A prediction model for successful anticoagulation in cirrhotic portal vein thrombosis

Management of Portal vein Thrombosis in Cirrhosis

Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is one of the common complications of cirrhosis. The incidence of PVT correlates with liver disease severity-higher incidence in patients with Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) C, large spontaneous portosystemic shunts, hepatofugal portal flow, and in the presence of hepatocellular carcinoma. PVT may worsen ascites, increase the risk and poor control of variceal bleeding. The occurrence of PVT may increase morbidity and lower survival after a liver transplant. Using statins prevents the occurrence of PVT, whereas beta-blockers may aggravate its occurrence. Cross-sectional imaging is mandatory for the precise diagnosis and classification of PVT. Symptomatic, occlusive PVT and candidacy for liver transplantation are the main indications for anticoagulation. Vitamin K antagonists, low-molecular-weight heparin, and newer anticoagulants are effective and safe in cirrhosis. Direct-acting oral anticoagulants are agents of choice in early cirrhosis (CTP A, B). The duration of anticoagulant therapy, predictors of response, and management of complications of cirrhosis while on therapy require in-depth knowledge and individualized treatment. Transjugular intrahepatic porto-systemic shunt can be considered in nonresponsive cases or when anticoagulants are contraindicated. This manuscript reviews the latest updated knowledge about managing PVT in cirrhosis.

Anticoagulation for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation and treatment of venous thromboembolism and portal vein thrombosis in cirrhosis: guidance from the SSC of the ISTH

While advanced liver disease was previously considered to be an acquired bleeding disorder, there is increasing recognition of an associated prothrombotic state with patients being at higher risk of atrial fibrillation (AF) and stroke and venous thromboembolism (VTE) including portal vein thrombosis (PVT). We review the available literature on epidemiology, pathophysiology, and risk factors and provide guidance on anticoagulant management of these conditions in adults with cirrhosis. In patients with Child-Pugh A or B cirrhosis and AF, we recommend anticoagulation with standard-dose direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in accordance with cardiology guideline recommendations for patients without liver disease. In those with Child-Pugh C cirrhosis, there is inadequate evidence with respect to the benefit and risk of anticoagulation for stroke prevention in AF. In patients with cirrhosis and acute deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, we recommend anticoagulation and suggest use of either a DOAC or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH)/vitamin K antagonist (VKA) in Child-Pugh A or B cirrhosis and LMWH alone (or as a bridge to VKA in patients with a normal baseline international normalized ratio) in Child-Pugh C cirrhosis. We recommend anticoagulation for patients with cirrhosis and symptomatic PVT. We suggest anticoagulation for those with asymptomatic, progressing PVT and recommend continuing extended anticoagulation for liver transplant candidates with PVT.

Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease related cirrhosis and incidence of portal vein thrombosis

BACKGROUND

There is heterogeneous data on whether metabolic-associated steatohepatitis is an independent risk factor for portal vein thrombosis (PVT). We aim to compare the incidence of PVT in patients with cirrhosis with and without metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD).

METHODS

This is a single-center retrospective study of patients with cirrhosis seen between 1 January 2016 and 31 January 2021. Patients with a history of hepatocellular cancer, liver transplant, Budd-Chiari syndrome, and intra-abdominal malignancies were excluded. Patients with cirrhosis were followed from their first hepatology visit for 180 days to determine the incidence of PVT. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to determine the relationship between MASLD with PVT.

RESULTS

We analyzed data from 2785 patients with cirrhosis who met inclusion and exclusion criteria [mean age: 61.0 ± 12.3 years, 44.3% female, 63.8% Whites and mean model for end-stage liver disease-sodium (MELD-Na) score: 11.7 ± 6.1]. MASLD was present in 21.7% of patients. A total of 89 patients developed PVT during the follow-up, which was fewer in patients with MASLD [2.0% vs. 3.5%, P  = 0.04, unadjusted heart rate (HR): 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.27-0.96, P  = 0.04]. After adjusting for the demographics, MASLD-related comorbid conditions and MELD-Na score, MASLD was associated with a lower incidence of PVT as compared to non-MASLD cirrhosis (HR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.21-0.92, P  = 0.03). After adjusting for the indicators of Child-Pugh Turcotte score, the risk of PVT in patients with MASLD compared to non-MASLD was not statistically significant (HR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.22-1.13, P  = 0.096).

CONCLUSION

PVT incidence was lower in patients with MASLD cirrhosis as compared to non-MASLD cirrhosis. However, the difference was not significantly different after adjusting for liver decompensation.

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.

Portal Vein Thrombosis: State-of-the-Art Review

Background: Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is a rare disease with an estimated incidence of 2 to 4 cases per 100,000 inhabitants. The most common predisposing conditions for PVT are chronic liver diseases (cirrhosis), primary or secondary hepatobiliary malignancy, major infectious or inflammatory abdominal disease, or myeloproliferative disorders. Methods: PVT can be classified on the basis of the anatomical site, the degree of venous occlusion, and the timing and type of presentation. The main differential diagnosis of PVT, both acute and chronic, is malignant portal vein invasion, most frequently by hepatocarcinoma, or constriction (typically by pancreatic cancer or cholangiocarcinoma). Results: The management of PVT is based on anticoagulation and the treatment of predisposing conditions. The aim of anticoagulation in acute thrombosis is to prevent the extension of the clot and enable the recanalization of the vein to avoid the development of complications, such as intestinal infarction and portal hypertension. Conclusions: The treatment with anticoagulant therapy favors the reduction of portal hypertension, and this allows for a decrease in the risk of bleeding, especially in patients with esophageal varices. The anticoagulant treatment is generally recommended for at least three to six months. Prosecution of anticoagulation is advised until recanalization or lifelong if the patient has an underlying permanent pro-coagulant condition that cannot be corrected or if there is thrombosis extending to the mesenteric veins.

