIPS does not compromise the results of liver transplantation. After OLT, given that BCS often has a prothrombotic state, long-term anticoagulation after liver transplantation should be considered as the most important strategy for preventing recurrent BCS[48].

    TIPS IN BUDD-CHIARI SYNDROME: LITERATURE DATA

    We looked to emulate the example of Qiet al[49]in 2013 who conducted an initial review of the literature examining the available studies which heralded the start of the use of TIPS as a therapeutic option for BCS aiming to inform a more contemporary of attitudes based on studies conducted in this past decade. All major studies that specifically included a treatment arm examining the use of TIPS in BCS were searched from the principle databases extending as far back as 2010 so as to not replicate the seminal efforts of Qiet al[49]. As this was not strictly a systematic and largely a descriptive review to seek expert consensus, as are most of the guidelines surrounding the use of TIPS in BCS, there was no strict inclusion/exclusion criteria however studies with less than 10 patients and individual case reports were not included.

    The principle study data was summarised to inform a discussion about the pertinent facets of this intervention from the indications, technique and stents used to the outcome and survival data. There was significant heterogeneity in study design and aims, patient numbers, treatment arms and study end-points (Supplementary material Tables 1 and 2)[11,50-64]and as with most guidelines on the subject of the management of BCS, conclusions were largely on the basis of expert opinion. All studies were retrospective, bar one, in nature owing to the paucity of cases of BCS in general and no large scale prospective studies were found. Of the 17 studies identified, study size varied from 13 to 91 patients with largely a predominance toward female patients (M:F ratio of up to 3:11) amongst studies. A wide distribution of geographical location and patient population was noted in keeping with global use of TIPS in BCS and reflects similar previous findings[49]. Follow up ranged markedly between studies with mean study follow up varying between 22 and 82 mo. Outcome measures focused on which were reported in nearly all the studies were technical success rates, patency/dysfunction rates, requirement for reintervention, development of postprocedural encephalopathy, mortality and procedural complication rates as well as improvement in portosystemic gradient.

    Etiology, indications and timing

    In primary BCS where the occlusion is intrinsic to the vessel[65](as opposed to secondary BCS caused by external compression of a hepatic vein by a lesion) the underlying aetiology generally varies geographically with western populations susceptible to hepatic vein thrombosis secondary to underlying thrombophilic disorders and asian populations at greater risk of hepatic vein thrombosis due to a membranous obstruction. The former generally causes hepatic vein obstruction alone while the latter has a tendency to cause hepatic vein and vena cava obstruction[6]. Anecdotally, it was interesting to note this divide as most papers originating in Asia did not describe underlying haematological disorders as the underlying aetiology, however this was almost universally the case amongst papers from the western hemisphere. This has implications on the treatment options as is the case in China where most BCS cases are treated with balloon angioplasty and stenting alone to account for this difference in underlying disease pathophysiology[64]. In the western population the underlying cause is most frequently multifactorial involving a combination of various prothrombotic conditions[9]including but not exclusive to myeloproliferative disorders, Factor V Leiden mutation, prothrombin gene mutation, protein C deficiency, antiphospholipid syndrome, antithrombin-III deficiency as well as other inflammatory conditions including Sarcoidosis, Churg-Strauss and Behcet’s disease. One final risk factor identified amongst multiple studies[50,55]was the use of the oral contraceptive pill.

    Presentation is classified according to onset with acute, subacute and chronic subtypes. Over two decades of the use of TIPS in BCS have led to a largely standardized pathway of care[52], based on the Baveno IV consensus, for these patients with initial consideration for medical therapy with anticoagulation in all patients without contraindications. TIPS more specifically is to be considered in patients with acute liver failure, Rotterdam class III or those that have failed medical therapy, previous hepatic venous stenting or diffuse hepatic vein thrombosis due to technical difficulty in maintaining venous patency in the latter group[9]over the longer term. The most common symptomatic indication is generally ascites followed by gastrointestinal/variceal haemorrhage with rates of ascites up to 100% and variceal bleeding of up to 30.9% amongst the studies reviewed. Prior hepatic encephalopathy should not be considered a contra-indication to TIPS in BCS as it has not been identified as a risk factor for the development of post-TIPS hepatic encephalopathy[55]. In addition pre-procedure jaundice is also not considered a contraindication for TIPS in BCS although this is the case in end-stage liver disease owing to the higher mortality in the latter cohort with the difference postulated to be due to the lack of liver cell death and necrosis in BCS patients[53]. No unifying consensus can be drawn amongst the studies as to the best time to perform TIPS, however this should be made immediately available to patients presenting with hepatic failure, refractory ascites or gastrointestinal haemorrhage[49].

