Predictive value of D-dimer for portal vein thrombosis after portal hypertension surgery in hepatitis B virus-related cirrhosis. World J Gastroenterol. 2007;13:6588-6592. [PMID: 18161932 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.13.6588]

Safety and Efficacy of Anticoagulation in Patients with Cirrhosis: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Portal vein thrombosis is a serious adverse event that occurs during liver cirrhosis. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of anticoagulant therapy and prophylactic anticoagulant therapy in cirrhosis patients with (/without) portal vein thrombosis.

METHODS

Eligible comparative studies were identified by searching the following electronic databases: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and CNKI. A meta-analysis was performed to calculate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals using fixed-effects models. Recanalization and thrombus progression were defined as the primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes included adverse events and death mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 3479 patients were included in this analysis. Compared with the control group, the recanalization rate in the anticoagulant therapy group was increased (P < 0.00001) in patients with cirrhosis and portal vein thrombosis without increasing adverse events. Multiple use of enoxaparin in small doses is safer than single large doses (P=0.004). Direct oral anticoagulants are more effective (P < 0.00001) and safer than traditional anticoagulants. Prophylactic anticoagulant therapy can effectively prevent portal vein thrombosis formation (P < 0.00001).

CONCLUSIONS

Anticoagulation therapy can treat or prevent portal vein thrombosis in patients with liver cirrhosis and is a relatively safe treatment.

Anticoagulation therapy prevents portal-splenic vein thrombosis after splenectomy with gastroesophageal devascularization

AIM: To compare the incidence of early portal or splenic vein thrombosis (PSVT) in patients treated with irregular and regular anticoagulantion after splenectomy with gastroesophageal devascularization.

METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 301 patients who underwent splenectomy with gastroesophageal devascularization for portal hypertension due to cirrhosis between April 2004 and July 2010. Patients were categorized into group A with irregular anticoagulation and group B with regular anticoagulation, respectively. Group A (153 patients) received anticoagulant monotherapy for an undesignated time period or with aspirin or warfarin without low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) irregularly. Group B (148 patients) received subcutaneous injection of LMWH routinely within the first 5 d after surgery, followed by oral warfarin and aspirin for one month regularly. The target prothrombin time/international normalized ratio (PT/INR) was 1.25-1.50. Platelet and PT/INR were monitored. Color Doppler imaging was performed to monitor PSVT as well as the effectiveness of thrombolytic therapy.

RESULTS: The patients’ data were collected and analyzed retrospectively. Among the patients, 94 developed early postoperative mural PSVT, including 63 patients in group A (63/153, 41.17%) and 31 patients in group B (31/148, 20.94%). There were 50 (32.67%) patients in group A and 27 (18.24%) in group B with mural PSVT in the main trunk of portal vein. After the administration of thrombolytic, anticoagulant and anti-aggregation therapy, complete or partial thrombus dissolution achieved in 50 (79.37%) in group A and 26 (83.87%) in group B.

CONCLUSION: Regular anticoagulation therapy can reduce the incidence of PSVT in patients who undergo splenectomy with gastroesophageal devascularization, and regular anticoagulant therapy is safer and more effective than irregular anticoagulant therapy. Early and timely thrombolytic therapy is imperative and feasible for the prevention of PSVT.

Effects of modified splenocaval shunt plus devascularization on esophagogastric variceal bleeding: a comparative study of this treatment and devascularization only in cirrhotic portal hypertension

BACKGROUND

Pericardial devascularization (PCDV) and portosystemic shunt were reported to have favorable results for the management of portal hypertension in cirrhotic patients in China and the West, respectively. This study was undertaken to investigate the effects of a modified proximal splenocaval shunt plus PCDV on variceal bleeding in patients with portal hypertension.

METHODS

From January 1997 to December 2007, 168 patients with portal hypertension of cirrhotic origin received an operation for gastroesophageal variceal bleeding. Of these, 90 patients received a splenocaval shunt plus a PCDV procedure (Combined Group) and the other 78 patients received a PCDV procedure only (PCDV Group). The procedure-related morbidity and mortality, rebleeding, encephalopathy, and survival rates were analyzed.

RESULTS

Postoperative mortality was 3.3% in the combined group and 5.1% in the PCDV group (P > 0.05). Overall morbidity was 13.3% in the combined group and 15.4% in the PCDV group (P > 0.05). The rate for rebleeding, including variceal bleeding and gastropathy, was 5.1% in the combined group, which was significantly lower than that in the PCDV group, at 16.7% (P < 0.05). The incidence of encephalopathy was 6.63% in the combined group and 6.67% in the PCDV group (P > 0.05). The 1-, 3-, 5- and 10-year survival rates were 97.4, 91.7, 80.0, and 60.0% in the combined group and 96.7, 83.3, 73.3, and 53.3% in the PCDV group (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The modified splenocaval shunt plus PCDV is a safe and effective procedure for the long-term control of variceal bleeding; the procedure may not only maintain the portal flow to the liver, but may also protect the liver function in cirrhotic patients. The better clinical outcome means that the procedure may be one of the best choices for treating portal hypertension of cirrhotic origin.

Help me, Doctor! My D-dimer is raised

Although optimal strategy for management of patients with suspected venous thromboembolism depends on local expertise and cost, diagnostic algorithms including clinical assessment and D-dimer have been validated in several trials. However, a new paradigm shift is emerging, giving an extended role of D-dimer measurement in clinical practice. D-dimer is a useful biomarker to help determine initial anticoagulant therapy in patients with thrombosis. Emerging evidence also endorses a 'predictive' role for raised D-dimer levels, since its measurement provides prognostic indications for a variety of conditions, including venous thromboembolism, disseminated intravascular coagulation, cardiovascular disease, infectious diseases, and cancer. Additional investigation is needed to clarify whether raised D-dimer is an epiphenomenon or it is actively involved in pathophysiology. Further studies are also required to establish whether D-dimer testing, alone or combined with other prognostic indicators, can be used to identify patient candidates for further triage and treatment. Nevertheless, the hazard(s) associated with raised D-dimer in plasma requires re-emphasis in the teaching of post-graduates, junior doctors and medical students, including the most effective treatments to inhibit clot spread and decrease the probability of further significant thrombotic incidents even in the absence of any 'detectable' thrombosis.