[Splanchnic vein thrombosis]

Splanchnic vein thrombosis includes Budd-Chiari syndrome and portal vein thrombosis. These diseases share common features: (i) they are rare diseases and (ii) they can lead to portal hypertension and its complications. Budd-Chiari syndrome and portal vein thrombosis in the absence of underlying liver disease share many risk factors, the most common being myeloproliferative neoplasms. A rapid and comprehensive workup for thrombosis risk factors is necessary in these patients. Long-term anticoagulation is indicated in most patients. Portal vein thrombosis can also develop in patients with cirrhosis, and is associated with a worse course of cirrhosis. Indications for anticoagulation in patients with cirrhosis are increasing. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt is a second-line procedure in this setting. Because of the rarity of these diseases, high-level evidence studies are rare. However, collaborative studies have provided a better understanding of their natural history and allowed to improve the management of these patients. This review focuses on the causes, diagnosis, and management of patients with Budd-Chiari syndrome, patients with portal vein thrombosis without underlying liver disease, and patients with cirrhosis and portal vein thrombosis.

How to manage splanchnic vein thrombosis in patients with liver disease

Liver cirrhosis and splanchnic vein thrombosis (SVT) are strictly correlated. Portal vein thrombosis, the most common location of SVT, is frequently diagnosed in liver cirrhosis (pooled incidence 4.6 per 100 patient-years), and liver cirrhosis is a common risk factor for SVT (reported in 24%-28% of SVT patients). In cirrhosis-associated SVT, anticoagulant treatment reduces mortality rates, thrombosis extension, and major bleeding, and increases the rates of recanalization, compared to no treatment. Achieving vessel recanalization improves the prognosis of cirrhotic patients by reducing liver-related complications (such as variceal bleeding, ascites, hepatic encephalopathy). Anticoagulation should be therefore routinely prescribed to cirrhotic patients with acute SVT unless contraindicated by active bleeding associated with hemodynamic impairment or by excessively high bleeding risk. Of note, early treatment is associated with higher probability of achieving vessel recanalization. The standard treatment consists of low-molecular-weight heparin, followed by oral anticoagulants (eg, vitamin K antagonists or direct oral anticoagulants), if not contraindicated by severe liver dysfunction. Cirrhotic patients with SVT should be treated long-term (especially if candidate for liver transplantation) since liver cirrhosis is a persistent risk factor for recurrent thrombosis. In this review, we discuss the management of SVT in patients with liver cirrhosis, with a focus on the anticoagulant treatment in terms of indications, timing, drugs, duration, and particular scenarios, such as gastroesophageal varices and thrombocytopenia.

Diagnostic Prediction of portal vein thrombosis in chronic cirrhosis patients using data-driven precision medicine model

BACKGROUND

Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is a significant issue in cirrhotic patients, necessitating early detection. This study aims to develop a data-driven predictive model for PVT diagnosis in chronic hepatitis liver cirrhosis patients.

METHODS

We employed data from a total of 816 chronic cirrhosis patients with PVT, divided into the Lanzhou cohort (n = 468) for training and the Jilin cohort (n = 348) for validation. This dataset encompassed a wide range of variables, including general characteristics, blood parameters, ultrasonography findings and cirrhosis grading. To build our predictive model, we employed a sophisticated stacking approach, which included Support Vector Machine (SVM), Naïve Bayes and Quadratic Discriminant Analysis (QDA).

RESULTS

In the Lanzhou cohort, SVM and Naïve Bayes classifiers effectively classified PVT cases from non-PVT cases, among the top features of which seven were shared: Portal Velocity (PV), Prothrombin Time (PT), Portal Vein Diameter (PVD), Prothrombin Time Activity (PTA), Activated Partial Thromboplastin Time (APTT), age and Child-Pugh score (CPS). The QDA model, trained based on the seven shared features on the Lanzhou cohort and validated on the Jilin cohort, demonstrated significant differentiation between PVT and non-PVT cases (AUROC = 0.73 and AUROC = 0.86, respectively). Subsequently, comparative analysis showed that our QDA model outperformed several other machine learning methods.

CONCLUSION

Our study presents a comprehensive data-driven model for PVT diagnosis in cirrhotic patients, enhancing clinical decision-making. The SVM-Naïve Bayes-QDA model offers a precise approach to managing PVT in this population.

Long term prophylactic anticoagulation for portal vein thrombosis after splenectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the anticoagulants for the prevention of portal vein system thrombosis (PVST) in patients with cirrhosis after splenectomy and explore the optimal time of anticoagulant administration.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase and China Biology Medicine disc (CBM)databases, so as to screen out studies comparing the prognoses between cirrhotic post-splenectomy patients treated with and without anticoagulants. The parameters that were analyzed included the incidence of PVST and postoperative bleeding.

