Efficacy and safety of edoxaban for treatment of portal vein thrombosis following danaparoid sodium in patients with liver cirrhosis

Splanchnic Vein Thrombosis: Current Perspectives

Splanchnic vein thrombosis (SVT) including portal, mesenteric, splenic vein thrombosis and the Budd-Chiari syndrome, is a manifestation of unusual site venous thromboembolism. SVT presents with a lower incidence than deep vein thrombosis of the lower limbs and pulmonary embolism, with portal vein thrombosis and Budd-Chiari syndrome being respectively the most and the least common presentations of SVT. SVT is classified as provoked if secondary to a local or systemic risk factor, or unprovoked if the causative trigger cannot be identified. Diagnostic evaluation is often affected by the lack of specificity of clinical manifestations: the presence of one or more risk factors in a patient with a high clinical suspicion may suggest the execution of diagnostic tests. Doppler ultrasonography represents the first line diagnostic tool because of its accuracy and wide availability. Further investigations, such as computed tomography and magnetic resonance angiography, should be executed in case of suspected thrombosis of the mesenteric veins, suspicion of SVT-related complications, or to complete information after Doppler ultrasonography. Once SVT diagnosis is established, a careful patient evaluation should be performed in order to assess the risks and benefits of the anticoagulant therapy and to drive the optimal treatment intensity. Due to the low quality and large heterogeneity of published data, guidance documents and expert opinion could direct therapeutic decision, suggesting which patients to treat, which anticoagulant to use and the duration of treatment.

Portal vein thrombosis in cirrhosis: Why a well-known complication is still matter of debate

Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) represents a well-known complication during the natural course of liver cirrhosis (LC), ranging from asymptomatic cases to life-threating conditions related to portal hypertension and hepatic decompensation. Portal flow stasis, complex acquired hypercoagulable disorders and exogenous factors leading to endothelial dysfunction have emerged as key factors for PVT development. However, PVT occurrence remains unpredictable and many issues regarding its natural history, prognostic significance and treatment are still elusive. In particular although spontaneous resolution or disease stability occur in most cases of PVT, factors predisposing to disease progression or recurrence after spontaneous recanalization are not clarified as yet. Moreover, PVT impact on LC outcome is still debated, as PVT may represent itself a consequence of liver fibrosis and hepatic dysfunction progression. Anticoagulation and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt are considered safe and effective in this setting and are recommended in selected cases, even if the safer therapeutic option and the optimal therapy duration are still unknown. Nevertheless, their impact on mortality rates should be addressed more extensively. In this review we present the most debated questions regarding PVT, whose answers should come from prospective cohort studies and large sample-size randomized trials.

Oral Anticoagulation in Patients With Liver Disease

Patients with liver disease are at increased risks of both thrombotic and bleeding complications. Many have atrial fibrillation (AF) or venous thromboembolism (VTE) necessitating oral anticoagulant agents (OACs). Recent evidence has contradicted the assumption that patients with liver disease are "auto-anticoagulated" and thus protected from thrombotic events. Warfarin and non-vitamin K-antagonist OACs have been shown to reduce thrombotic events safely in patients with either AF or VTE. However, patients with liver disease have largely been excluded from trials of OACs. Because all currently approved OACs undergo metabolism in the liver, hepatic dysfunction may cause increased bleeding. Thus, the optimal anticoagulation strategy for patients with AF or VTE who have liver disease remains unclear. This review discusses pharmacokinetic and clinical studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of OACs in patients with liver disease and provides a practical, clinically oriented approach to the management of OAC therapy in this population.

Safety of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with cirrhosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are effective treatment for venous thromboembolism. However, safety data in patients with cirrhosis are limited. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the safety of DOACs compared with warfarin or low-molecular weight heparin in patients with cirrhosis.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception up to June 2018. We included prospective and retrospective studies involving adults ≥18 years with cirrhosis in whom anticoagulants were indicated for any indications. Primary outcome was all-cause bleeding events. Secondary outcome was major bleeding. Pooled risk ratio, pooled odd ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects model.

RESULTS

Five studies with a total of 447 patients were included in the analysis. When compared with controls, the use of DOACs in cirrhotic patients did not show a significant difference in all-cause bleeding (risk ratio 0.72; 95% CI, 0.32-1.63). There was also no significant difference in major bleeding between both groups (odd ratio 0.46; 95% CI, 0.10-2.09).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrates that, compared to those who were treated with traditional anticoagulants, cirrhotic patients who were treated with DOACs had no significant increase risk of all-cause bleeding and major bleeding.

AGA Clinical Practice Update: Coagulation in Cirrhosis

DESCRIPTION

This expert review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership. The intent is to evaluate the current data on mechanism of altered coagulation in patients with cirrhosis, provide guidance on the use of currently available testing of the coagulation cascade, and help practitioners use anticoagulation and pro-coagulants appropriately in patients with cirrhosis.

