The presence of spontaneous portosystemic shunts (SPSS) has been identified to be associated with hepatic encephalopathy (HE) in patients with cirrhosis. Nevertheless, the role of interventional embolisation in managing such patients remains poorly defined. Consequently, this prospective controlled study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of interventional embolisation as a therapeutic approach for patients with cirrhosis and recurrent or persistent HE related to SPSS.

Cirrhotic patients diagnosed with recurrent or persistent HE associated with SPSS will be recruited for this study, and assigned to either the interventional embolisation group or the standard medical treatment group. The efficacy endpoints encompass the evaluation of postoperative alleviation of HE symptoms and the incidence of overt HE recurrence during the follow-up period, as well as the duration and frequency of hospitalisations for HE, alterations in liver function and volume, and overall survival. The safety endpoints encompass both immediate and long-term postoperative complications.

This study will be conducted in strict adherence to the principles of good clinical practice and the guidelines outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical approval for the trial has been obtained from the Ethics Committee of Mengchao Hepatobiliary Hospital of Fujian Medical University (2023_013_02). Written informed consent will be obtained from all the participants by the treating physician for each patient prior to their enrolment. The documented informed consent forms will be retained as part of the clinical trial records for future reference. The study findings will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals and will be presented at international conferences.

ChiCTR2300072189.

Various treatment options are available for degenerative joint disease (DJD). During clinical visits, patients and clinicians collaboratively make decisions regarding the optimal treatment for DJD; this is the essence of shared decision-making (SDM). Here, we collated and assessed the SDM-related experiences and perspectives of outpatients with DJD in Taiwan.

In-depth interviews and thematic analysis.

Primary care clinics of a regional teaching hospital in Taiwan, October 2021–May 2022.

21 outpatients with at least three visits for DJD and who were aware of SDM.

Four main themes emerged in this study: first, equipping themselves with knowledge: outpatients obtained disease-related and treatment-related knowledge in various ways—seeking relevant information online, discussing with family and friends, learning from their own experiences or learning from professionals. Second, shared or not shared: physicians had different patterns for communicating with patients, particularly when demonstrating authority, performing mutual discussion, respecting patient preferences or responding perfunctorily. Third, seldom saying no to physician-prescribed treatment plans during clinical visits: most patients respected physicians’ professionalism; however, some patients rejected physicians’ recommendations indirectly, whereas some responded depending on their disease prognosis. Fourth, whose call?—participants decided to accept or reject a treatment plan independently or by discussing it with their families or by obeying their physicians’ recommendations.

In general, patients with DJD sought reliable medical information from various sources before visiting doctors; however, when having a conversation with patients, physicians dominated the discussion on treatment options. The patient–physician interaction dynamics during the SDM process determined the final medical decision, which was in accordance with either patients’ original autonomy or physicians’ recommendations. To alleviate medical paternalism and physician dominance, patients should be empowered to engage in medical decision-making and share their opinions or concerns with their physicians. Family members should also be included in SDM.