RESULTS

With a total of 592 subjects, we included 8 studies (6 observational and 2 randomized trials) that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. We found that the incidence of PVST was significantly lower in the anticoagulation group during the first 6 months of anticoagulant administration. And the largest difference in the incidence of PVST between the anticoagulation and control groups was observed at 3 months (odds ratio 0.17(0.11~0.27); P = 0.767; I2 = 0.0%) and 6 months (OR = 0.21(0.11~0.40); P = 0.714; I2 = 0.0%) postoperatively. The incidence of bleeding was not significantly higher in the anticoagulation group (odds ratio 0.71 (0.30~1.71); P = 0.580; I2 = 0.0%).

CONCLUSION

Low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and warfarin can decrease the incidence of PVST in post-splenectomy cirrhotic patients without an increased risk of bleeding. And the optimal use time of warfarin is 6 months after splenectomy.

Anticoagulation therapy for portal vein thrombosis in patients with liver cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is a frequent complication of cirrhosis, which is significantly associated with progressive hepatic decompensation such as ascites and a high mortality risk. Anticoagulation may associate with higher PVT regression rates, but the safety of anticoagulation should be considered.

AIM

To investigate the efficacy and safety of anticoagulation therapy for PVT in patients with liver cirrhosis.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of cirrhotic patients diagnosed with PVT from January 2018 to December 2021, comparing those who received anticoagulation therapy to those who did not. Thirty-two patients received low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), warfarin, or rivaroxaban (anticoagulation group), and 52 were untreated (non-anticoagulation group). All patients were followed to assess the evolution of PVT (thrombus regression, stable, and progression) and the adverse effects of anticoagulation therapy.

RESULTS

A total of 84 patients were followed for a median 13 mo (IQR: 6-24 mo). Thirty-two patients (38.1%) received anticoagulation therapy. Anticoagulation therapy was associated with a higher PVT regression rate (50.0% vs 23.1%, P = 0.010) (univariable hazard ratio [HR] for regression of PVT with anticoagulation = 0.300, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.116-0.773, P = 0.013; multivariable HR for regression of PVT with anticoagulation = 0.185, 95%CI: 0.061-0.560, P = 0.003). Anticoagulation therapy was stopped in six patients because of adverse effects, of which two were due to abdominal pain, two due to gastrointestinal bleeding, and two due to hematuria. Symptoms improved after drug withdrawal.

CONCLUSION

Our findings support anticoagulation therapy in cirrhotic patients with non-malignant PVT, since anticoagulation seems safe and associated with superior PVT regression rates.

Austrian consensus on the diagnosis and management of portal hypertension in advanced chronic liver disease (Billroth IV)

The Billroth IV consensus was developed during a consensus meeting of the Austrian Society of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (ÖGGH) and the Austrian Society of Interventional Radiology (ÖGIR) held on the 26th of November 2022 in Vienna.Based on international recommendations and considering recent landmark studies, the Billroth IV consensus provides guidance regarding the diagnosis and management of portal hypertension in advanced chronic liver disease.

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.

Anticoagulation in Patients with Liver Cirrhosis: Friend or Foe?

Concepts regarding the status of the coagulation process in cirrhosis are rapidly changing. Instead of a disease defined by excessive bleeding risk, recent studies have shown cirrhosis to be associated with a fragile state of rebalanced hemostasis, easily swayed in either direction, thrombosis, or bleeding. These findings, combined with the ever-growing population of patients with cirrhosis with an indication for anticoagulation (AC) and the emergence of the non-alcoholic fatty liver disease epidemic, have prompted a reexamination of the use of AC in patients with cirrhosis, either as a treatment for a concurrent thrombotic disorder or even as a possible therapeutic option that could influence the natural course of the disease and its complications. In recent years, a significant number of studies have been formulated to evaluate these possibilities. These studies evaluated, among others, the efficacy and safety of AC in thrombotic disorders or thrombotic complications of cirrhosis, its effect on survival, and the class of anticoagulants which is more suitable for patients with cirrhosis, depending on disease severity. This review examines recent studies investigating the use of AC in patients with cirrhosis and attempts to provide a simple guide for clinicians regarding the use of AC in patients with cirrhosis and its potential risks and benefits.

Rivaroxaban combined with repeat hepatectomy for treatment of cirrhosis-related acute portal vein thrombosis with hepatocellular carcinoma: A case report

BACKGROUND

Acute portal vein thrombosis (PVT) with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a severe complication of liver cirrhosis and its prognosis is affected by clinical decision to a large extent, while the order of management, the approaches of treatment, and the adjustment of the plan are all the key and difficult points.

CASE SUMMARY

This case was treated with low molecular weight heparin (4000 U/12 h) for 14 d, followed by rivaroxaban (10 mg/12 h) and then partial hepatectomy twice, of which the first was performed 1 mo after anticoagulation, and the second was performed 4 mo later, by which the primary lesion and postoperative new lesion were resected, respectively. Rivaroxaban was taken constantly except the perioperative period, while gingival bleeding occurred after 8 mo of anticoagulation, so suspension of rivaroxaban was carried out for 1 wk, after which the bleeding was relieved, and a half dose of rivaroxaban (10 mg/d) was used to continue anticoagulation from then on. The thrombus remained recanalized and there was no tumor recurrence during the following 2 years.

