Operative interventions for extrahepatic portomesenteric venous aneurysms and long-term outcomes

Portal Vein Aneurysm in a Patient with Cirrhosis Type C Controlled by Direct-Acting Antiviral Treatment

Introduction

Portal vein aneurysm (PVA) is a rare saccular or fusiform portal vein dilatation. The management and optimal treatment of PVA remain unknown.

Case Presentation

A 53-year-old man with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection was diagnosed with PVA measuring 28 mm in diameter. Under observation, his liver fibrosis progressed, and the PVA diameter gradually increased to 52 mm. The patient was treated with elbasvir-grazoprevir for 12 weeks, and HCV disappeared. After achieving sustained virological response, liver fibrosis improved and the PVA progression ceased.

Conclusion

HCV clearance by direct-acting antiviral treatment not only regressed liver fibrosis but may have also restrained the progression of PVA in a patient with cirrhosis type C and PVA.

Portal vein aneurysm-etiology, multimodal imaging and current management

Portal vein aneurysm (PVA) is a rare vascular abnormality, representing 3% of all venous aneurysms in the human body, and is not well understood. It can be congenital or acquired, located mainly at the level of confluence, main trunk, branches and bifurcation. A PVA as an abnormality of the portal venous system was first reported in 1956 by Barzilai and Kleckner. A review from 2015 entitled “Portal vein aneurysm: What to know” considered fewer than 200 cases. In the last seven years, there has been an increase in the number of PVAs diagnosed thanks to routine abdominal imaging. The aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive update of PVA, including aetiology, epidemiology, and clinical assessment, along with an evaluation of advanced multimodal imaging features of aneurysm and management approaches.

Feasibility and safety of non-operative management of portal vein aneurysms: a thirty-five year experience

BACKGROUND

Portal vein aneurysms (PVAs) are rare, though clinically challenging with post-operative mortality approaching 20% and no evidence-based treatment guidelines. We aim to describe our experience with PVAs and recommend optimum management strategies.

METHODS

Demographics and clinical details of patients with PVAs admitted to our institution from 1984 to 2019 were reviewed. Clinical presentation, management and outcomes were analysed.

RESULTS

PVAs were identified in 18 patients (median age 56 years, range 20-101 years; 13 female); 10 were incidental and 8 diagnosed during abdominal pain work-up. Median aneurysm diameter at diagnosis was 3.4 cm (1.8-5.5 cm), remaining unchanged at 3.5 cm (1.9-4.8 cm) during a 3.2-year follow-up (4 months-31 years). Aneurysm sites were the main portal vein (n = 12), porto-splenic-junction (n = 3), splenic-SMV-junction (n = 2) and right portal vein (n = 1). Thrombosis occurred in 4 patients; 3 developed clinically insignificant cavernous transformation. Two patients underwent surgery for abdominal pain. Postoperatively, one developed PV thrombosis and PVA recurrence occurred in the second. No aneurysm ruptures or mortalities occurred during follow-up.

CONCLUSION

PVAs follow a clinically indolent course with structural stability and minimal complications over time. Non-operative management is feasible for most patients. Abdominal pain, large size or thrombosis don't appear to confer additional risks and should not, in isolation, merit surgical intervention.