    Techniques, efficacy and complications

    All studies reviewed used largely a standard TIPS technique to form the shunt (Figure 2). Complete occlusion of the hepatic vein or lack of a stump required a “shotgun” or modified technique for patients[53,56]. The standard technique involves the use of a Rosch-Uchida Transjugular liver access set to gain access generally from a right hepatic vein into a right portal vein with the modified technique for involving a direct puncture at the hepatic vein stump. Over the two decades of TIPS use for BCS, there has been a progressive trend from uncovered stents to Polytetrafluoroethane (PTFE) covered stent grafts. The most common grafts used amongst all the studies were BARD E-Luminexx/Boston Scientific WALLSTENT uncovered stents and Gore VIATORR/BARD Fluency/Boston Scientific WALLGRAFT covered stent-grafts. 3 studies did not specify if stents were covered or uncovered. Patency rates largely favour the use of covered stents with Tripathiet al[55]reporting significant reduced reintervention rates (22vs100,P< 0.001) (7) and Neumannet al[51]describing a doubling of patency rates (33% to 63%). Overall technical success rates were as high as 98 – 100% amongst all the studies, serving as a testament to the feasibility of consideration of TIPS procedures for BCS patients. Even amongst patients with initial failure, subsequent repeat attempts enjoyed a high rate of eventual success[59].

    Portosystemic gradient improvement was noted in most studies as reduction to < 12 mmHg and commensurate shunt dysfunction if this was subsequently exceeded. There was marked heterogeneity in how portosystemic gradient improvement was accounted for either pre-procedurally as an end-point and post-procedural measuring and could focus an area that should be standardized reporting for studies involving cohorts undergoing TIPS though this may not always be possible as noted by Shalimaret al[62]who used symptom improvement as a proxy for clinical efficacy and TIPS success though this strategy has its limitations and precludes objective assessment of TIPS function, however the rest of the studies all reported an improvement in either mean portal vein pressure or the portosystemic gradient (Supplementary material Table 2).

    Post-procedural complications varied vastly in frequency between studies. Hayeket al[59]reported the highest rate of complications of up to 74% however this reflected complete and accurate reporting of all minor periprocedural complications, whereas their rate of more commonly noted complications such as bleeding and malposition of stent were closer to those described in other studies at 14% and 6% respectively. The most common complications reported were post-procedure encephalopathy and postprocedure bleeding/hemoperitoneum with the latter noted as high as 21.4% of cases[63]. While overall hepatic encephalopathy was encountered almost universally amongst all studies, rates remained between 2%-3% likely reflecting the underlying relatively preserved hepatic function in most cases of BCS as compared to TIPS performed for liver failure on a background of cirrhosis/chronic dysfunction. A wide variety of inadvertent punctures and injury to surrounding structures was noted including puncture of the right atrium, hemopericardium, splenic rupture and pseudoaneurysm though overall these were isolated cases with no overall pattern emerging across studies.

    Figure 2 Access technique. A: Initial inferior vein cava (IVC) venography depicting the origin of the obstructed right hepatic vein (arrowhead); B: Colapinto stylet positioning prior direct puncture of the IVC at the level of the origin of the thrombosed right hepatic vein (arrowhead), just below the diaphragm. Note the tip of the sheath within the right atrium (arrow); C: The Colapinto needle is turned anteriorly, parallel to the spine and access obtained at the main right portal branch; D: Final result after the deployment of 2 stent grafts.

    A wide variation in shunt dysfunction was noted between 13.8%-85% across the 17 studies with marked heterogeneity partially accounted for by the difference in types of stents and length of follow up period, a problem also noted by Qiet al[49]. The highest rate of stent dysfunction was noted by Zahnet al[50]. in the oldest study included in this review in 2010, however overall numbers were low and period of follow up was long at mean 4 years (6 mo–12 years) with a high rate of an average of 2.5 ± 2.2 reinterventions per patient likely reflecting older techniques and the use of bare-metal stents however most patients were managed with re-angioplasty alone. More contemporary papers report dysfunction rate from 13.8% to 50%, the latter in the most recent study by Biet al[64]. Among 27 patients however demonstrated secondary patency rates after re-intervention of up to 91% with an overall dysfunction rate of only 9%. The role of anticoagulation post-TIPS for hepatic vein occlusion remains controversial despite recommendation for this amongst British and American guidelines[56,57]and apart from one study[56], no significant anticoagulation-related haemorrhage was observed.

    Prognosis and survival

    As Qiet al[49]reported nearly a decade ago, prognosis of BCS patients treated with TIPS remains good. Mortality reported in studies over the last decade varies from 0% to 26.2%. As with other outcome measures, cumulative survival is measured heterogeneously amongst all studies however most commonly reported, five year survival is noted to be between 56.1% to 88%. The most common reported causes of death were acute liver failure, variceal haemorrhage or intracerebral haemorrhage and hepatocellular carcinoma.

    There is considerable controversy in the literature about the use of prognostic indicator scores in determining those that would benefit the most from a TIPS procedure and might enjoy the longest intervention-free survival. The most common of those used being the BCS-TIPS Prognostic Index proposed originally by Garcia-Paganet al[66]in 2008 which is calculated by way of a product of age (years) × 0.08 + Bilirubin (mg/dL) × 0.16 + INR × 0.63 with a score of > associated with poorer survival. Seijoet al[52]validated this score finding it to have better predictive capacity than the Rotterdam score and additionally validated a further Budd-Chiari Intervention free survival score finding similar discriminatory capacity as the Rotterdam score and obviating the need for an INR which may be inaccurate due to concomitant anticoagulant use in this cohort of patients. These findings were further confirmed by Qiet al[54]. These results are at odds with those described by Tripathiet al[55]who assessed the Rotterdam, BCIS and BCS-TIPS PI scores finding that only the the latter independently predicted mortality with BCS TIPS PI significantly higher in those who died compared with survivors (5.80 ± 1.45vs4.40 ± 1.33,P< 0.01) and this too was disproven when 39 patients included in a previous study were not considered. Hayeket al[59]found numbers far too few to consider meaningful analysis of this relationship and Sonavaneet al[63]were not able to demonstrate a predictive value of BCS-TIPS PI, Rotterdam class or MELD Score. Additional factors deemed to be independent predictors of survival on multivariate analysis by Qiet al[54]were age (HR = 1.0711, 95%CI: 1.0260–1.1181,P= 0.0017) and absence of IVC thrombosis (HR = 0.1375, 95%CI: 0.0259-0.7307,P= 0.0199).