CONCLUSION

When there are indications for anticoagulation and partial hepatectomy in patients with cirrhosis-related acute PVT with HCC, anticoagulation followed by surgery is recommended, as anticoagulation may reduce thrombosis in a short time, which could not only decrease the risk of surgery, but also have little influence on the opportunity of tumor treatment. And when recurrence of HCC occurs, if possible, repeat hepatectomy should be considered to improve the prognosis. Anticoagulant strategy should be adjusted accordingly if rivaroxaban causes bleeding, and it should be stopped or reduced after the bleeding is stable.

Anticoagulation therapy early is safe in portal vein thrombosis patients with acute variceal bleeding: a multi-centric randomized controlled trial

Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) and acute variceal bleeding (AVB) are frequent complications of cirrhosis. The efficacy, safety, and timing of anticoagulant treatment in cirrhotic patients with PVT and AVB are contentious issues. We aimed to establish the safety and efficacy of initiating nadroparin calcium-warfarin sequential (NWS) anticoagulation therapy early after esophageal variceal band ligation within PVT patients having cirrhosis and AVB. Cirrhotic patients having AVB and PVT who underwent EVL were included and randomly allocated to either the NWS therapy group (1-month nadroparin calcium by subcutaneous injection following 5-month warfarin through oral administration, n = 43) or the control group (without any anticoagulation therapy, n = 43). The primary endpoint was the rate of PVT recanalization. Secondary endpoints included major bleeding events mainly referring to variceal rebleeding (5-day failure, 14-day, 4-week, 6-week, and 6-month rebleeding rates) and mortality after EVL. The overall recanalization (complete and partial) rate in the NWS therapy group was significantly higher than that in the control group (67.4% vs. 39.5%, P = 0.009). Low Child-Pugh score (P = 0.039, OR: 0.692, 95% CI 0.488-0.982), D-dimer < 2.00 ug/mL (P = 0.030, OR: 3.600, 95% CI 1.134-11.430), and NWS anticoagulation therapy (P = 0.002, OR: 4.189, 95% CI 1.660-10.568) were the predictors of PVT recanalization through univariate analysis of binary logistic regression. NWS anticoagulation therapy (P = 0.003, OR: 4.506, 95% CI 1.687-12.037) was the independent factor of recanalization through multivariate analysis. Nobody bled except for variceal rebleeding. Five-day failure and 14-day rebleeding were zero. There were no significantly different in 4-week (2.3% vs. 4.7%, P = 1.000), 6-week (4.7% vs. 9.3%, P = 0.672) and 6-month rebleeding (18.6% vs. 20.9%, P = 0.787) between the two groups. There was no mortality during six months follow-up. Low serum albumin (P = 0.011, OR: 0.844, 95% CI 0.741-0.962), high MELD score (P = 0.003, OR: 1.564, 95% CI 1.167-2.097) and Child-Pugh score (P = 0.006, OR: 1.950, 95% CI 1.206-3.155) were predictors of rebleeding by univariate analysis of binary logistic regression analysis. The Child-Pugh score (7 [6-8] vs. 6 [5-7], P = 0.003) and albumin levels (33.93 ± 5.30 vs. 37.28 ± 4.32, P = 0.002) were improved in the NWS therapy group at six months. In PVT patients with cirrhosis and AVB, starting NWS anticoagulation therapy early after EVL was safe and effective. It has the potential to raise albumin levels and improve liver function.

Treatment of portal vein thrombosis in cirrhosis: a multicenter real life cοhort study

BACKGROUND

Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is a common complication of cirrhosis and can be a cause or consequence of liver disease progression. It is unclear whether PVT treatment is affecting clinical outcomes in cirrhotics.

METHODS

This is a multicenter study of cirrhotics with PVT, initially retrospectively and thereafter prospectively registered in a data base. We studied the impact of PVT treatment on this population for efficacy, safety and the impact on survival. In survival analysis Mantel-Cox and Wilcoxon-Breslow-Gehan tests were used. A P value of <0.05, was considered significant. For statistical computations the STATA 12.1 was used.

RESULTS

Seventy-six patients were included (76% decompensated, median MELD score 12 and Child-Pugh score 7), 47% with concomitant HCC. Fifty-one patients with PVT were treated with Vitamin-K antagonists or Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin. Patients were followed up for at least 6 months after PVT diagnosis, or until death or transplantation. PV patency after 6 months was not statistically different between patients receiving or not anticoagulation (complete-partial recanalization 27.4% of treated vs. 20% of untreated, P=0.21). Median survival was statistically worse between patients treated with anticoagulation than those untreated (10 vs. 15 months, P=0.036). Less portal hypertensive bleeding and less decompensation rates were found in treated cirrhotics vs. untreated (45.8% vs. 54.2%, P=0.003 and 78% vs. 80.9%, P=0.78, respectively). Patients with HCC had worse survival when treated vs. untreated (P=0.047).

CONCLUSIONS

In our cohort of cirrhotics with PVT, treatment was feasible with acceptable side effects, but without meaningful clinical benefits.

