Nonselective beta-blockers and development of portal vein thrombosis in liver cirrhosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Association of non-selective β blockers with the development of renal dysfunction in liver cirrhosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Non-selective β blockers (NSBBs) may negatively influence renal function through decreasing heart rate and cardiac output. This study aimed to systematically investigate their association.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases were searched to identify all relevant studies evaluating the association of NSBBs with renal dysfunction in cirrhotic patients. Unadjusted and adjusted data were separately extracted. Odds ratios (ORs) and hazard ratios (HRs) were pooled. Subgroup meta-analyses were performed according to the proportions of ascites and Child-Pugh class B/C and the mean model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were finally included. Based on unadjusted data, NSBBs significantly increased the risk of developing renal dysfunction (OR = 1.49; p = 0.03), and this association remained significant in subgroup analyses of studies where the proportions of ascites was >70% and Child-Pugh class B/C was 100%. Based on adjusted data with propensity score matching (adjusted OR = 0.61; p = 0.08) and multivariable regression modelling (adjusted HR = 0.86; p = 0.713), NSBBs did not increase the risk of developing renal dysfunction, and this association remained not significant in subgroup analyses of studies where the proportions of ascites was >70% and <70%, the proportion of Child-Pugh class B/C was <100%, and the mean MELD score was <15. The quality of evidence was very low for all meta-analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

NSBBs may not be associated with the development of renal dysfunction in liver cirrhosis. However, more evidence is required to clarify their association in specific populations.

Neutrophil extracellular traps formation may be involved in the association of propranolol with the development of portal vein thrombosis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Nonselective β blockers (NSBBs) facilitate the development of portal vein thrombosis (PVT) in liver cirrhosis. Considering the potential effect of NSBBs on neutrophils and neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs), we speculated that NSBBs might promote the development of PVT by stimulating neutrophils to release NETs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Serum NETs biomarkers were measured, use of NSBBs was recorded, and PVT was evaluated in cirrhotic patients. Carbon tetrachloride and ferric chloride (FeCl3) were used to induce liver fibrosis and PVT in mice, respectively. After treatment with propranolol and DNase I, neutrophils in peripheral blood, colocalization and expression of NETs in PVT specimens, and NETs biomarkers in serum were measured. Ex vivo clots lysis analysis was performed and portal vein velocity and coagulation parameters were tested.

RESULTS

Serum MPO-DNA level was significantly higher in cirrhotic patients treated with NSBBs, and serum H3Cit and MPO-DNA levels were significantly higher in those with PVT. In fibrotic mice, following treatment with propranolol, DNase I significantly shortened the time of FeCl3-induced PVT formation, lowered the peripheral blood neutrophils labelled by CD11b/Ly6G, inhibited the positive staining of H3Cit and the expression of H3Cit and MPO proteins in PVT tissues, and reduced serum nucleosome level. Furthermore, the addition of DNase I to tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) significantly accelerated clots lysis as compared with tPA alone. Propranolol reduced portal vein velocity in fibrotic mice, but did not influence coagulation parameters.

CONCLUSION

Our study provides a clue to the potential impact of NETs formation on the association of NSBBs with the development of PVT.

Angiocrine signaling in sinusoidal homeostasis and liver diseases

The hepatic sinusoids are composed of liver sinusoidal endothelial cells (LSECs), which are surrounded by hepatic stellate cells (HSCs) and contain liver-resident macrophages called Kupffer cells, and other patrolling immune cells. All these cells communicate with each other and with hepatocytes to maintain sinusoidal homeostasis and a spectrum of hepatic functions under healthy conditions. Sinusoidal homeostasis is disrupted by metabolites, toxins, viruses, and other pathological factors, leading to liver injury, chronic liver diseases, and cirrhosis. Alterations in hepatic sinusoids are linked to fibrosis progression and portal hypertension. LSECs are crucial regulators of cellular crosstalk within their microenvironment via angiocrine signaling. This review discusses the mechanisms by which angiocrine signaling orchestrates sinusoidal homeostasis, as well as the development of liver diseases. Here, we summarise the crosstalk between LSECs, HSCs, hepatocytes, cholangiocytes, and immune cells in health and disease and comment on potential novel therapeutic methods for treating liver diseases.

Management of Nonmalignant Portal Vein Thrombosis in Cirrhosis

Nonmalignant portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is a common complication of cirrhosis especially at the stage of decompensations. The diagnosis of PVT in cirrhosis is often incidental and it may be detected during routine semestral abdominal ultrasound with Doppler during screening for hepatocellular carcinoma or during hospitalization for decompensated cirrhosis. After detection of PVT on abdominal ultrasound, it is important to evaluate patients with cross-sectional imaging to determine the age of thrombus, whether acute or chronic, the extent and degree of luminal occlusion of the portal vein, and to rule out hepatocellular carcinoma or other underlying malignancy. Factors influencing management include the degree and extent of luminal occlusion of PVT, potential listing for liver transplantation, and portal hypertension (PHT) complications such as variceal hemorrhage and refractory ascites, severity of thrombocytopenia, and other comorbidities including chronic kidney disease. Anticoagulation is the most common therapeutic option and it is specially indicated in patients who are candidates for liver transplantation. Interventional procedures including transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) placement and mechanical thrombectomy may be used on a case-by-case basis in patients with contraindications or adverse events related to anticoagulation, who develop worsening PVT while on anticoagulant therapy, or have chronic PVT and PHT complications that are not manageable medically or endoscopically.

The Early Initiation of Perioperative Anticoagulation Therapy in Cirrhotic Patients with Portal Hypertension After Laparoscopic Splenectomy Plus Esophagogastric Devascularization: A 10-Year Single-Center Experience

Background: Portal veinous system thrombosis (PVST) is a common complication after laparoscopic splenectomy plus esophagogastric devascularization (LSED). Anticoagulation therapy was still in debate in LSED perioperation. This study aimed to determine the postoperative risk factors of PVST, the efficacy and safety of the anticoagulation therapy after LSED procedure, and the potential impact of anticoagulation on patients' liver function and overall survival (OS). Methods: Three hundred patients who underwent LSED were retrospectively enrolled and analyzed in the study. The characteristics of patients, perioperative parameters, risk of PVST, and long-term follow-up data were recorded and analyzed. Results: One hundred eighty six of 300 patients received perioperative anticoagulation therapy (p-AT) postoperation, while 114 patients did not receive p-AT (non-p-AT). The non-p-AT group had more intraoperative blood loss, PVST, longer abdominal drain days, and postoperative hospital stays separately compared with the p-AT group. No significant difference of postoperative complications was found between the two groups. In the 1-year follow-up postoperation, both groups had great improvement in hypersplenism and the portal vein hemodynamics. During the 10-year follow-up period, the incidence of PVST was significantly higher in the non-p-AT group than in the p-AT group. Anticoagulation therapy, sex, variceal hemorrhage history, portal vein diameter, and portal vein velocity were the independent prognostic factors determined by the Cox regression analysis for PVST. The thrombosis-free survival rate (P = .002), recurrent hemorrhage-free survival rate (P < .01), and the OS rate (P < .01) were significantly lower in the non-p-AT group than in the p-AT group. Conclusions: The initiate use of anticoagulation therapy in postoperation of LSED is effective and safe in cirrhotic patients. The anticoagulation therapy after LSED will help decrease portal vein thrombosis, the rebleeding rate, and extend the OS of the patients, especially among women, with variceal hemorrhage history, high portal vein diameter, and low portal vein velocity.