    FOLLOW-UP AND TIPS REDUCTION

    Nowadays, color-doppler sonography (CDUS) is a commonly accepted screening modality for TIPS patients, both as a routine follow-up in asymptomatic patients and in those cases with clinically suspected TIPS malfunction[67]. A number of studies reported a variety of CDUS criteria with very high sensitivity and specificity to detect TIPS dysfunction[68].

    In a routine US follow-up, a TIPS patient is scheduled for a control 24 h after the procedure, and then after one week, 1 mo, 3 mo, and at 3-mo intervals thereafter.

    In selected cases, US contrast media can be used to improve the assessment of TIPS patency[69], if conventional Doppler-US fails in the so called “difficult patients”, due to bowel gas or obesity.

    Venography is at present performed solely on the basis of a suspected shunt dysfunction during the sonographic examination. Portography is performed either by a right jugular or by a common femoral venous access; portosystemic pressure gradient (PPG) measurement is always recorded. In some instances, CT is also required for a better depiction of the liver and vascular anatomy and of the stent-graft position and patency. In cases of complications, further percutaneous treatments are required (Figure 3).

    Ideally, the increased patency of covered stents would allow reduction of invasive follow-up and therefore reduce costs. Moreover, the longer durability of the stent-graft seems to improve the survival[70].

    Compared to other cirrhotic patients undergoing TIPS, BCS patients present an higher shunt dysfunction rate (approximately 50%vs80% within 1 year)[71], probably due to the high prevalence of underlying thrombophilia condition[33]. The advent of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) covered stents in TIPS seems even more crucial for BCS patients by more than doubling the shunt patency[33,72], and consequently, decreases re-intervention[73]and improves patient outcome after TIPS[74,75].

    Hepatic encephalopathy (HE), the most concerned complication of TIPS, occurs in about 20% of BCS patients, suggesting that BCS patients may better tolerate TIPS. Routine treatment of post-TIPS HE can be applied, including correction of precipitating factors, medical treatment and shunt reduction or occlusion[55,75]. 5-year survival of BCS patients receiving TIPS could reach 78%[75]. Within the stepwise strategy, TIPS contributes to about 30% increase in survival in previous reports[66]. However, the different indications for TIPS indicated different patient subgroups and thus comparison based on similar patient characteristics is required. Age, bilirubin, and INR have been identified as independent predictors of survival in patients undergoing TIPS, and a prognostic index (BCS-TIPS PI) has thus been suggested for evaluating prognosis in this particular population: Age (years) 9, 0.08 + bilirubin (mg/dL) 9, 0.16 +INR 9, 0.63. A score higher than 7 is considered to be associated with poor prognosis[75].

    Despite a large number of patients can be managed medically, up to 7% of them develop refractory encephalopathy following TIPS insertion[76]. Moreover, the HE is often associated with progressive liver failure. In these individuals, the only alternatives are OLT or reduction/occlusion of the TIPS. TIPS reduction or occlusion may be mandated in the acute post-procedural period because of accelerated liver failure, but more often it is weeks to months later after medical management has been maximized. It should also be mentioned that, in these patients, liver function progressively declines because of their underlying hepatic disease, and that the TIPS may accelerate this process through ischemia or other mechanisms.

    These factors must be balanced against the risks of reducing a needed portosystemic shunt. Whether variceal bleeding or refractory ascites was the indication for creating the TIPS, the patient would again be at increased risk for recurrent hemorrhage or reaccumulation of ascites if the TIPS shunt is occluded or reduced.

    Historically, three basic methods have been used to reduce flow through the shunt as follows: (1) TIPS occlusion, infrequently utilized because of reported fatal outcomes[77]; (2) TIPS reduction with bare metal stents; and (3) TIPS reduction with covered stents.

    Figure 3 Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt revision. Shunt created 9 years before, using a dedicated stent graft (VIATORR? TIPS Endoprosthesis; GORE?, United States), in a patient with Budd-Chiari syndrome due to primary thrombocythemia. A: Computed tomography image demonstrating a complete occlusion of the intra-parenchymal segment of the stent graft; B: Digital subtraction angiography (DSA) following lesion crossing, confirming the occlusion; C: Final DSA demonstrating flow restoration following deployment of a 10 mm × 80 mm stent graft (Fluency?; BD, United States).