Clinical outcomes of antithrombin III-based therapy for patients with portal vein thrombosis: A retrospective, multicenter study

AIM

The association between thrombolytic therapy and the outcome in patients with portal vein thrombosis (PVT) remains controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the outcome in patients with PVT who received antithrombin III-based therapy.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective, multicenter study to investigate the liver-related events and the survival rates in 240 patients with PVT who received the therapy.

RESULTS

The patients comprised 151 men and 89 women, with a median age of 69 years. The rate of favorable response, defined as maximum area of PVT changed to ≤75%, was 67.5% (162/240). The cumulative rates of liver-related events at 1, 2, and 3 years were 38.2%, 53.9%, and 68.5%, respectively. The multivariate analysis showed that viable hepatocellular carcinoma, absence of maintenance therapy, non-responder, and PVT progression were significantly associated with liver-related events. The PVT progression was observed in 23.3% (56/240). The multivariate analysis identified older age, absence of maintenance therapy, and non-responder as independent factors associated with PVT progression. The multivariate analysis revealed that younger age, no hepatocellular carcinoma, presence of maintenance therapy, and lower Model for End-stage Liver Disease-Sodium score significantly contributed to 3-year survival. Of the 240 patients, 13 (8.9%) prematurely discontinued treatment due to any adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that maintenance therapy, favorable response, and absence of PVT progression may suppress or control liver-related events in antithrombin III-based therapy for patients with PVT. Specifically, maintenance therapy could suppress not only liver-related events, but also PVT progression and improve the prognosis.

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.

Haemostatic alterations and management of haemostasis in patients with cirrhosis

Patients with cirrhosis frequently acquire complex changes in their haemostatic system including a decreased platelet count and decreased levels of various haemostatic proteins. Although historically patients with cirrhosis were thought to have a haemostasis-related bleeding tendency, it is now widely accepted that the haemostatic system of patients with cirrhosis remains in balance as a result of simultaneous changes in pro- and anti-haemostatic systems. The concept of rebalanced haemostasis has led to changes in clinical management, although firm evidence from well-designed clinical studies is largely lacking. For example, many invasive procedures in patients with cirrhosis and a prolonged prothrombin time are now performed without prophylaxis with fresh frozen plasma. Conversely, clinicians have become more aware of the need for anti-thrombotic therapy, even in those patients with abnormal routine coagulation tests. This paper will outline recent advances in pathogenesis, prevention and treatment of both bleeding and thrombotic complications in patients with cirrhosis. Among other topics, we will discuss the haemostatic status of acutely ill patients with cirrhosis, the various causes of bleeding in patients with cirrhosis, and how best to prevent or treat bleeding. In addition, we will discuss the hypercoagulable features of patients with cirrhosis, new insights into the pathogenesis of portal vein thrombosis, and how best to prevent or treat thromboses.

Heparins for prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism in cirrhosis: Research advances

Current evidence suggests that liver cirrhosis may increase the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). In cirrhosis, common types of VTE include portal vein thrombosis (PVT), deep vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism (PE). Heparins are the most commonly prescribed anticoagulants for the prevention and treatment of VTE. However, the indications, choice, dosage, and monitoring of heparins in cirrhosis remain inconclusive. This paper aims to review the advances in the research of heparins for the prevention and treatment of VTE in cirrhosis to optimize the treatment strategy.

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.

Nonmalignant portal vein thrombi in patients with cirrhosis consist of intimal fibrosis with or without a fibrin-rich thrombus

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is a common complication of cirrhosis. The exact pathophysiology remains largely unknown, and treatment with anticoagulants does not lead to recanalization of the portal vein in all patients. A better insight into the structure and composition of portal vein thrombi may assist in developing strategies for the prevention and treatment of PVT.

APPROACH AND RESULTS

Sixteen prospectively and 63 retrospectively collected nonmalignant portal vein thrombi from patients with cirrhosis who underwent liver transplantation were included. Histology, immunohistochemistry, and scanning electron microscopy were used to assess structure and composition of the thrombi. Most recent CT scans were reanalyzed for thrombus characteristics. Clinical characteristics were related to histological and radiological findings. All samples showed a thickened, fibrotic tunica intima. Fibrin-rich thrombi were present on top of the fibrotic intima in 9/16 prospective cases and in 21/63 retrospective cases. A minority of the fibrotic areas stained focally positive for fibrin/fibrinogen (16% of cases), von Willebrand factor (VWF; 10%), and CD61 (platelets, 21%), while most of the fibrin-rich areas stained positive for those markers (fibrin/fibrinogen, 100%; VWF, 77%; CD61, 100%). No associations were found between clinical characteristics including estimated thrombus age and use of anticoagulants and presence of fibrin-rich thrombi.

CONCLUSION

We demonstrate that PVT in patients with cirrhosis consists of intimal fibrosis with an additional fibrin-rich thrombus in only one-third of cases. We hypothesize that our observations may explain why not all portal vein thrombi in patients with cirrhosis recanalize by anticoagulant therapy.

Nontransplant options for portomesenteric thrombosis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Portomesenteric thrombosis (PMT) is a serious condition encountered mainly in cirrhotic patients awaiting liver transplantation. More recently, this potentially fatal complication has been described after bariatric surgery and inflammatory bowel disease. Several consensus guidelines have been published over the past few years and this mini review was conducted to discuss updated nontransplant treatment options based on currently available evidence.