Understanding the pathogenesis of portal vein thrombosis in liver cirrhosis: We are still on the way

Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is a common complication of liver cirrhosis. In this issue of the Journal of Clinical Ultrasound: Sonography and other Imaging Techniques, a systematic review and meta‐analysis by Giri et al assessed the role of portal system hemodynamics for predicting the presence and development of PVT in liver cirrhosis.

Assessment of portal system hemodynamics for the prediction of portal vein thrombosis in cirrhosis-A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The pathogenesis of portal vein thrombosis (PVT) in cirrhosis is multifactorial, with altered hemodynamics being proposed as a possible contributor. The present systematic review was conducted to study the role of assessment of portal hemodynamics for the prediction of PVT in patients with cirrhosis.

METHODS

Three databases (Medline, Embase, and Scopus) were searched from inception to February 2023 for studies comparing portal venous system parameters in patients with cirrhosis developing PVT with those not. Results were presented as mean difference (MD) or odds ratio (OR) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

A total of 31 studies (patients with cirrhosis: 19 studies, patients with cirrhosis undergoing splenectomy: 12 studies) were included. On pooling the data from multivariable analyses of the included studies, a larger portal vein diameter was a significant predictor of PVT in patients with cirrhosis without or with splenectomy with OR 1.74 (1.12-2.69) and OR 1.55 (1.26-1.92), respectively. On the other hand, a lower portal vein velocity (PVV) was a significant predictor of PVT in cirrhotics without or with splenectomy with OR 0.93 (0.91-0.96) and OR 0.71 (0.61-0.83), respectively. A PVV of <15 cm/s was the most commonly used cut-off for the prediction of PVT. Patients developing PVT also had a significantly higher splenic length, thickness, and splenic vein velocity.

CONCLUSION

The assessment of portal hemodynamic parameters at baseline evaluation in patients with cirrhosis may predict the development of PVT. Further studies are required to determine the optimal cut-offs for various parameters.

Management of splanchnic vein thrombosis

The expression splanchnic vein thrombosis encompasses Budd-Chiari syndrome and portal vein thrombosis. These disorders have common characteristics: they are both rare diseases which can cause portal hypertension and its complications. Budd-Chiari syndrome and portal vein thrombosis in the absence of underlying liver disease share many risk factors, among which myeloproliferative neoplasms represent the most common; a rapid comprehensive work-up for risk factors of thrombosis is needed in these patients. Long-term anticoagulation is indicated in most patients. Portal vein thrombosis can also develop in patients with cirrhosis and in those with porto-sinusoidal vascular liver disease. The presence and nature of underlying liver disease impacts the management of portal vein thrombosis. Indications for anticoagulation in patients with cirrhosis are growing, while transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt is now a second-line option. Due to the rarity of these diseases, studies yielding high-grade evidence are scarce. However, collaborative studies have provided new insight into the management of these patients. This article focuses on the causes, diagnosis, and management of patients with Budd-Chiari syndrome, portal vein thrombosis without underlying liver disease, or cirrhosis with non-malignant portal vein thrombosis.

Congenital hypothyroidism: a case report of an Egyptian child with congenital heart disease, pelvic kidney and cavernous transformation of portal vein

Background

A case of thyroid hormone deficiency which presented at birth. Thyroid hormones are essential for brain development and normal cognitive function. Common symptoms of congenital hypothyroidism (CH) include constipation, decreased activity, increased sleep and feeding difficulty. Common signs include dry skin, macroglossia and umbilical hernia. If congenital hypothyroidism is left untreated after birth, it can lead to permanent intellectual disability and growth failure.

Case presentation.

Here, we report a 10.5-year-old female with the typical features of CH. She is the sixth in order of birth of consanguineous Egyptian parents. No family history of similar condition. Our patient had primary CH caused by thyroid agenesis. She had congenital heart disease, pelvic kidney, cavernous transformation of portal vein and parenchymatous liver disease.

Conclusions

Congenital hypothyroidism is associated with an elevated risk of congenital anomalies. Clinical suspicion of symptoms and signs of congenital hypothyroidism are important for early diagnosis and prevention of serious problems that are related to congenital hypothyroidism.

A novel potential mechanism for the development of portal vein thrombosis in cirrhosis based on portal hemodynamics

BACKGROUND

Marked changes in hemodynamics have been suggested to be a potential contributing factor to portal vein thrombosis (PVT) development. This study investigated the effect of portal hemodynamics based on the anatomical structure of the portal venous system on PVT development.

METHODS

The morphological features of portal venous system in patients with PVT and those without PVT subgroups were compared. In addition, idealized PV models were established to numerically evaluate the effect of the variation in the angulation of superior mesenteric vein (SMV) and splenic vein (SV) on the hemodynamics of portal venous system.

RESULTS

The angle α (angulation of SMV and SV) in patients with PVT was lower than that in patients without PVT (p < 0.0001), which was the only independent risk factor (odds ratio (OR), 0.90 (95% CI 0.84-0.95); p < 0.0001) for the presence of PVT. With the change in angle α, the flow pattern of blood flow changed greatly, especially the helical flow. When α = 80°, helical flow only appeared at the local PV near the intersection of SMV and SV. When α = 120°, most regions were occupied by the helical flow. In addition, the h₂ gradually increased with increasing α, when α = 80°, h₂ = 12.6 m/s²; when α = 120°, h₂ = 29.3 m/s².

CONCLUSIONS

The angulation of SV and SMV was closely associated with PVT development. Helical flow changed following the varying angulation of SV and SMV. Therefore, angulation of SV and SMV may help to identify high-risk cohorts for future PVT development earlier.