    Before the availability of current stent grafts, multiple attempts were made to reduce the portosystemic flow in patients after TIPS positionin using smaller diameter bare metal stents. Haskal and Middlebrook[78]described a technique to insert a Wallstent (Boston Scientific, Middletown, MA, United States) with a silk suture in its mid-portion. Subsequently, the insertion of bare metal Palmaz stents (Johnson and Johnson, New Brunswick, NJ, United States) within the TIPS was described[79]. In this procedure, the stent was partially dilated at the portal extremity and completely dilated at the hepatic end. Both techniques produce flow reduction because of turbulent flow, but the degree of reduction and the elevation of portal pressure is difficult to predict.

    The advent of commercial stent grafts from a number of vendors has considerably improved the precision and efficiency of the reduction.

    Basically, 3 methods have been described[80]as follows: (1) Insertion of a balloonexpandable bare metal stent parallel to a new stent graft within the previously placed TIPS; (2) Insertion of a constrained self-expandable stent graft or incompletely dilated balloon-expandable stent graft within the TIPS; and (3) Insertion of a commercially available tapered stent graft within the TIPS.

    UNRESOLVED ISSUES

    Although TIPS is recommended as a safe and effective treatment option for BCS, some issues that remain to be determined. A main issue is the influence of TIPS on future transplant. Several authors acknowledge the contribution of TIPS in the overall survival of patients with cirrhosis awaiting transplant[81]. On the other hand, technical difficulties have been reported during transplantation in patients with previous TIPS and complications have been reported due to stent migration, especially in cases of migration to the supradiaphragmatic IVC and the atrium. Specifically, Tiveneret al[82,83]reported a case of atrial laceration during stent removal. However, according to large registries TIPS was did not seem to negatively affect OLT, while technical difficulties during transplantation mainly created by proximal stent migration and embedment can be overcome by specific surgical techniques[46,84,85]. Ungeret al[86]reported that TIPS was not correlated with an increased intraoperative complication rate- including bleeding events- and did not increase the duration of the operation. Although the authors acknowledge the fact that stent dislocation can create difficulties and modifications of the technique may be required (the piggyback OLT technique was not utilized), they noted that IVC clamping was possible in all the procedures. The only independent predictors of poor patient survival include > 12 h cold ischemic time, preoperative life support and re-transplantation. Moreover, a trend towards less blood transfusions was noted, a fact that could be attributed to the improvement of liver function and portal hypertension achieved following TIPS. Therefore, the authors recommend TIPS as a safe and effective bridging option recommended before OLT[86]. Therefore, currently available data demonstrate that prior TIPS does not compromise OLT results of liver transplantation and has no negative impact on patient prognosis. As a result, the recent 2016 EASL guidelines recommend pre-transplant TIPS in patient with BCS not responding to anticoagulation therapy and not amenable to catheterdirected thrombolysis and angioplasty[38]. Nevertheless, correct stent deployment is imperative in BCS patients and requires special training and attention, as it should balance between the risk of short-term shunt occlusion if deployed to deep within the hepatic vein and technical difficulties during surgery if deployed to proximal within the IVC. Additionally, stent migration is always possibility due to liver remodeling noted following TIPS.

    Another major issue requiring further investigation is the timing of TIPS, as studies on the optimal time for creating the shunt are extremely limited. Recent data challenge current guidelines that recommend TIPS after failure of anticoagulation therapy, as early TIPS seems to reduce the long-term effects of microvascular ischemia which eventually lead to liver failure. Several authors suggest early TIPS in adjunct to anticoagulation, as the safety and effectiveness of the procedure justifies a more aggressive approach in order to reduce the development of hepatic fibrosis and liver failure, caused by chronic venous conjunction and portal hypertension[87]. Other authors propose decompressive procedures including early TIPS only in patients with signs of portal hypertension and recommend that medical therapy as sole treatment should be reserved only for patients without any signs of portal hypertension[9]. Nevertheless, good quality evidence to establish the possible superiority of early interventionvsstepwise treatment strategy are required.

    Finally, as the long-term prognosis of patients with BCS is continuously improving due to the excellent results provided by minimal invasive interventions, long-term patency is a requisite in order to reduce re-interventions, avoid clinical relapse and improve the quality of life of the specific population. Stent grafts have demonstrated superior patency outcomes compared to bare stents, but there is certainly room for improvement especially in view of the continuously evolving endovascular technology.

    CONCLUSION

    To conclude, according to currently available data, TIPS is a safe and highly effective treatment option for patients with BCS and should be recommended for BCS patients, including those awaiting OLT. Issues such as early TIPS timing, the effect of TIPS in OLT and shunt patency improvement should be investigated in the ambit of multicenter controlled trials.To conclude, according to currently available data, TIPS is a safe and highly effective treatment option for patients with BCS and should be recommended for BCS patients, including those awaiting OLT. Issues such as early TIPS timing, the effect of TIPS in OLT and shunt patency improvement should be investigated in the ambit of multicenter controlled trials.