RECENT FINDINGS

Anticoagulation is the mainstay of treatment for PMT involving <50% of the main portal vein. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt are usually preserved for patients with more extensive disease or those with clinically significant portal hypertension that are treatment refractory.

SUMMARY

The extent of PMT, response to therapy, and complications related with PMT are the determinants of therapy.

Absence of large portal collateral vessels is associated with spontaneous improvement of cirrhotic portal vein thrombosis

AIM

Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is a major complication in patients with liver cirrhosis (LC). In some cases, PVT decreases spontaneously, but the factors that predict this are still not fully understood.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, multicenter study that included 77 consecutive patients with cirrhotic PVT. Forty-eight patients did not undergo anticoagulation and 29 patients did between the time of the first diagnosis of PVT and the follow-up radiological imaging undertaken 1-6 months later. A complete disappearance and 25% shrinkage of PVT was defined as complete remission (CR) and partial remission (PR), respectively. Portosystemic collateral vessels larger than 9 mm in diameter were defined as large collateral vessels.

RESULTS

Complete remission + PR was found in 37.5% of the anticoagulation-naïve patients. On univariate analysis, the absence of large collateral vessels, absence of PVT in the main trunk of the portal vein, a high platelet count, and a low FIB-4 index were significant factors associated with CR + PR. On multivariate analysis, the absence of large collateral vessels was the unique factor associated with CR + PR of PVT (odds ratio 5.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.73-20.1). The CR + PR rate for anticoagulated patients was 44.8%. However, no predictors for a good treatment effect of anticoagulation for PVT were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Spontaneous improvement of PVT in patients with LC can be expected when large collateral vessels are absent. For these patients, the option of observing them without anticoagulation can be considered in expectation of spontaneous reduction of PVT.

Portal Vein Thrombosis In Cirrhosis: Interventional Treatment Options

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is a frequent consequence of cirrhosis and its management is variable and controversial. Herein we highlight interventional treatment options and outcomes, together with mention of the physiology, presentation and imaging of PVT.

RECENT FINDINGS

Utilization of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) for acute and chronic PVT is expanding. In acute PVT, TIPS improves hepatopetal flow which promotes thrombus resorption and prevents rethrombosis. The TIPS also functions as a conduit for thrombectomy devices and allows for embolization of variceal shunts. Chronic PVT is a relative contraindication to liver transplant. Portal vein recanalization (PVR) TIPS restores flow in a previously occluded portal vein, allowing for a conventional end-to-end portal vein anastomosis at transplant. PVR TIPS is technically demanding and often requires percutaneous splenic vein access for portal venous recanalization. Selection of endovascular PVT treatment varies with the age (acute or chronic) and the extent of thrombus, along with presenting symptoms and transplant candidacy.

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.

Comparison of Fondaparinux and Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin in the Treatment of Portal Vein Thrombosis in Cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Portal vein thrombosis is the most common thrombotic complication in cirrhosis. About 60% of anticoagulated patients can achieve recanalization. Despite fondaparinux (FPX) theoretical advantages, data are lacking about safety and efficacy for treatment of portal vein thrombosis in cirrhosis.

METHODS

Cirrhotic patients with portal vein thrombosis treated with FPX or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) were retrospectively included. The extension of thrombosis at baseline and its evolution during anticoagulant treatment were evaluated. Patients were treated with LMWH or FPX at therapeutic dosage and reduction was considered in selected cases.

RESULTS

There were 124 patients included. Main portal vein branch, splenic, and superior mesenteric veins were involved in 84%, 13%, and 36% of cases, respectively. Forty-one patients (33%) were treated with FPX and 83 (67%) with LMWH. The probability of resolution of thrombosis at 36 months was significantly higher in patients treated with FPX than in those treated with LMWH (77% vs 51%; P = .001), particularly when prescribed at reduced dose. With multivariate analysis, the treatment with FPX (hazard ratio 2.38; P = .002) and use of a full dose (hazard ratio 1.78; P = .035) were independent predictors of portal vein full recanalization. Bleeding rate was higher in patients treated with FPX than in those treated with LMWH (27% vs 13%; P = .06).

CONCLUSIONS

FPX appears to be more effective than LMWH in the treatment of portal vein thrombosis when used at reduced dose, also in complete thrombosis. FPX should be considered among possible treatments for portal vein thrombosis in cirrhosis.

[The Effect of Anticoagulant in Patients with Cirrhosis Associated with Acute Portal Vein Thrombosis]

The treatment of portal vein thrombosis (PVT) in patients with liver cirrhosis (LC) has been controversial, and it is generally case- and institution-dependent. The occurrence of acute or extensive PVT is critical and requires urgent treatment because it is usually accompanied by symptoms, particularly when total occlusion occurs, causing acute decompensation of liver disease. Even in severe cases, drug selection and treatment duration are determined based on each institution's experience. Therefore, consistent guidelines for the treatment of patients with LC with PVT are required. Recently, a patient with acute occlusive PVT with LC who showed signs of acute decompensation was treated by administering low molecular weight heparin as anticoagulant therapy. After anticoagulant treatment, the portal vein was almost completely recanalized, and the deteriorated liver function improved. In addition, the patient recovered well and showed no recurrence of PVT for more than a year. Thus, the most recent knowledge regarding the treatment of nonmalignant PVT in LC was reviewed along with a case report.