METHODS

This review is framed around the best practice points, which were derived from the most impactful publications in the area of coagulation in cirrhosis and agreed to by all authors. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Global tests of clot formation, such as rotational thromboelastometry, thromboelastography, sonorheometry, and thrombin generation, may eventually have a role in the evaluation of clotting in patients with cirrhosis, but currently lack validated target levels. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: In general, clinicians should not routinely correct thrombocytopenia and coagulopathy before low-risk therapeutic paracentesis, thoracentesis, and routine upper endoscopy for variceal ligation in patients with hepatic synthetic dysfunction-induced coagulation abnormalities. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Blood products should be used sparingly because they increase portal pressure and carry a risk of transfusion-associated circulatory overload, transfusion-related acute lung injury, infection transmission, alloimmunization, and/or transfusion reactions. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: The following transfusion thresholds for management of active bleeding or high-risk procedures may optimize clot formation in advanced liver disease: hematocrit ≥25%, platelet count >50,000, and fibrinogen >120 mg/dL. Commonly utilized thresholds for international normalized ratio correction are not supported by evidence. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Thrombopoietin agonists are a good alternative to platelet transfusion, but require time (about 10 days) to elevate platelet levels. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: The large volume of fresh frozen plasma required to reach an arbitrary international normalized ratio target, limitations of the usual target, minimal effect on thrombin generation, and adverse effects on portal pressure limit the utility of this agent significantly. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: The 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate contains both pro- and anticoagulant factors that offer an attractive low-volume therapeutic to rebalance a disturbed hemostatic system. However, dosage is, in part, based on international normalized ratio, which is problematic in cirrhosis, and published experience in liver disease is limited. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Anti-fibrinolytic therapy may be considered in patients with persistent bleeding from mucosal oozing or puncture wound bleeding consistent with impaired clot integrity. Both ε-aminocaproic acid and tranexamic acid inhibit clot dissolution. Neither is believed to generate a hypercoagulable state, although both may exacerbate pre-existing thrombi. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Desmopressin releases von Willebrand factor as its primary hemostatic mechanism. As this factor is usually elevated in cirrhosis, the agent lacks a sound evidence-based foundation, but may be useful in patients with concomitant renal failure. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Systemic heparin infusion is recommended for symptomatic deep vein thrombosis and portal and mesenteric vein thrombosis, but there are unresolved issues regarding monitoring with both the anti-Xa assay and the partial thromboplastin time due to cirrhosis-related antithrombin deficiency (heparin cofactor). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: Treatment of incidental portal and mesenteric vein thrombosis depends on estimated impact on transplantation surgical complexity vs risks of bleeding and falls. Therapy with low-molecular-weight heparin, vitamin K antagonists, and direct-acting anticoagulants improve portal vein repermeation vs observation alone. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: Direct-acting anticoagulants, such as the factor Xa and thrombin inhibitors, are relatively safe and effective in stable cirrhotic patients, but are in need of further study in patients with more advanced liver disease.

Diagnosis, Development, and Treatment of Portal Vein Thrombosis in Patients With and Without Cirrhosis

Portal vein thrombosis unrelated to solid malignancy is common in patients with cirrhosis, but less frequently observed in patients without cirrhosis. Prompt diagnosis and management of acute symptomatic portal vein thrombosis are essential. Failure to detect and treat thromboses can result in mesenteric ischemia, chronic cavernous transformation, and complications of portal hypertension. In patients with cirrhosis, development of portal vein thrombosis is often insidious and remains undetected until its incidental detection. Management of portal vein thrombosis in patients with cirrhosis is more controversial. However, there are data to support treatment of specific patients with anticoagulation agents. We review the common and distinct features of portal vein thromboses in patients without liver tumors, with and without cirrhosis.

The impact of portal vein thrombosis on the prognosis and liver function of nonmalignant cirrhotic patients

OBJECTIVES

The clinical impact of portal vein thrombosis (PVT) in cirrhotic patients remains unclear. The aim of the study is whether recanalization of acute PVT in nonmalignant cirrhotic patients is associated with their prognosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified subject with PVT in cirrhotic patients from institutional database. Patients with ≥50% reduction in thrombus size were classified into the improved group and those with ≤49% reduction in thrombus size, or thrombus development in other branches were classified into the deteriorated group. We compared the cumulative survival rate, event-free survival rate (EFS), and liver function (albumin-to-bilirubin (ALBI) and model for end-stage liver disease XI (MELD-XI) between the two groups.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven patients were enrolled in this retrospective study. Sixteen patients were classified into the improved group, and 11 were classified into the deteriorated group. In the improved group, the ALBI grade and MELD-XI measured before the onset of PVT and at one year after the onset of PVT were not significantly different. In contrast, MELD-XI was significantly aggravated in deteriorated group (MELD-XI [p = .02]). The cumulative survival of the two groups did not differ significantly; however, the EFS of the deteriorated group was significantly lower (p = .049).

CONCLUSIONS

Residual thrombosis of PVT in cirrhotic patients increased the incidence of liver-related events and was associated with the deterioration of the liver function.

Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Chronic Liver Disease

Objective: To review the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with chronic liver disease (CLD). Data Sources: A MEDLINE literature search was performed from 1964 through February 2019 using the following search terms: cirrhosis, chronic liver disease, direct oral anticoagulant, and the individual DOACs. Study Selection and Data Extraction: All English-language human trials and reports that examined DOACs for treatment or prevention of venous thromboembolic (VTE) events in patients with CLD were included. Data Synthesis: A total of 6 clinical trials examining the use of DOACs in patients with CLD were identified. All DOACs have been utilized in patients with CLD, with the exception of betrixaban, for prevention of stroke in atrial fibrillation or treatment of VTE (except for treatment of pulmonary embolism). The studies primarily evaluated patients with mild to moderate liver disease (Child-Turcotte-Pugh class A and B). The DOACs had similar rates of bleeding compared with traditional anticoagulants. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: This review evaluates and summarizes the available evidence on DOACs in the setting of CLD. These agents may be more appealing in this population because monitoring or administration may be difficult with traditional anticoagulants (warfarin or low-molecular-weight heparins). Conclusion: Early data suggest that DOACs may be safe in patients with mild to moderate CLD. Should a DOAC be selected as an alternative to traditional anticoagulants, more frequent monitoring should be used because hepatotoxicity may be a concern. Larger clinical trials are needed to address efficacy outcomes as well as differences among individual DOACs in this population.

Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Cirrhotic Patients: Current Evidence and Clinical Observations

The introduction of Direct Oral Anticoagulants (DOACs) to the pharmaceutical market provided patients and clinicians with novel convenient and safe options of anticoagulation. The use of this class of medications is currently limited to venous thromboembolic therapy and prophylaxis, in addition to stroke prophylaxis in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Despite their altered hemostasis, patients with cirrhosis are thought to be in a procoagulant state and thus prone to thrombus formation. Patients with cirrhosis might benefit from the convenience of DOACs; however, the medical literature includes limited data on the efficacy and safety of DOACs in this special patient population. The aim of this review is to summarize the current evidence for anticoagulation options in patients with cirrhosis and their safety profile.

Portal vein thrombosis in cirrhotic patients - it is always the small pieces that make the big picture

Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is a frequent and serious complication in patients with liver cirrhosis (LC). Recently, a new classification of PVT was proposed, although the functional component was not completed included. The status of liver disease (compensated/decompensated) should be added to this classification. Reduced portal flow velocity and the acquired hypercoagulable status associated with LC are the main risk factors for PVT development, although endothelial dysfunction may play an important role that needs to be further evaluated. The European Association for the Study of the Liver and the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease recommend that the anticoagulant treatment should be consider in cirrhotic patients with PVT. Low molecular weight heparin and vitamin K antagonists proved their efficacy and relatively safety in PVT treatment, although in addition to recanalization rates, more complex end-points such as mortality and decompensation rate should be evaluated. The new oral anticoagulant therapies offers the advantage of oral administration in the absence of laboratory monitoring, however, there are a few reports regarding their use in cirrhotic patients, most of them referring to compensated isolated cases. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt could be an alternative if thrombosis progresses despite anticoagulatant therapy and/or when PVT is associated with portal hypertension complications. The aim of this editorial is to discuss the different aspects of pathophysiology, clinical relevance, diagnosis and management of PVT in patients with LC.

Direct oral anticoagulants in patients with liver cirrhosis: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Anticoagulant treatment in patients with liver cirrhosis is challenging. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate clinical outcomes of direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy in cirrhosis patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, and conference proceedings up to November 7th, 2017, for studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of DOACs in cirrhosis patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE), splanchnic vein thrombosis (SVT), or atrial fibrillation (AF). Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles, and assessed risk of bias. A meta-analysis could not be performed due to heterogeneity of the included studies.

RESULTS

Of the 2927 articles assessed, five retrospective cohort studies were included (n = 239, including 20 patients overlap). All studies had fair methodological quality. Two studies evaluated DOAC treatment only, and three also evaluated vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) or low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs). Recurrent VTE (DOAC n = 12, LMWH/VKA n = 8) or ischemic stroke (DOAC n = 37, LMWH/VKA n = 9) occurred in none of the patients. Progression of VTE was 8% with DOACs (n = 12) and 13% with VKAs and LWWH (n = 8). Recurrent SVT occurred in 0 to 4% with DOACs (n = 31). Progression of SVT was 0 to 5% with DOACs (n = 24) and 0 to 47% with VKAs and LMWH (n = 33). Major bleeding risk ranged from 4 to 15% with DOACs (n = 172) and from 7 to 28% with VKAs and LMWH (n = 67). All-cause mortality risk was 6% with DOACs (n = 36).

CONCLUSIONS

There is paucity of data on the efficacy and safety of DOACs in patients with cirrhosis. This analysis suggests that DOACs may be effective and safe for treatment of VTE, SVT, and AF in these patients.