    亚洲人成77777在线视频| 麻豆国产av国片精品| 亚洲国产欧美一区二区综合| 99riav亚洲国产免费| 这个男人来自地球电影免费观看| 一级片免费观看大全| 免费观看人在逋| 亚洲国产精品一区二区三区在线| 精品国产乱码久久久久久男人| 一区福利在线观看| 又紧又爽又黄一区二区| 亚洲精品av麻豆狂野| 极品人妻少妇av视频| 操出白浆在线播放| 满18在线观看网站| 18禁美女被吸乳视频| 午夜精品久久久久久毛片777| 日韩欧美在线二视频| 精品国产国语对白av| 国产免费男女视频| 韩国av一区二区三区四区| 精品午夜福利视频在线观看一区| 国产精品久久视频播放| 日韩视频一区二区在线观看| 成在线人永久免费视频| 国产一区二区三区综合在线观看| 天堂√8在线中文| 日韩大码丰满熟妇| 正在播放国产对白刺激| 黄色成人免费大全| 国产精品香港三级国产av潘金莲| 大型av网站在线播放| 欧美成狂野欧美在线观看| 香蕉国产在线看| 久久精品成人免费网站| 亚洲男人天堂网一区| 999久久久国产精品视频| ponron亚洲| 黄网站色视频无遮挡免费观看| 亚洲成人免费电影在线观看| 岛国视频午夜一区免费看| 久久久久久大精品| 18禁黄网站禁片午夜丰满| 久久人人爽av亚洲精品天堂| 亚洲人成网站在线播放欧美日韩| 久久精品国产亚洲av香蕉五月| 免费观看人在逋| 精品一区二区三区四区五区乱码| 亚洲中文日韩欧美视频| 97碰自拍视频| 久久中文字幕一级| 国产精品亚洲av一区麻豆| 亚洲 欧美一区二区三区| 不卡一级毛片| 在线免费观看的www视频| 1024视频免费在线观看| 高潮久久久久久久久久久不卡| 久久香蕉精品热| 国产av一区二区精品久久| 91av网站免费观看| 精品福利永久在线观看| 国产精品 国内视频| 欧美日本中文国产一区发布| 久久狼人影院| 涩涩av久久男人的天堂| 亚洲精品一区av在线观看| 国产高清视频在线播放一区| 不卡一级毛片| 琪琪午夜伦伦电影理论片6080| 成年人黄色毛片网站| 最近最新中文字幕大全电影3 | 国产亚洲精品久久久久5区| 97超级碰碰碰精品色视频在线观看| 黄色毛片三级朝国网站| 亚洲成人久久性| 国产精品一区二区三区四区久久 | 国产高清激情床上av| 精品国产乱码久久久久久男人| 精品福利永久在线观看| 桃红色精品国产亚洲av| 大型av网站在线播放| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产 | 日韩一卡2卡3卡4卡2021年| 国产极品粉嫩免费观看在线| 国产熟女午夜一区二区三区| 久久久国产成人免费| 男人的好看免费观看在线视频 | 国产伦人伦偷精品视频| 视频在线观看一区二区三区| 黄色片一级片一级黄色片| 精品欧美一区二区三区在线| 午夜免费鲁丝| 国产精品1区2区在线观看.| 黑人巨大精品欧美一区二区蜜桃| 欧美日本亚洲视频在线播放| 一级片'在线观看视频| 免费久久久久久久精品成人欧美视频| 国产精品一区二区免费欧美| 中文字幕最新亚洲高清| 一级毛片高清免费大全| 久久国产精品影院| 桃色一区二区三区在线观看| 午夜福利在线观看吧| 久久精品国产亚洲av高清一级| 亚洲九九香蕉| 在线看a的网站| 中亚洲国语对白在线视频| 18禁裸乳无遮挡免费网站照片 | 国产精品成人在线| 91成年电影在线观看| 日韩 欧美 亚洲 中文字幕| 久久亚洲精品不卡| 久久中文字幕一级| 成人黄色视频免费在线看| 色综合欧美亚洲国产小说| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人| 欧美不卡视频在线免费观看 | 757午夜福利合集在线观看| 妹子高潮喷水视频| 丁香欧美五月| www.999成人在线观看| 夜夜爽天天搞| 久久这里只有精品19| 国产激情欧美一区二区| 亚洲中文日韩欧美视频| 欧美成人午夜精品| 人人妻,人人澡人人爽秒播| 国产精品国产av在线观看| 一区二区日韩欧美中文字幕| 在线永久观看黄色视频| av在线播放免费不卡| 久久狼人影院| 久久精品人人爽人人爽视色| 色综合欧美亚洲国产小说| 侵犯人妻中文字幕一二三四区| 欧美激情 高清一区二区三区| 69精品国产乱码久久久| 精品国产国语对白av| 巨乳人妻的诱惑在线观看| 午夜福利在线观看吧| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人| 亚洲少妇的诱惑av| 欧美成人性av电影在线观看| 9色porny在线观看| 91字幕亚洲| 天天添夜夜摸| 黑人欧美特级aaaaaa片| 村上凉子中文字幕在线| 黄片大片在线免费观看| av电影中文网址| 亚洲片人在线观看| 精品国产一区二区久久| 少妇 在线观看| 19禁男女啪啪无遮挡网站| 97超级碰碰碰精品色视频在线观看| 美女国产高潮福利片在线看| 88av欧美| 国产成人一区二区三区免费视频网站| 女同久久另类99精品国产91| 一进一出好大好爽视频| 国产麻豆69| 老司机亚洲免费影院| 久久天堂一区二区三区四区| 免费不卡黄色视频| 九色亚洲精品在线播放| 亚洲av电影在线进入| 婷婷丁香在线五月| 亚洲成人久久性| 香蕉丝袜av| 熟女少妇亚洲综合色aaa.