Portal Vein Thrombosis in the Setting of Cirrhosis: A Comprehensive Review

Portal vein thrombosis constitutes the most common thrombotic event in patients with cirrhosis, with increased rates in the setting of advanced liver disease. Despite being a well-known complication of cirrhosis, the contribution of portal vein thrombosis to hepatic decompensation and overall mortality is still a matter of debate. The incorporation of direct oral anticoagulants and new radiological techniques for portal vein recanalization have expanded our therapeutic arsenal. However, the lack of large prospective observational studies and randomized trials explain the heterogenous diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations of current guidelines. This article seeks to make a comprehensive review of the pathophysiology, clinical features, diagnosis, and treatment of portal vein thrombosis in patients with cirrhosis.

Epidemiology of portal vein thrombosis in liver cirrhosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) may be associated with negative outcomes in patients with liver cirrhosis. However, the prevalence and incidence of PVT in liver cirrhosis are heterogeneous among studies and have not been sufficiently determined yet.

METHODS

The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched. Eligible studies would explore the prevalence and/or incidence of PVT in liver cirrhosis without hepatocellular carcinoma or abdominal surgery. Pooled proportion with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using a random-effect model. Factors associated with the presence/occurrence of PVT were also extracted.

RESULTS

Among the 8549 papers initially identified, 74 were included. Fifty-four studies explored the prevalence of PVT in liver cirrhosis with a pooled prevalence of 13.92% (95%CI=11.18-16.91%). Based on cross-sectional data, Child-Pugh class B/C, higher D-dimer, ascites, and use of non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) were associated with the presence of PVT in liver cirrhosis. Twenty-three studies explored the incidence of PVT in liver cirrhosis with a pooled incidence of 10.42% (95%CI=8.16-12.92%). Based on cohort data, Child-Pugh class B/C, higher model of end-stage liver disease score, higher D-dimer, lower platelets count, decreased portal flow velocity, ascites, use of NSBBs, and moderate or high-risk esophageal varices could predict the occurrence of PVT in liver cirrhosis.

CONCLUSION

Approximately one seventh of cirrhotic patients have PVT, and one tenth will develop PVT. Progression of liver cirrhosis and portal hypertension seems to be in parallel with the risk of PVT. Prospective studies with detailed information about classification and extension of PVT in liver cirrhosis are needed.

Characteristics of myeloproliferative neoplasm-associated portal hypertension and endoscopic management of variceal bleeding

Background:

Myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) are a rare yet important clinical cause of portal hypertension, which may cause recurrent gastroesophageal variceal bleeding (GVB). MPN-associated variceal bleeding lacks specific guidelines and clinical consensus and desiderates cohort studies. We performed a multicenter retrospective study to investigate the efficacy of endoscopic management of bleeding in MPNs.

Methods:

We included consecutive MPN patients with gastroesophageal varices in eight tertiary university hospitals between January 2007 and March 2020. The clinical characteristics of participants were summarized. MPN patients with a history of GVB were followed up for the rebleeding and death, compared with controls suffering from schistosomiasis-associated portal hypertension who received endoscopic treatment for variceal bleeding at the same period.

Results:

A total of 62 MPN patients with gastroesophageal varices were identified, and 37 had a history of GVB. Of these, 24 patients received endoscopic variceal ligation and endoscopic injection of cyanoacrylate for the prophylaxis of variceal rebleeding. Endoscopic treatment significantly reduced the rebleeding rate in MPN patients with a history of GVB (28.2% versus 68.3%, p = 0.0269). Multivariable Cox regression indicated that endoscopic treatment (HR = 0.10, 95% CI: 0.02–0.54, p = 0.008) was the independent protective factor for decreasing the 3-year rebleeding rate, while the use of non-selective beta-blockers (NSBB) (HR = 13.41, 95% CI: 2.15–83.42, p = 0.005) was the risk factor for increasing the 3-year rebleeding rate. As for the efficacy of endoscopic management, 3-year rebleeding rate was significantly lower in MPN patients in contrast to 46 controls with schistosomiasis-associated variceal bleeding (32.9% versus 59.0%, p = 0.0346).

Conclusion:

Endoscopic treatment might be a feasible and potent approach in the management of gastroesophageal variceal rebleeding in MPNs, while NSBB might be ineffective.

Timing of endoscopic intervention in patients with cirrhosis with acute variceal haemorrhage (TEACH trial): protocol for a randomised clinical trial (RCT)

INTRODUCTION

Acute variceal haemorrhage (AVH) in patients with cirrhosis remains a topic of great interest. Although several guidelines recommend endoscopy within 24 hours after AVH, there is no consensus on the most appropriate time to perform this intervention. The purpose of this study is to identify whether urgent endoscopy (within 6 hours after gastroenterological consultation) is superior to non-urgent endoscopy (between 6 hours and 24 hours after gastroenterological consultation) in reducing the rebleeding rate of these patients.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a single-centred, prospective, randomised clinical trial. Between March 2021 and December 2023, an estimated 400 patients will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive endoscopic intervention either within 6 hours or between 6 and 24 hours after gastroenterological consultation. Randomisation will be conducted by permuted block randomisation, with stratification by age, systolic blood pressure and pulse rate. The primary efficacy endpoint is rebleeding within 42 days after control of AVH. The secondary efficacy endpoints mainly include all-cause mortality within 42 days after randomisation, persistent bleeding, length of hospitalisation, etc. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was approved by the Ethical Committees of Jinling Hospital (authorised ethics no. DZQH-KYLL-21-01). This trial will provide valuable insights into the timing of endoscopic intervention for AVH in patients with cirrhosis. Furthermore, the trial results and conclusions could provide high-quality evidence to guide clinical research and treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04786743.

Associations Between Endoscopic Primary Prophylaxis and Rebleeding in Liver Cirrhosis Patients with Esophagogastric Variceal Bleeding

Aim

To identify the association between endoscopic primary prophylaxis and the risk of rebleeding in patients with liver cirrhosis receiving endoscopic therapy.

Methods

This cohort study involved in 944 liver cirrhosis patients with esophagogastric variceal bleeding (EGVB) receiving endoscopic therapy. All participants were divided into two groups: rebleeding group (n = 425) and non-rebleeding group (n = 519) according to the occurrence of rebleeding in patients. Rebleeding indicated any bleeding after endoscopic therapy for the first bleeding of esophagogastric varices in liver cirrhosis patients. Univariate and multivariate logistic analyses were employed to identify the association between endoscopic primary prophylaxis and rebleeding in patients with liver cirrhosis after endoscopic therapy.

