Search

Background and Aims: The role of thrombolytic therapy in patients with portal venous system thrombosis (PVST) remains ambiguous. This study aimed to systematically collect available evidence and evaluate the efficacy and safety of thrombolysis for PVST., Methods: Eligible studies were searched via PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. Among the cohort studies, meta-analyses were performed to assess the outcomes of PVST patients receiving thrombolysis. Pooled proportions were calculated. Among the case reports and case series, logistic regression analyses were performed to identify the risk factors for outcomes of PVST patients receiving thrombolysis. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated., Results: Among the 2134 papers initially identified, 29 cohort studies and 131 case reports or case series were included. Based on the cohort studies, the pooled rates of overall response to thrombolytic therapy, complete recanalization of PVST, bleeding events during thrombolysis, further bowel resection, thrombosis recurrence, and 30-day mortality were 93%, 58%, 18%, 3%, 1%, and 4%, respectively. Based on the case reports and case series, acute pancreatitis (OR = 0.084), history of liver transplantation (OR = 13.346), and interval between onset of symptoms and initiation of thrombolysis ≤14 days (OR = 3.105) were significantly associated with complete recanalization of PVST; acute pancreatitis (OR = 6.556) was significantly associated with further bowel resection; but no factors associated with the overall response to thrombolytic therapy, bleeding events during thrombolysis, thrombosis recurrence, and 30-day mortality were identified or could be calculated., Conclusion: Early initiation of thrombolysis should be effective for the treatment of PVST. But its benefits for PVST secondary to acute pancreatitis are weakened., (© 2022 The Association for the Publication of the Journal of Internal Medicine.)

Background: Portal venous system thrombosis (PVST) will progress in some cases, indicating worse outcome and the necessity of antithrombotic treatment, but will spontaneously improve in others. It is crucial to understand the natural history of PVST in liver cirrhosis. However, the knowledge regarding how to predict the evolution of PVST in cirrhotic patients is very scant., Methods: Sixty-nine cirrhotic patients without malignancy, who had undergone repeated contrast-enhanced computed tomography or MRI to evaluate the severity of PVST at the first and last admissions, were included. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the risk factors for the evolution of PVST in liver cirrhosis. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated., Results: Among 42 patients without PVST at the first admission, 10 (23.8%) developed PVST at the last admission. Serum albumin level (OR = 0.873), prothrombin time (OR = 1.619), activated partial thromboplastin time (OR = 1.169), Child-Pugh score (OR = 1.560) and model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score (OR = 1.292) at the last admission were significant risk factors associated with the development of PVST. Among 27 patients with PVST at the first admission, 11 (40.7%), 4 (14.8%) and 12 (44.4%) had improvement, stabilization and progression of PVST at the last admission, respectively. ΔMELD score (OR = 0.714) was the only significant risk factor associated with the improvement of PVST; additionally, serum albumin level at the first admission (OR = 1.236) was the only significant risk factor associated with the progression of PVST., Conclusion: Aggravation and amelioration of liver dysfunction may predict the development and improvement of PVST in liver cirrhosis, respectively., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aim: Hemostasis profile is often complicated in liver cirrhosis. Thromboelastography is a global viscoelastic test recommended by the current practice guideline and consensus. This cross-sectional study aimed to evaluate the association of thromboelastography profile with severity of liver cirrhosis and presence of portal venous system thrombosis (PVST)., Methods: Overall, 116 and 50 cirrhotic patients were included in the Shenyang and Xi'an cohorts, respectively. Thromboelastography parameters were compared between cirrhotic patients with Child-Pugh class A and B/C, those with and without decompensated events, and those with and without PVST. Hypercoagulability would be considered if at least two of the following thromboelastography parameters were met: shortened reactive time (R), shortened coagulation time (K), increased angle, and increased maximum amplitude (MA)., Results: In the Shenyang cohort, 16 patients had shortened R, of whom seven (43.75%) had prolonged K and 11 (68.75%) decreased MA. In the Xi'an cohort, 24 patients had shortened R, of whom seven (29.17%) had prolonged K and 15 (62.50%) decreased MA. In the Shenyang cohort, the prevalence of hypercoagulability was not significantly different between cirrhotic patients with Child-Pugh class A and B/C (3.85% vs. 6.25%, P = 0.873), those with and without decompensated events (5.49% vs. 4.00%, P = 1.000), and those with and without PVST (4.17% vs. 5.88%, P = 1.000), which were similar to the results obtained in the Xi'an cohort., Conclusion: There is a high rate of discordance between R and other thromboelastography parameters. In addition, hypercoagulability may not be related to more advanced stage of liver cirrhosis or presence of PVST.

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., (Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.

Portal venous system thrombosis (PVST), a common complication of liver cirrhosis, is closely associated with thrombophilia. To explore the association of homocysteine (Hcy), anticardiolipin antibody (aCL), and anti-β2 glycoprotein I antibody (aβ2GPI), which are possible thrombophilic factors, with PVST in liver cirrhosis. Overall, 654 non-malignant patients (219 with and 435 without liver cirrhosis) admitted between January 2016 and June 2020 were retrospectively evaluated. Presence of PVST, degree of main portal vein (MPV) thrombosis, and clinically significant PVST were identified. Hcy level, hyperhomocysteinemia (HHcy), aCL positivity, and aβ2GPI positivity were compared according to the presence of liver cirrhosis and PVST. Positive aβ2GPI was significantly more frequent in patients with liver cirrhosis than those without, but Hcy level and proportions of HHcy and positive aCL were not significantly different between them. PVST could be evaluated in 136 cirrhotic patients. Hcy level [10.57 μmol/L (2.71-56.82) versus 9.97 μmol/L (2.05-53.44); P = 0.796] and proportions of HHcy [4/44 (9.1%) versus 13/81 (16.0%); P = 0.413] and positive aCL [1/23 (4.3%) versus 10/52 (19.2%); P = 0.185] and aβ2GPI [9/23 (39.1%) versus 21/52 (40.4%); P = 0.919] were not significantly different between cirrhotic patients with and without PVST. There was still no significant association of Hcy level, HHcy, aCL, or aβ2GPI with PVST based on Child-Pugh classification, MPV thrombosis >50%, and clinically significant PVST. Hcy, aCL, and aβ2GPI may not be associated with PVST in liver cirrhosis, suggesting that routine screening for Hcy, aCL, and aβ2GPI should be unnecessary in such patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]