| 天堂俺去俺来也www色官网| 亚洲av日韩精品久久久久久密| 欧美中文日本在线观看视频| 亚洲一区二区三区色噜噜 | 久久热在线av| 免费少妇av软件| 国产精品偷伦视频观看了| 国产成人免费无遮挡视频| 在线视频色国产色| 久久久国产成人免费| 国产免费男女视频| 国产精品九九99| 99久久综合精品五月天人人| 亚洲人成网站在线播放欧美日韩| 日韩欧美免费精品| 国产精品一区二区免费欧美| 亚洲成人精品中文字幕电影 | 夜夜夜夜夜久久久久| 欧美人与性动交α欧美软件| 亚洲一区二区三区色噜噜 | 日本黄色日本黄色录像| 一级片'在线观看视频| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一出视频| 国产又色又爽无遮挡免费看| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一小说| 91麻豆av在线| 国产精品98久久久久久宅男小说| 深夜精品福利| 人人妻人人澡人人看| 午夜日韩欧美国产| av视频免费观看在线观看| 视频在线观看一区二区三区| 亚洲色图综合在线观看| 成人国产一区最新在线观看| 久久精品成人免费网站| 啦啦啦在线免费观看视频4| 大型黄色视频在线免费观看| 国产黄色免费在线视频| 亚洲在线自拍视频| 999久久久国产精品视频| 国产免费现黄频在线看| 9色porny在线观看| 国产精品影院久久| 日本a在线网址| av网站免费在线观看视频| 精品一区二区三区av网在线观看| 日韩精品青青久久久久久| 天天添夜夜摸| 国产激情久久老熟女| 亚洲精品成人av观看孕妇| 国产一区二区三区在线臀色熟女 | 老司机靠b影院| 国产不卡一卡二| 亚洲色图 男人天堂 中文字幕| xxxhd国产人妻xxx| 日韩成人在线观看一区二区三区| 久久精品国产亚洲av高清一级| 欧美一级毛片孕妇| 亚洲精品中文字幕在线视频| 国产三级黄色录像| 精品欧美一区二区三区在线| 亚洲欧美激情在线| 久久精品国产亚洲av高清一级| 多毛熟女@视频| 久久香蕉精品热| 亚洲,欧美精品.| 午夜老司机福利片| 水蜜桃什么品种好| 国产精品一区二区三区四区久久 | 久热这里只有精品99| 这个男人来自地球电影免费观看| 丁香六月欧美| 午夜影院日韩av| 国内毛片毛片毛片毛片毛片| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添小说| 嫩草影视91久久| 俄罗斯特黄特色一大片| 高清在线国产一区| 大型黄色视频在线免费观看| 波多野结衣一区麻豆| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添小说| 婷婷精品国产亚洲av在线| 国产有黄有色有爽视频| 制服人妻中文乱码| 国产男靠女视频免费网站| 久久中文字幕一级| 搡老乐熟女国产| 身体一侧抽搐| 日韩高清综合在线| 国产成人免费无遮挡视频| 亚洲成人免费av在线播放| 青草久久国产| 亚洲国产欧美网| 亚洲av美国av| 夜夜夜夜夜久久久久| 黄色 视频免费看| 91成年电影在线观看| 亚洲欧美激情综合另类| 亚洲全国av大片| 俄罗斯特黄特色一大片| 免费在线观看日本一区| 日韩成人在线观看一区二区三区| 1024视频免费在线观看| 久久久久久久久中文| 天天影视国产精品| 国产成人一区二区三区免费视频网站| 女同久久另类99精品国产91| 美女高潮喷水抽搐中文字幕| 久久久久国产一级毛片高清牌| 亚洲精品成人av观看孕妇| 国产一区二区激情短视频| 最新美女视频免费是黄的| 午夜精品国产一区二区电影| 69精品国产乱码久久久| 色老头精品视频在线观看| 黄片小视频在线播放| a在线观看视频网站| 国产精品国产高清国产av| 热re99久久精品国产66热6| 欧美日韩乱码在线| 精品第一国产精品| 无遮挡黄片免费观看| 黄频高清免费视频| 欧美乱色亚洲激情| 欧美午夜高清在线| 在线观看免费午夜福利视频| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一出视频| 国产av精品麻豆| 成人亚洲精品av一区二区 | av有码第一页| 精品久久久久久久久久免费视频 | 亚洲精品一二三| 老司机福利观看| 国产99白浆流出| 露出奶头的视频| 国产精品一区二区免费欧美| 亚洲自拍偷在线| 