Results

In total, 425 patients rebleeded at the end of the follow-up. The risk of rebleeding in patients with endoscopic primary prophylaxis decreased by 0.773 times (OR = 0.227, 95%CI: 0.139–0.372, P < 0.001) after adjusting covariables. Subgroups were divided according to the Child-Pugh (CP) score, and the results revealed that the risk of rebleeding in patients with endoscopic primary prophylaxis decreased by 0.858 times in Grade A patients (OR = 0.142, 95%CI: 0.066–0.304, P < 0.001) and 0.804 times in Grade B patients (OR = 0.196, 95%CI: 0.085–0.451, P < 0.001) compared with patients without endoscopic primary prophylaxis, but showed no difference in Grade C patients.

Conclusion

Endoscopic primary prophylaxis was associated with a decreased risk of rebleeding in liver cirrhosis patients with EGVB after endoscopic therapy, which suggested that clinicians should pay more attention to endoscopic primary prophylaxis to prevent the occurrence of rebleeding in these patients.

A Dynamic Nomogram Predicting Portal Vein Thrombosis in Cirrhotic Patients During Primary Prophylaxis for Variceal Hemorrhage

Background

Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) would exert a further increase in resistance to portal blood flow, resulting in worsening portal hypertension and poor outcome. This study aimed to identify risk factors and develop an clinically applicable dynamic nomogram predicting the occurrence of PVT in cirrhotic patients during primary prophylaxis for variveal hemorrhage (VH).

Methods

The multi-center retrospective study enrolled cirrhotic patients with high-risk varices, which were further divided into training and validation cohorts for 3 years follow-up. A dynamic nomogram based on the Cox proportional hazard regression model was developed with the cutoff value calculated by X-title analysis. The performance of the nomogram was evaluated with Harrell’s concordance index (C-index), calibration curve and decision curve analysis.

Results

91 (34.0%) of the whole cohort were diagnosed with PVT during 3-year follow-up. Variables including carvedilol (P &lt; 0.001), low portal vein velocity (P &lt; 0.001), increased size of esophageal varices (P = 0.005), and high HbA1c (P &lt; 0.001) and procalcitonin (P = 0.015) were identified to be independently associated with PVT, which were further incorporated into the dynamic nomogram with optimal cutoff (8.8 and 14.6) for risk-stratification. The C-indexes (0.894 of internal validation and 0.892 of external validation) and calibration curves demonstrated ideal discrimination and calibration. The thresholds for more reasonable application of the nomogram were 0–0.27, 0–0.66, and 0.04–1.00 at 1, 2, and 3-year, respectively.

Conclusion

The dynamic nomogram could be accurately and reliably used for clinical risk-stratification of PVT in cirrhotic patients during primary prophylaxis for VH.

Direct oral anticoagulant administration in cirrhotic patients with portal vein thrombosis: What is the evidence?

In recent years, the traditional concept that cirrhosis-related coagulopathy is an acquired bleeding disorder has evolved. Currently, it is known that in cirrhotic patients, the hemostatic system is rebalanced, which involves coagulation factors, fibrinolysis and platelets. These alterations disrupt homeostasis, skewing it toward a procoagulant state, which can lead to thromboembolic manifestations, especially when hemodynamic and endothelial factors co-occur, such as in the portal vein system in cirrhosis. Portal vein thrombosis is a common complication of advanced liver cirrhosis that negatively affects the course of liver disease, prognosis of cirrhotic patients and success of liver transplantation. It is still debated whether portal vein thrombosis is the cause or the consequence of worsening liver function. Anticoagulant therapy is the mainstay treatment for acute symptomatic portal vein thrombosis. In chronic portal vein thrombosis, the role of anticoagulant therapy is still unclear. Traditional anticoagulants, vitamin K antagonists and low-molecular-weight heparin are standard-of-care treatments for portal vein thrombosis. In the last ten years, direct oral anticoagulants have been approved for the prophylaxis and treatment of many thromboembolic-related diseases, but evidence on their use in cirrhotic patients is very limited. The aim of this review was to summarize the evidence about the safety and effectiveness of direct oral anticoagulants for treating portal vein thrombosis in cirrhotic patients.

The Pathophysiology of Portal Vein Thrombosis in Cirrhosis: Getting Deeper into Virchow's Triad

Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is a common complication among patients with cirrhosis. However, its pathophysiology is not well established and there are currently very few predictive factors, none of which are actually useful, from a clinical perspective. The contribution of each of the vertices of Virchow’s triad, e.g., blood hypercoagulability, blood flow, and portal vein endothelial damage in the development of PVT is not clear. In this review, we aim to recapitulate the latest studies on the field of PVT development in order to understand its mechanisms and discuss some of the future directions in the study of this important complication of cirrhosis.

Portal Vein Thrombosis in Cirrhosis

Patients with cirrhosis of the liver are at high risk of developing portal vein thrombosis (PVT), which has a complex, multifactorial cause. The condition may present with a myriad of symptoms and can occasionally cause severe complications. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) is the gold standard for the diagnosis of PVT. There are uncertainties regarding the effect on PVT and its treatment outcome in patients with cirrhosis. The main challenge for managing PVT in cirrhosis is analyzing the risk of hemorrhage compared to the risk of thrombus extension leading to complications. All current knowledge regarding non-tumor PVT in cirrhosis, including epidemiology, risk factors, classification, clinical presentation, diagnosis, impact on natural history, and treatment, is discussed in the present article.

Systemic inflammation as a risk factor for portal vein thrombosis in cirrhosis: a prospective longitudinal study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Various risk factors for portal vein thrombosis (PVT) development in patients with cirrhosis have been identified, but the role of systemic inflammatory reaction is unknown. The study aims to assess the association between markers of systemic inflammation and PVT in cirrhosis.

METHODS

Between January 2014 and October 2015, 107 outpatients with cirrhosis and no PVT were recruited, and followed till February 2017. White blood cell count, serum concentrations of high-sensitive C-reactive protein, ferritin, tumor necrosis factor-alpha and interleukin-6 (IL-6) were evaluated at baseline and every 3 or 6 months till PVT diagnosis or end of follow-up.

RESULTS

Median age, model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score and follow-up period of the studied population was 55 years (IQR 46-62 years), 9.6 points (IQR 7.5-12 points) and 19 months (12-24 months), respectively. PVT developed in 10.3% of the patients. Lymphocyte count below 1.2 ´ 109/L [hazard ratio, 6.04; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.29-28.2; P = 0.022], IL-6 above 5.5 pg/mL (hazard ratio, 5.64; 95% CI, 1.21-26.33; P  = 0.028) and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (hazard ratio, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.04-2.04; P = 0.028) were associated with a higher risk of PVT development. IL-6 and lymphopenia remained associated with subsequent PVT development after adjustment for nonselective beta-blockers, spleen size, portosystemic collaterals, oesophageal varices (grade ≥2) and ascites, but also with alcohol as the cause for cirrhosis and MELD ≥13.