Portal Hypertension and Ascites: Patient-and Population-centered Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver (AISF)

Portal hypertension and ascites are two crucial events in the natural history of liver cirrhosis, whose appearance marks a downward shift in the prognosis of the disease. Over the years, several international and national societies have issued clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of portal hypertension and ascites. The present document addresses the needs of an updated guidance on the clinical management of these conditions. Accordingly, the AISF Governing Board appointed a multi-disciplinary committee of experts for drafting an update of the most recent EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines. The aim of this work was to adapt the EASL recommendations to national regulations and resources, local circumstances and settings, infrastructure, and cost/benefit strategies to avoid duplication of efforts and optimize resource utilization. The committee defined the objectives, the key issues and retrieved the relevant evidence by performing a systematic review of the literature. Finally, the committee members (chosen on the basis of their specific expertise) identified the guidelines' key questions and developed them following the PICO format (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes). For each of the PICO questions, the systematic review of the literature was made on the most important scientific databases (Pubmed, Scopus, Embase).

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.

Anticoagulant therapy for splanchnic vein thrombosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Treatment of splanchnic vein thrombosis (SVT) is challenging, and evidence to guide therapeutic decisions remains scarce. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the efficacy and safety of anticoagulant therapy for SVT. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched from inception through December 2019, without language restrictions, to include observational studies and randomized controlled trials reporting radiological or clinical outcomes in patients with SVT. Pooled proportions and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated in a random-effects model. Of 4312 records identified by the search, 97 studies including 7969 patients were analyzed. In patients receiving anticoagulation, the rates of SVT recanalization, SVT progression, recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE), major bleeding, and overall mortality were 58% (95% CI, 51-64), 5% (95% CI, 3-7), 11% (95% CI, 8-15), 9% (95% CI, 7-12), and 11% (95% CI, 9-14), respectively. The corresponding values in patients without anticoagulation were 22% (95% CI, 15-31), 15% (95% CI, 8-27), 14% (95% CI, 9-21), 16% (95% CI, 13-20), and 25% (95% CI, 20-31). Compared with no treatment, anticoagulant therapy obtained higher recanalization (RR, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.66-3.44) and lower thrombosis progression (RR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.13-0.42), major bleeding (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.58-0.92), and overall mortality (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.33-0.60). These results demonstrate that anticoagulant therapy improves SVT recanalization and reduces the risk of thrombosis progression without increasing major bleeding. The incidence of recurrent VTE remained substantial in patients receiving anticoagulation, as well. Effects were consistent across the different subgroups of patients. This trial was registered on the PROPERO database at (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero//display_record.php?ID=CRD42019127870) as #CRD42019127870.

Efficacy and Safety of Nadroparin Calcium-Warfarin Sequential Anticoagulation in Portal Vein Thrombosis in Cirrhotic Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Anticoagulation therapy in portal vein thrombosis (PVT) in patients with cirrhosis is still a matter of debate. Therefore, the aim of this work was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of nadroparin calcium-warfarin sequential (NWS) anticoagulation therapy in cirrhotic patients and to find an optimal anticoagulation strategy.

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.

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.

Anticoagulant Treatment for Splanchnic Vein Thrombosis in Liver Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

 Splanchnic vein thrombosis (SVT) is a common complication in patients with liver cirrhosis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of anticoagulant therapy for SVT in cirrhotic patients.

METHODS

 In this systematic review and meta-analysis, studies reporting on SVT recanalization and progression, recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE), major bleeding, and overall mortality were searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrial.gov up to December 2019. Pooled proportions and risk ratios (RRs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.

RESULTS

 A total of 1,475 patients were included in 26 studies (23 observational and 3 randomized controlled trials). In patients receiving anticoagulant therapy, SVT recanalization occurred in 68% (95% CI, 62-74; 571/842 patients; 22 studies), SVT progression in 6% (95% CI, 4-9; 25/748 patients; 22 studies), recurrent VTE in 10% (95% CI, 4-22; 48/399 patients; 7 studies), major bleeding in 6% (95% CI, 4-10; 58/785 patients; 18 studies), and overall mortality in 9% (95% CI, 6-14; 68/787 patients; 17 studies). Anticoagulant treatment was associated with higher SVT recanalization (RR 3.19; 95% CI, 1.42-7.17), lower thrombosis progression (RR 0.28; 95% CI, 0.15-0.52), major bleeding (RR 0.52; 95% CI, 0.28-0.97), and overall mortality (RR 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24-0.73) compared with no treatment.

CONCLUSION

 Anticoagulant therapy seems to improve vein recanalization and to reduce SVT progression, major bleeding, and overall mortality in cirrhotic patients with SVT. The incidence of recurrent VTE during anticoagulation remains substantial.

Management of Portal Vein Thrombosis in Cirrhosis

While portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is a frequently encountered complication in the cirrhosis population, its management can be challenging for even the most experienced clinicians. Multiple factors must be considered with regards to management, including the degree of underlying portal hypertension and liver dysfunction, risks of therapies including anticoagulation and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt placement, and extent of the thrombosis. Interpreting the available literature to determine the best treatment strategy for any individual patient can be especially challenging given the lack of prospective, randomized controlled trials and the heterogeneity of cohorts studied. This review will provide an overview of PVT in the cirrhosis population, including necessary steps in evaluation and the potential benefits and drawbacks of different treatment approaches.