亚洲一区二区三区欧美精品| 日日爽夜夜爽网站| 波多野结衣av一区二区av| 视频区图区小说| 亚洲av五月六月丁香网| 亚洲熟妇熟女久久| 亚洲avbb在线观看| 曰老女人黄片| 一二三四社区在线视频社区8| 久久久精品国产亚洲av高清涩受| 在线观看舔阴道视频| 亚洲视频免费观看视频| 人成视频在线观看免费观看| 色综合站精品国产| 99国产精品一区二区三区| 色综合婷婷激情| 国产99久久九九免费精品| 大型黄色视频在线免费观看| 亚洲av美国av| 香蕉国产在线看| 久久久久久久久免费视频了| 9191精品国产免费久久| 欧美一区二区精品小视频在线| 一二三四社区在线视频社区8| 最近最新中文字幕大全免费视频| 视频区图区小说| 久久久久久久久免费视频了| 亚洲自偷自拍图片 自拍| 亚洲欧美日韩另类电影网站| 好男人电影高清在线观看| 日韩三级视频一区二区三区| 国产精品久久电影中文字幕| 国产高清视频在线播放一区| 一个人免费在线观看的高清视频| xxxhd国产人妻xxx| 久久亚洲精品不卡| 国产精品亚洲av一区麻豆| 亚洲精品成人av观看孕妇| 老鸭窝网址在线观看| 91精品国产国语对白视频| 国产又色又爽无遮挡免费看| 美女 人体艺术 gogo| 精品电影一区二区在线| 午夜免费激情av| 欧美乱色亚洲激情| 满18在线观看网站| 一级毛片高清免费大全| 99精品欧美一区二区三区四区| 久久久精品国产亚洲av高清涩受| 一二三四在线观看免费中文在| 母亲3免费完整高清在线观看| 色播在线永久视频| 一二三四社区在线视频社区8| 欧美久久黑人一区二区| 欧美在线黄色| 国产精品美女特级片免费视频播放器 | 亚洲五月天丁香| 亚洲午夜理论影院| 91av网站免费观看| 麻豆一二三区av精品| 久久精品aⅴ一区二区三区四区| 中文欧美无线码| 999久久久精品免费观看国产| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清 | 757午夜福利合集在线观看| 天堂动漫精品| 久久久久精品国产欧美久久久| 丰满的人妻完整版| 女人被狂操c到高潮| 动漫黄色视频在线观看| 天天添夜夜摸| 成人永久免费在线观看视频| 日本黄色日本黄色录像| 搡老乐熟女国产| 日韩欧美三级三区| 亚洲国产中文字幕在线视频| 亚洲成人免费av在线播放| 在线av久久热| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三区在线| 国产精品秋霞免费鲁丝片| 色老头精品视频在线观看| 免费搜索国产男女视频| 又黄又粗又硬又大视频| 欧美成人性av电影在线观看| 丁香六月欧美| 国产精品自产拍在线观看55亚洲| 亚洲 欧美一区二区三区| av在线播放免费不卡| 国产成人啪精品午夜网站| 久久欧美精品欧美久久欧美| 久久九九热精品免费| 一边摸一边做爽爽视频免费| 人成视频在线观看免费观看| 一本大道久久a久久精品| 亚洲av电影在线进入| 精品国产乱子伦一区二区三区| 日韩 欧美 亚洲 中文字幕| 亚洲人成伊人成综合网2020| 亚洲国产毛片av蜜桃av| 女警被强在线播放| 亚洲 欧美 日韩 在线 免费| 欧美成狂野欧美在线观看| 国产精品免费视频内射| 久久99一区二区三区| 欧美 亚洲 国产 日韩一| 国产午夜精品久久久久久| 国产片内射在线| 美女大奶头视频| 两性夫妻黄色片| 老司机靠b影院| 99riav亚洲国产免费| 757午夜福利合集在线观看| 美女高潮到喷水免费观看| 国产成人精品久久二区二区免费| 人人妻人人爽人人添夜夜欢视频| 黑人猛操日本美女一级片| av天堂在线播放| 中文字幕人妻熟女乱码| 黄网站色视频无遮挡免费观看| 99精品欧美一区二区三区四区| 啦啦啦在线免费观看视频4| 亚洲精品一二三| 欧美另类亚洲清纯唯美| 国产野战对白在线观看| 欧洲精品卡2卡3卡4卡5卡区| 欧美在线黄色| 久久久久久亚洲精品国产蜜桃av| 亚洲精品中文字幕在线视频| 老司机午夜十八禁免费视频| 国产亚洲精品综合一区在线观看 | 久99久视频精品免费| 欧美精品亚洲一区二区| 男女下面插进去视频免费观看| 国产精品野战在线观看 | 成人精品一区二区免费| 久久精品影院6| 国产高清国产精品国产三级| 国产成人系列免费观看| 国产精品亚洲av一区麻豆| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三区在线| 成年人黄色毛片网站| 丰满饥渴人妻一区二区三| 久久亚洲真实| 99久久99久久久精品蜜桃| а√天堂www在线а√下载| 午夜福利影视在线免费观看| 免费高清视频大片| 成人精品一区二区免费| av有码第一页| 一级毛片女人18水好多| 欧美日韩亚洲综合一区二区三区_| 久久 成人 亚洲| 老汉色av国产亚洲站长工具| 