CONCLUSION

In patients with cirrhosis, markers of systemic inflammation IL-6 and lymphopenia are predictive of PVT independently of markers of portal hypertension. These results draw our attention on a factor so far overlooked in the pathogenesis of PVT.

Predicting portal thrombosis in cirrhosis: A prospective study of clinical, ultrasonographic and hemostatic factors

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is a relatively frequent event in patients with cirrhosis. While different risk factors for PVT have been reported, such as decreased portal blood flow velocity (PBFV) and parameters related with severity of portal hypertension, these are based on retrospective studies assessing only a discrete number of parameters. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the incidence and risks factors for non-tumoral PVT development in a large prospective cohort of patients with cirrhosis.

METHODS

We performed an exhaustive evaluation of clinical, biochemical, inflammatory and acquired/hereditary hemostatic profiles in 369 patients with cirrhosis without PVT who were prospectively followed-up. Doppler ultrasound was performed at baseline and every 6 months or whenever clinically indicated. PVT development was always confirmed by computed tomography.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine patients developed non-tumoral PVT, with an incidence of 1.6%, 6% and 8.4% at 1, 3 and 5 years, respectively. Low platelet count, PBFV <15 cm/sec and history of variceal bleeding were factors independently associated with a high PVT risk. No relationship between PVT development and any other clinical biochemical, inflammatory and acquired or hereditary hemostatic parameter was found.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with cirrhosis, the factors predictive of PVT development were mainly those related to the severity of portal hypertension. Our results do not support the role of hemostatic alterations (inherited or acquired) and inflammatory markers in the prediction of PVT in patients with cirrhosis.

LAY SUMMARY

Patients with cirrhosis and more severe portal hypertension are at higher risk of non-tumoral portal vein thrombosis development. Acquired or inherited hemostatic disorders, as well as inflammatory status, do not seem to predict the development of portal vein thrombosis in patients with cirrhosis.

Evolution of Nonmalignant Portal Vein Thrombosis in Liver Cirrhosis: A Pictorial Review

Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is a common complication in liver cirrhosis, especially in advanced cirrhosis. It may be related to a higher risk of liver-related events and liver function deterioration. Imaging examinations can not only provide an accurate diagnosis of PVT, such as the extent of thrombus involvement and the degree of lumen occupied, but also identify the nature of thrombus (i.e., benign/malignant and acute/chronic). Evolution of PVT, mainly including development, recanalization, progression, stability, and recurrence, could also be assessed based on the imaging examinations. This article briefly reviews the pathophysiology, diagnosis, classification, and evolution of PVT with an emphasis on their computed tomography imaging features.

Current knowledge and management of portal vein thrombosis in cirrhosis

Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is an increasingly recognised complication of cirrhosis whose incidence increases in parallel with the severity of cirrhosis. Several risk factors have been associated with the occurrence and progression of PVT. Although the negative effect of complete PVT on the surgical outcome of liver transplant recipients is clear, its impact on cirrhosis progression remains uncertain. Treatment options include anticoagulants and interventional thrombolytic therapies, which are chosen almost on a case-by-case basis depending on the characteristics of the patient and the thrombus. In this manuscript, we review current knowledge regarding the epidemiology, risk factors, diagnosis and classification, natural history, clinical consequences and treatment of non-neoplastic PVT in cirrhosis.

Portal vein thrombosis associated with high 14-day and 6-week rebleeding in patients after oesophageal variceal band ligation: a retrospective, multicentre, nested case-control study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The association between prognosis of variceal bleeding and portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is unclear. In this multicentre study, we determined the effect of PVT on rebleeding and mortality in patients with acute variceal bleeding (AVB) after oesophageal variceal band ligation (EVL).

METHODS

Cirrhotic patients with AVB who had undergone EVL were included. The patients were allocated to either the PVT group or the control cirrhotic group (CCG) based on the presence or absence of PVT. One-year rebleeding episodes and mortality after EVL were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 218 cirrhotic patients with AVB from 3 centres were included. Patients with PVT had a higher rate of 14-day and 6-week rebleeding than those without PVT (14-day: 8.26% vs. 1.83%, p = 0.03; 6-week: 11.92% vs. 1.83%, p = 0.003). The rates of 5-day failure (3.67% vs. 0.92%, p = 0.175), 1-year rebleeding (21.10% vs. 20.18%, p = 0.867), and 14-day, 6-week, and 1-year mortality were similar between the groups (14-day: 3.67% vs. 0.92%, p = 0.175; 6-week: 3.67% vs. 0.92%, p = 0.175; 1-year: 3.67% vs. 1.83%, p = 0.408). The Child-Pugh class [p = 0.022, hazard ratio (HR): 1.453; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.056-1.998], PVT (p = 0.050, HR: 4.622, 95% CI 0.999-21.395), albumin < 30 g/L (p = 0.023, HR: 5.886, 95% CI 1.272-27.245), and number of bands (p = 0.010, HR: 1.207, 95% CI 1.046-1.393) were identified as the predictors for 14-day rebleeding; the multivariate analysis revealed only the number of bands (p = 0.009, HR: 1.247, 95% CI 1.056-1.473) as the independent factor. PVT (p = 0.012, HR: 6.732, 95% CI 1.519-29.835) and albumin < 30 g/L (p = 0.027, HR: 3.643, 95% CI 1.160-11.441) were identified as predictors for 6-week rebleeding; however, only PVT (p = 0.015, HR: 6.380, 95% CI 1.427-28.515) was found to be the independent factor in the multivariate analysis. Further analysis showed that superior mesenteric vein (SMV) thrombosis is the only risk factor predicting 6-week rebleeding in patients with PVT (p = 0.032, HR: 3.405, 95% CI 1.112-10.429).

CONCLUSIONS

PVT was associated with high 14-day and 6-week rebleeding in patients after EVL. SMV thrombosis was the only risk factor for 6-week rebleeding in patients with PVT. High albumin levels may serve as a protective factor for the 14-day and 6-week rebleeding risk. PVT was not responsible for mortality after EVL during 1-year follow-up.