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.

Nontumoral Portal Vein Thrombosis: A Challenging Consequence of Liver Cirrhosis

Nontumoral portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is an increasingly recognized complication in patients with cirrhosis. Substantial evidence shows that portal flow stasis, complex thrombophilic disorders, and exogenous factors leading to endothelial dysfunction have emerged as key factors in the pathogenesis of PVT. The contribution of PVT to hepatic decompensation and mortality in cirrhosis is debatable; however, the presence of an advanced PVT increases operative complexity and decreases survival after transplantation. The therapeutic decision for PVT is often determined by the duration and extent of thrombosis, the presence of symptoms, and liver transplant eligibility. Evidence from several cohorts has demonstrated that anticoagulation treatment with vitamin K antagonist or low molecular weight heparin can achieve recanalization of the portal vein, which is associated with a reduction in portal hypertension-related events and improved survival in cirrhotic patients with PVT. Consequently, interest in direct oral anticoagulants for PVT is increasing, but clinical data in cirrhosis are limited. Although the most feared consequence of anticoagulation is bleeding, most studies indicate that anticoagulation therapy for PVT in cirrhosis appears relatively safe. Interestingly, the data showed that transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt represents an effective adjunctive therapy for PVT in cirrhotic patients with symptomatic portal hypertension if anticoagulation is ineffective. Insufficient evidence regarding the optimal timing, modality, and duration of therapy makes nontumoral PVT a challenging consequence of cirrhosis. In this review, we summarize the current literature and provide a potential algorithm for the management of PVT in patients with cirrhosis.

Predictors of insufficient recanalization and portal hypertensive complications after treatment of non-cirrhotic, non-malignant portal vein thrombosis - a population-based study

OBJECTIVES

In acute portal vein thrombosis (PVT), a six-month anticoagulation treatment achieves complete recanalization in only 35%-45% of patients, but the predictors of poor treatment responses are unclear. We examined treatment outcomes in PVT and aimed to identify predictors of incomplete recanalization and portal hypertensive complications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study comprised patients diagnosed with PVT between 2006 and 2015. Key exclusion criteria were liver cirrhosis, malignancy, and age <18.

RESULTS

The final cohort comprised 145 patients, of whom 132 (92%) were primarily treated with anticoagulation. The 5-year cumulative incidence of complete recanalization was 42% and of portal hypertensive complications, 31%. Independent predictors of insufficient recanalization were sub-acute or chronic thrombosis (hazard ratio (HR) 3.1, 95% CI 1.6-5.8), while acute pancreatitis was a protective factor (HR 0.3, 95% CI 0.2 - 0.7). Independent predictors of incident portal hypertensive complications were as cites at baseline (HR 3.3, 95% CI 1.7-6.7), sub-acute or chronic thrombosis (HR 2.9, 95% CI 1.6-5.3), extension of thrombosis to the splenic or mesenteric vein (HR 2.6, 95% CI 1.2-5.7), myeloproliferative disease (HR 3.0, 95% CI 1.4-6.5), and anemia (HR 2.1, 95% 1.1-3.9), while acute pancreatitis was a protective factor (HR 0.1, 95% CI 0.03-0.5).

CONCLUSIONS

Etiology and age of thrombosis are associated with treatment responses in PVT. The presence of ascites at baseline, etiology, and extent of thrombosis, a non-acute thrombosis and anemia, are associated with the risk of portal hypertensive complications. Etiology and extent of thrombosis should be taken into account when determining the treatment (method) for PVT.

Venous thrombosis of the liver: current and emerging concepts in management

Venous thrombosis within the hepatic vasculature is associated with a distinct array of risk factors, characteristics, and potential complication. As such, it entails unique management considerations and strategies relative to the more common categories of venous thromboembolic disease. Although broadly divided into thrombosis of the afferent vasculature (the portal venous system) and efferent vasculature (the hepatic venous system), presentations and management strategies within these groupings are heterogeneous. Management decisions are influenced by a variety of factors including the chronicity, extent, and etiology of thrombosis. In this review we examine both portal vein thrombosis and hepatic vein thrombosis (and the associated Budd-Chiari Syndrome). We consider those factors which most impact presentation and most influence treatment. In so doing, we see how the particulars of specific cases introduce nuance into clinical decisions. At the same time we attempt to organize our understanding of such cases to help facilitate a more systematic approach. Critically, we must recognize that although increasing evidence is emerging to help guide our management strategies, the available data remain limited and largely retrospective. Indeed, current paradigms are based largely on observational experiences and expert consensus. As new and more rigorous studies emerge, treatment strategies are likely to be continually refined, and paradigm shifts are sure to occur.

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.

Recent developments in the field of vascular liver diseases

Knowledge in the field of vascular liver disease is continuously expanding. The present update will discuss recent data on i) the Abernethy malformation in adults; ii) portal vein thrombosis in cirrhosis; iii) advancing expertise in recanalization of the portal vein and iv) experience in using direct oral anticoagulants in the field of vascular liver disease.

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.

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.