欧美日韩国产mv在线观看视频| 亚洲精品美女久久av网站| 黑人欧美特级aaaaaa片| 欧美午夜高清在线| 国产人伦9x9x在线观看| 精品一区二区三卡| 性欧美人与动物交配| 日韩精品青青久久久久久| 婷婷丁香在线五月| 美女午夜性视频免费| 夜夜夜夜夜久久久久| 99re在线观看精品视频| 99久久综合精品五月天人人| 村上凉子中文字幕在线| 搡老乐熟女国产| 久久天堂一区二区三区四区| 正在播放国产对白刺激| 视频区欧美日本亚洲| 黄色怎么调成土黄色| 深夜精品福利| 韩国av一区二区三区四区| 午夜福利在线免费观看网站| 国产亚洲精品综合一区在线观看 | 亚洲一卡2卡3卡4卡5卡精品中文| 人人妻,人人澡人人爽秒播| 视频区图区小说| 欧美 亚洲 国产 日韩一| 18禁裸乳无遮挡免费网站照片 | 夜夜爽天天搞| 久热爱精品视频在线9| a级毛片在线看网站| 国产高清视频在线播放一区| 中文字幕人妻熟女乱码| 女人被躁到高潮嗷嗷叫费观| 成人手机av| 中文亚洲av片在线观看爽| 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o| 欧美乱码精品一区二区三区| 中亚洲国语对白在线视频| 国产精品98久久久久久宅男小说| 人成视频在线观看免费观看| 不卡一级毛片| 欧美乱妇无乱码| 午夜福利影视在线免费观看| 久久久精品欧美日韩精品| 亚洲精品av麻豆狂野| 亚洲九九香蕉| 国产精品久久久久成人av| 欧美激情高清一区二区三区| 亚洲国产精品合色在线| av网站免费在线观看视频| 亚洲色图av天堂| а√天堂www在线а√下载| 久久久久久免费高清国产稀缺| 久久久久九九精品影院| 不卡一级毛片| 大码成人一级视频| 午夜福利欧美成人| 大码成人一级视频| 国产欧美日韩精品亚洲av| 日韩大尺度精品在线看网址 | 色在线成人网| 久久人妻av系列| 亚洲,欧美精品.| 91老司机精品| 男女之事视频高清在线观看| 欧美 亚洲 国产 日韩一| 中文字幕人妻丝袜制服| 天堂俺去俺来也www色官网| 国产色视频综合| 亚洲精品在线美女| 亚洲一区高清亚洲精品| 美女大奶头视频| www国产在线视频色| 免费av毛片视频| 国产人伦9x9x在线观看| 极品教师在线免费播放| 日韩国内少妇激情av| 黄片大片在线免费观看| 女人被躁到高潮嗷嗷叫费观| 国产精品秋霞免费鲁丝片| 少妇被粗大的猛进出69影院| 天堂影院成人在线观看| 欧美激情 高清一区二区三区| 亚洲一区二区三区不卡视频| 亚洲国产精品一区二区三区在线| 精品一区二区三区av网在线观看| 日本a在线网址| 一级a爱视频在线免费观看| 精品福利永久在线观看| 亚洲欧美激情在线| 99在线视频只有这里精品首页| 巨乳人妻的诱惑在线观看| 欧洲精品卡2卡3卡4卡5卡区| 一进一出好大好爽视频| 亚洲成国产人片在线观看| 国产真人三级小视频在线观看| 日本三级黄在线观看| 亚洲精品一二三| 午夜福利影视在线免费观看| 满18在线观看网站| 亚洲全国av大片| 97超级碰碰碰精品色视频在线观看| 亚洲国产精品999在线| 人人妻人人添人人爽欧美一区卜| 欧美激情极品国产一区二区三区| 久久青草综合色| 久久精品国产亚洲av高清一级| 黑人巨大精品欧美一区二区mp4| 日韩大码丰满熟妇| 日韩成人在线观看一区二区三区| 成熟少妇高潮喷水视频| 亚洲国产精品999在线| 中文字幕色久视频| 99re在线观看精品视频| 精品熟女少妇八av免费久了| 久久精品国产亚洲av香蕉五月| 久久热在线av| 亚洲av成人av| 午夜激情av网站| www.www免费av| 天天躁狠狠躁夜夜躁狠狠躁| 午夜成年电影在线免费观看| 他把我摸到了高潮在线观看| 国产成+人综合+亚洲专区| 久久精品国产亚洲av高清一级| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠躁躁| 操美女的视频在线观看| 国产不卡一卡二| 精品卡一卡二卡四卡免费| 性色av乱码一区二区三区2| 色老头精品视频在线观看| 精品一区二区三区四区五区乱码| 在线观看一区二区三区激情| 国产1区2区3区精品| 久久久国产精品麻豆| 欧美性长视频在线观看| 久久精品成人免费网站| 纯流量卡能插随身wifi吗| 色婷婷av一区二区三区视频| 亚洲精品美女久久久久99蜜臀| 亚洲国产欧美网| 黄频高清免费视频| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠躁躁| 欧美黄色淫秽网站| 一二三四社区在线视频社区8| 色播在线永久视频| 国产三级黄色录像| 亚洲中文字幕日韩| 国产成人av教育| 99精品欧美一区二区三区四区| 色综合婷婷激情| 亚洲色图 男人天堂 中文字幕| 婷婷精品国产亚洲av在线| 日本vs欧美在线观看视频|