β-blockers in advanced cirrhosis: More friend than enemy

Nonselective beta-adrenergic blocker (NSBB) therapy for the prevention of initial and recurrent gastrointestinal bleeding in cirrhotic patients with gastroesophageal varices has been used for the past four decades. NSBB therapy is considered the cornerstone of treatment for varices, and has become the standard of care. However, a 2010 study from the group that pioneered β-blocker therapy suggested a detrimental effect of NSBBs in decompensated cirrhosis, especially in patients with refractory ascites. Since then, numerous additional studies have incompletely resolved whether NSBBs are deleterious, although more recent evidence weighs against a harmful effect. The possibility of a "therapeutic window" has also been raised. We aimed to review the literature to analyze the pros and cons of using NSBBs in patients with cirrhosis, not only with respect to bleeding or mortality but also to other potential benefits and risks. β-blockers are highly effective in preventing first bleeding and recurrent bleeding. Furthermore, NSBBs improve congestion/ischemia of the gut mucosa, decrease intestinal permeability, and therefore indirectly alleviate systemic inflammation. β-blockers shorten the electrocardiographic prolonged QTc interval and may also decrease the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma. On the other hand, the possibility of deleterious effects in cirrhosis has not been completely eliminated. NSBBs may be associated with an increased risk of portal vein thrombosis, although this could be correlational artifact. Overall, we conclude that β-blockers in cirrhosis are much more of a friend than enemy.

Progress in clinical diagnosis and treatment of cavernous transformation of the portal vein

Cavernous transformation of the portal vein (CTPV) refers to the compensatory neoformation of venous collaterals around the hepatic portal after the main portal vein or its branches are blocked, in order to maintain liver blood perfusion. This disease is relatively rare, and in clinical practice, its etiology, diagnosis, and treatment are not well understood. Patients with portal hypertension-related syndromes need to receive active treatment. The main goal of treatment is to prevent upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage and hypersplenism caused by portal hypertension, and to restore hepatopetal portal blood perfusion. It is necessary to fully assess the patient's condition and understand the best indications for each treatment. On this basis, we should adopt individualized comprehensive treatment strategies. This article reviews the latest advances in the understanding of the etiology, diagnosis, classification, and treatment of CTPV.

Mechanism, diagnosis, and treatment of portal vein thrombosis in cirrhosis

Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is one of the common complications of cirrhosis. Its formation is influenced by many factors, such as liver function grade, blood coagulation state, portal vein pressure, and blood flow velocity. The treatment of patients with PVT is more difficult than that of patients without PVT, and the prognosis is poor. However, the presence of PVT is usually asymptomatic, thus early detection and intervention are important. Currently, there are different views on the mechanism of PVT. This review will discuss the mechanism of PVT and summarize its pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment, with an aim to provide evidence for clinical practice.

Impact of spontaneous splenorenal shunt on liver volume and long-term survival of liver cirrhosis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Spontaneous splenorenal shunt (SSRS) is one of the manifestations of portal hypertension in liver cirrhosis. However, the impact of SSRS on long-term survival of cirrhotic patients remains unclear. We hypothesize that SSRS may worsen liver dysfunction and deteriorate prognosis in liver cirrhosis by decreasing hepatic perfusion.

METHODS

Patients with liver cirrhosis who were admitted to our department between December 2014 and August 2019 and underwent contrast-enhanced computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging scans were prospectively collected. The maximum diameters of SSRS and portal vein system vessels were retrospectively measured. Liver-to-abdominal area ratio, Child-Pugh, and model for end-stage liver disease scores were calculated.

RESULTS

Overall, 122 cirrhotic patients were included. The prevalence of SSRS was 30.3% (37/122). Median diameter of SSRS was 13.5 mm. Patients with SSRS had significantly thinner diameters of right portal vein (9 mm vs 11.2 mm, P = 0.001) and main portal vein (15.3 mm vs 16.8 mm, P = 0.017) than those without SSRS. Patients with SSRS had significantly lower liver-to-abdominal area ratio score (25.39 vs 31.58, P < 0.001) and higher Child-Pugh (7 vs 6, P = 0.046) and model for end-stage liver disease (12.17 vs 9.79, P < 0.006) scores than those without SSRS. Patients with SSRS had a significantly lower cumulative survival rate than those without SSRS (P = 0.014). Cox regression analysis also showed that SSRS was a risk factor of death of cirrhotic patients (hazard ratio = 4.161, 95% confidence interval = 1.215-14.255, P = 0.023).

CONCLUSIONS

Spontaneous splenorenal shunt may narrow portal vein diameter and shrink liver volume, thereby worsening liver function and increasing mortality in liver cirrhosis.

Increase in Free Hepatic Venous Pressure Response to Beta-Blockers Predicts Variceal Bleeding in Cirrhotic Patients

Background and Aims

Nonselective beta-blockers (NSBBs) are the main drug to prevent portal hypertension. It could alter free hepatic venous pressure (FHVP); however, the significance is unknown. This prospective study was to explore the change of FHVP after use of NSBBs and its predictive value for gastroesophageal varices (GOV) bleeding in cirrhotic patients. Patients and Methods. Cirrhotic patients with medium-large GOV between September 2014 and January 2019 were enrolled. After initial hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) measurement, patients received oral NSBBs. Seven days later, the secondary HVPG was examined to evaluate the FHVP alteration and hemodynamic response. The variceal bleeding between patients with FHVP increased and decreased/unchanged was compared.

Results

A total of 74 patients were enrolled, and 62 patients completed the secondary HVPG measurement and was followed up. The cumulative bleeding rate was significantly higher in patients with FHVP increased ≥ 1.75 mmHg than those with FHVP decreased/unchanged (54.5% vs. 22.5%, p = 0.021), while there was no significant difference in bleeding between HVPG responders and nonresponders (32.6% vs. 37.5%, p = 0.520). For HVPG responders, variceal bleeding in patients with FHVP increased ≥ 1.75 mmHg was significantly more than that in patients with FHVP decreased/unchanged (57.9% vs. 28.6%, p = 0.041). Cox regression analysis showed that change of FHVP was an independent predictor of variceal bleeding.

Conclusion

Increase ≥ 1.75 mmHg in FHVP responding to beta-blockers in cirrhotic patients with GOV indicates high risk of variceal bleeding. Besides HVPG response, change of FHVP should also be valued in hemodynamic evaluation to beta-blockers. This trial is registered with Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR-IPR-17012836.

Consensus for management of portal vein thrombosis in liver cirrhosis (2020, Shanghai)

Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is a common and severe complication of liver cirrhosis. So far, there have been few consensuses or practice guidelines on the management of PVT in liver cirrhosis. In this expert consensus, we systematically review the epidemiology, risk factors, imaging examinations, diagnosis, assessment of disease severity, and treatment strategy of PVT in liver cirrhosis, based on the most recent evidence and expert opinions, to further standardize the diagnosis and treatment of the disease in clinical practice.

Development and Evaluation of a Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Drug-Disease Model of Propranolol for Suggesting Model Informed Dosing in Liver Cirrhosis Patients

AIM

The study was aimed to understand the underlying causes for the differences in propranolol pharmacokinetics (PK) between healthy and cirrhosis populations by using a systematic whole-body physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model-building approach for suggesting model informed propranolol dosing in liver cirrhosis patients with different stages of disease severity.

METHODS

A whole-body PBPK model was developed by using population simulator PK-Sim® by using reported physicochemical and clinical data for propranolol in healthy and liver cirrhosis populations. The model evaluation was done by visual verification and comparison of PK parameters using their observed/predicted ratios (Robs/pred).

RESULTS

The developed model has effectively described the disposition of propranolol after intravenous and oral application in healthy and liver cirrhosis populations. All the model predictions were comparable to the observed clinical data and the Robs/pred for all the PK parameters were within a 2-fold range. A significant increase in plasma concentration of propranolol and decrease in drug clearance was observed in progressive stages of liver cirrhosis. The developed model after evaluation with the reported clinical PK data was used for suggesting model informed propranolol dosing in different stages of liver cirrhosis based on systemic unbound drug concentration.

CONCLUSION

The developed PBPK model has successfully described propranolol PK in healthy and cirrhosis populations after IV and oral administration. The evaluated PBPK propranolol-cirrhosis model can have many implications in predicting propranolol dosing in liver cirrhosis patients with different stages of disease severity.

Association of portal venous system thrombosis with endoscopic variceal treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The association of endoscopic variceal treatment (EVT) with the development of portal venous system thrombosis (PVST) in liver cirrhosis remains uncertain. A systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the incidence of PVST after EVT and to explore the association of EVT with the development of PVST in liver cirrhosis. All relevant studies were searched via the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. The incidence of PVST in patients treated with and without EVT was pooled. Risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Heterogeneity among studies was calculated. Meta-regression, sensitivity, and subgroup analyses were used to analyze the source of heterogeneity. Thirteen studies involving a total of 833 patients were included. The pooled incidence of PVST after EVT was 10.4% (95% CI, 4.9-17.7%). There was a statistically significant heterogeneity (I2 = 83.3%, P < 0.0001). Meta-regression, sensitivity, and subgroup analyses did not find the source of heterogeneity. Four studies compared the incidence of PVST between patients treated with and without EVT. The incidence of PVST was significantly higher in the EVT group than that in the no-EVT group (risk ratio: 2.23; 95% CI, 1.11-4.49; P = 0.02). The heterogeneity was not statistically significant (I2 = 0%, P = 0.43). In conclusion, PVST after EVT may not be scare, and EVT may increase the risk of PVST in liver cirrhosis.

Clinical Pharmacokinetics of Propranolol Hydrochloride: A Review

BACKGROUND

Nobel laureate Sir James Black's molecule, propranolol, still has broad potential in cardiovascular diseases, infantile haemangiomas and anxiety. A comprehensive and systematic review of the literature for the summarization of pharmacokinetic parameters would be effective to explore the new safe uses of propranolol in different scenarios, without exposing humans and using virtual-human modeling approaches.

OBJECTIVE

This review encompasses physicochemical properties, pharmacokinetics and drug-drug interaction data of propranolol collected from various studies.

METHODS

Clinical pharmacokinetic studies on propranolol were screened using Medline and Google Scholar databases. Eighty-three clinical trials, in which pharmacokinetic profiles and plasma time concentration were available after oral or IV administration, were included in the review.

RESULTS

The study depicts that propranolol is well absorbed after oral administration. It has dose-dependent bioavailability, and a 2-fold increase in dose results in a 2.5-fold increase in the area under the curve, a 1.3-fold increase in the time to reach maximum plasma concentration and finally, 2.2 and 1.8-fold increase in maximum plasma concentration in both immediate and long-acting formulations, respectively. Propranolol is a substrate of CYP2D6, CYP1A2 and CYP2C19, retaining potential pharmacokinetic interactions with co-administered drugs. Age, gender, race and ethnicity do not alter its pharmacokinetics. However, in renal and hepatic impairment, it needs a dose adjustment.

CONCLUSION

Physiochemical and pooled pharmacokinetic parameters of propranolol are beneficial to establish physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling among the diseased population.

Anticoagulation Favors Thrombus Recanalization and Survival in Patients With Liver Cirrhosis and Portal Vein Thrombosis: Results of a Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Benefit and risk of anticoagulation in cirrhotic patients with portal vein thrombosis (PVT) remain controversial, especially in those with asymptomatic PVT and in non-liver transplant candidates. Furthermore, the predictors of portal vein recanalization and bleeding events after anticoagulation are critical for making clinical decisions, but still unclear. We conducted a meta-analysis to investigate the outcomes of anticoagulation for PVT in liver cirrhosis and explore the predictors of portal vein recanalization and bleeding events after anticoagulation.

METHODS

All studies regarding anticoagulation for PVT in liver cirrhosis were searched via PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. Thrombotic outcomes, bleeding events, and survival were compared between anticoagulation and non-anticoagulation groups. Predictors of portal vein recanalization and bleeding events were pooled. Risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.

RESULTS

Thirty-three studies including 1696 cirrhotic patients with PVT were included. Anticoagulation significantly increased portal vein recanalization (RR = 2.61; 95% CI 1.99-3.43; P < 0.00001) and overall survival (RR = 1.11; 95% CI 1.03-1.21; P = 0.01) and decreased thrombus progression (RR = 0.26; 95% CI 0.14-0.49; P < 0.0001). Anticoagulation did not significantly influence overall bleeding (RR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.47-1.30; P = 0.34). Early initiation of anticoagulation (RR = 1.58; 95% CI 1.21-2.07; P = 0.0007) significantly increased portal vein recanalization. Child-Pugh class B and C (RR = 0.77; 95% CI 0.62-0.95; P = 0.02) and higher MELD score (MD = - 1.48; 95% CI - 2.20-0.76; P < 0.0001) were significantly associated with decreased portal vein recanalization. No predictor significantly associated with bleeding events was identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Early initiation of anticoagulation should be supported in liver cirrhosis with PVT. Predictors of portal vein recanalization should be taken into consideration to identify those who may not benefit from anticoagulation.

REGISTRATION

The work was registered in PROSPERO with registration no. CRD42020157142.

Low-molecular-weight heparin followed by rivaroxaban for acute occlusive portomesenteric vein thrombosis in a cirrhotic patient treated with multiple endoscopic variceal procedures

Acute portomesenteric vein thrombosis is potentially lethal. In the present paper, a cirrhotic patient with a previous history of esophageal variceal bleeding presented with acute occlusive portomesenteric vein thrombosis, but achieved complete recanalization by low-molecular-weight heparin followed by rivaroxaban. Notably, no bleeding episode occurred during anticoagulation therapy. This case supported early initiation of anticoagulation in such patients.

New Insights into the Pathogenesis, Risk Factors, and Treatment of Portal Vein Thrombosis in Patients with Cirrhosis

Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is a frequent event in patients with cirrhosis regardless of etiology. Notwithstanding the commonality of the problem, the pathophysiology and risk factors for PVT in cirrhosis are largely unknown. The clinical impact of PVT in the natural history of cirrhosis is unclear, indications for PVT treatment are not well defined, and treatment recommendations are based on experts' opinion and consensus only. Therefore, this review aims to summarize current knowledge of mechanisms and risk factors for PVT development and assess the current evidence of PVT management, with a special focus on strategies of anticoagulation and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt placement.

Nonselective β-Blockers May Progress the Thrombosis of Portal Venous System in Cirrhotic Patients: A Retrospective Observational Study

INTRODUCTION

Occlusive portal venous system thrombosis (PVT) is significantly associated with poor outcomes in cirrhotic patients. Nonselective β-blockers (NSBBs) may be associated with the development of PVT. However, the role of NSBBs in progressing thrombosis remains unclear.

METHODS

Forty-three patients on whom contrast-enhanced computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging was performed twice, and for whom there was detailed information regarding NSBBs, were eligible in this study, including 16 in the NSBBs group and 27 in the no NSBBs group. A composite endpoint of progressing thrombosis included the development of PVT in patients without PVT and aggravation of PVT in patients with PVT. Logistic regression analysis was employed to identify the effect of NSBBs on the progression of PVT.

RESULTS

At the last admission, 13 patients had progressing thrombosis. The incidence of progressing thrombosis was significantly higher in the NSBBs group than in the no NSBBs group [50.0% (8/16) vs. 18.5% (5/27), P = 0.030]. The use of NSBBs (odds ratio 4.400, 95% confidence interval 1.107-17.482, P = 0.035) was significantly associated with progressing thrombosis in univariate logistic regression analyses, but not significant (odds ratio 4.084, 95% confidence interval 0.488-34.158, P = 0.194) in multivariate logistic regression analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

NSBBs may play a role in the progression of PVT in liver cirrhosis. The benefits and risks of NSBBs in the management of liver cirrhosis should be fully weighed.

Measurement of Exhaled Nitric Oxide in Cirrhotic Patients with Esophageal and Gastric Varices

Background and aims. This study aimed to detect exhaled nitric oxide (eNO) level in cirrhotic patients and explore the correlation between eNO levels and the severity of cirrhosis. Methods. Patients were enrolled to analyze the relationship of eNO with noncirrhosis, cirrhosis, and complications of decompensated cirrhosis. We explored the potential predictive values of eNO in different states of cirrhosis. Results. The eNO levels were significantly increased in cirrhotic patients compared with noncirrhotic patients (14 (10-18) vs 8 (6-13) ppb, P < 0.001). The eNO level was increased in those with ascites (15 (14-22) vs 13 (10-18) ppb, P=0.026), with portal vein thrombosis (19.5 (11.75-22) vs 13.5 (10-17) ppb, P=0.032), or with the mucosal red-color sign of esophageal and gastric varices (EGV) (16.5 (10-21.75) vs 13 (10-14.75) ppb, P=0.041). Among cirrhotic patients undergoing hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) measurement, the eNO level was significantly increased in the high-HVPG group (HVPG >12 mm Hg) compared with the low-HVPG group (6 mm Hg ≤ HVPG ≤ 12 mm Hg) (15 (11.75-19.25) vs 10 (8-14) ppb, P=0.011). Conclusions. The eNO level was increased in cirrhotic patients, especially in those complicated with ascites, portal vein thrombosis, mucosal red-color sign of varices, and high HVPG.

Visceral fat is associated with cirrhotic portal vein thrombosis

Background: Central obesity, due to the accumulation of visceral fat(VF), is one of the main risk factors for venous thrombosis. The aim of this study was to determine if VF may be a risk factor for development of portal vein thrombosis(PVT) in cirrhotic patients.Methods: A total of 214 cirrhotic patients at the outpatient clinic were consecutively included, undergoing an anthropometric evaluation, blood tests and bioimpedance.Results: Median MELDscore was10. Prior liver decompensation occurred in 44.9% of patients and 35.6% of patients had large esophageal varices. Mean body mass index was 28.7 Kg/m2 (39.3%were obese) and mean waist circumference(WC) was 103.8 cm. A 7.5% of patients had PVT at the time of inclusion. PVT was more frequent in males(93.8 vs. 68.2%, p = 0.03). Patients with PVT had a higher WC(111.9 vs. 103.2 cm, p = 0.02) and VF (17.1 vs. 14.5, p = 0.04). PVT was also more frequent in patients with prior decompensation (81.3 vs. 41.9%, p < 0.01) and with large esophageal varices(62.5 vs. 33.3%, p = 0.02). In the simplified multivariate analysis, PVT was independently associated with the presence of portal hypertension(OR 13, 95%CI 1.6-108.3, p = 0.02) and VF(OR 1.2, 95%CI 1.03-1.3, p = 0.01).Conclusion: VF was independently associated with PVT in cirrhotic patients. VF may be more reliable than conventional anthropometric measurements for cirrhotic patients.

Use of nonselective β blockers after variceal eradication in cirrhotic patients undergoing secondary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding: a critical review of current evidence

Nonselective β blockers (NSBBs) combined with esophageal variceal ligation (EVL) are recommended for secondary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding (EVB) in cirrhotic patients according to the current practice guidelines and consensus. However, until now, there is a paucity of recommendations regarding the use of NSBBs in cirrhotic patients who achieved variceal eradication. In this review paper, we firstly introduced a case who achieved variceal eradication after additional use of NSBBs for secondary prophylaxis of EVB and then did not require further endoscopic therapy during repeated endoscopic surveillance, and subsequently discuss the importance of NSBBs for secondary prophylaxis of EVB, the effect of NSBBs after variceal eradication, adherence to NSBBs, screening for variceal recurrence, and timing of endoscopic surveillance after variceal eradication.