Association between Portal Vein Thrombosis and  Survival in Non-Liver-Transplant Patients with Liver Cirrhosis:  A Systematic Review of the Literature

Qi, Xingshun; Dai, Junna; Yang, Man; Ren, Weirong; Jia, Jia; Guo, Xiaozhong

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/480842

Gastroenterology Research and Practice

On this page

Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion References Copyright Related Articles

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2015 | Article ID 480842 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/480842

Association between Portal Vein Thrombosis and Survival in Non-Liver-Transplant Patients with Liver Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Xingshun Qi,^1,2Junna Dai,¹Man Yang,^2,3Weirong Ren,^2,4Jia Jia,^2,5and Xiaozhong Guo¹

Academic Editor: Fabio Farinati

Received30 Sept 2014

Accepted10 Feb 2015

Published24 Feb 2015

Abstract

A systematic review of the literature was performed to analyze the association between portal vein thrombosis (PVT) and survival in non-liver-transplant patients with liver cirrhosis. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for all relevant papers which evaluated the prognostic value of PVT in predicting the survival of liver cirrhosis. Meta-analyses were not conducted because the ways of data expression and lengths of follow-up were heterogeneous among studies. Overall, 13 papers were included. The 5-day, 6-week, and 1-year mortality were investigated in 1, 3, and 1 studies, respectively; and all of them were not significantly different between cirrhotic patient with and without PVT. By comparison, the 3-year mortality was reported in 1 study; and it was significantly increased by the presence of PVT. The overall mortality was analyzed in 5 studies; and the association with overall mortality and PVT was significant in 4 studies, but not in another one. However, as for the cirrhotic patients undergoing surgical or interventional shunts, the overall mortality was not significantly associated with the presence of PVT in 4 studies. In conclusion, the presence of PVT might be associated with the long-term mortality in non-liver-transplant patients with liver cirrhosis, but not with the short-term mortality.

1. Introduction

Liver cirrhosis is the end stage of chronic liver diseases resulting in the life-threatening complications [1, 2]. According to the Global Disease Burden Study, it is the 12th cause of death, the 17th cause of years of life lost, and the 23rd cause of disability-adjusted life year in the world [3, 4]. The total number of global deaths attributed to liver cirrhosis is increased from 777,800 (95% uncertainty interval: 663,100–867,900) in 1990 to 1030,800 (95% uncertainty interval: 868,800–1160,500) in 2010 [3]. The total number of global disability-adjusted life years due to liver cirrhosis is also increased from 24,327,000 (95% uncertainty interval: 20,693,000–27,179,000) in 1990 to 31,027,000 (95% uncertainty interval: 25,965,000–34,645,000) in 2010 [4]. The natural history of liver cirrhosis is largely influenced by the occurrence of variceal bleeding, ascites, and infection [5–8]. Child-Pugh score, Model for the End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score, and their components (i.e., bilirubin, albumin, prothrombin time or international normalized ratio, creatinine, encephalopathy, and ascites) are considered as the major predictors for the survival of liver cirrhosis [5, 9]. Recent evidence suggests the potential relationship of the survival with the occurrence of portal vein thrombosis (PVT) in liver cirrhosis [10]. However, the conclusions are inconsistent among studies yet. Herein, we have systematically analyzed the literatures regarding the association of PVT with the short- and long-term survival in non-liver-transplant patients with liver cirrhosis.

2. Methods

2.1. Search Strategy and Study Selection

All papers regarding PVT had been retrieved via the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases [11]. Among them, the clinical studies with more than 10 patients were identified [12]. The studies that evaluated the association between PVT and survival/death in liver cirrhosis were further identified. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) only malignant patients with PVT were enrolled; (2) PVT developed after surgery or interventional treatments; (3) PVT developed in noncirrhotic patients; (4) only LT recipients with PVT were enrolled; (5) no control group was included (i.e., patients without PVT); (6) the survival was not compared between case and control groups; and (7) no separate data regarding PVT was extracted. Notably, the association of PVT with the survival of LT recipients was evaluated in another meta-analysis study. Therefore, the papers including only LT recipients with PVT were excluded from the present systematic review.

2.2. Data Extraction

The following data were extracted: first author, publication year, study design, enrollment period, target population, treatment modalities, total number of observed patients, and number/percentage of patients with PVT. Additionally, we collected the data regarding the mortality and/or survival rate in cirrhotic patients with and without PVT. If the original data were not reported, the odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence interval (CI), hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CI, or values were collected to express the difference in the mortality and/or survival rate between the two groups. Data were not synthesized because they were expressed in different ways.

2.3. Grade of Evidence

The evidence was classified into high and low grade. The evidence was of high grade, if any one of the 2 following points was met: (1) a multivariate analysis was performed to explore the statistically significant difference; (2) if only a univariate analysis was performed, the baseline Child-Pugh class or MELD score should be matched between patients with and without PVT. Otherwise, the evidence was of low grade.

3. Results

3.1. Characteristics of Included Studies

Initially, 10936 papers regarding PVT were identified. Among them, 13 papers were eligible for this systematic review [13–25] (Figure 1). The characteristics of included studies were summarized in Table 1. According to the regions, 4 studies were performed in China Taiwan, 3 studies in Italy, 2 studies in USA, 1 study in Canada, 1 study in France, 1 study in Portugal, and 1 study in UK. According to the enrollment periods, 3 studies were launched before 1990 [21, 23, 24], 3 studies between 1990 and 2000 [16, 22, 25], and 6 studies after 2000 [13–15, 17, 19, 20]. The information regarding the enrollment periods was not available in 1 study [18]. According to the publication forms, 3 studies were published in abstracts, and 10 studies in full-texts. Hepatocellular carcinoma was excluded in 4 studies [14, 17, 18, 22], but not in 6 studies [13, 15, 16, 19–21, 25]. The information regarding the exclusion of hepatocellular carcinoma was not available in 3 studies [21, 23, 24]. The prevalence of PVT in liver cirrhosis was 7%–25%.

Data were expressed in different ways (Table 2). Multivariate analyses were performed in 7 studies [13–16, 18, 19, 25], and only univariate analyses were performed in 6 studies [17, 20–24]. Of these studies without multivariate analyses, 2 had similar proportions of Child-Pugh classes between patients with and without PVT [17, 22], 2 had significantly different proportions of Child-Pugh classes between the two groups [21, 23], and 2 did not clearly report any relevant information [20, 24]. Thus, 9 studies were considered to have relatively high-grade evidence.

3.2. 5-Day Mortality

Amitrano and colleagues found that the proportion of PVT was not significantly different between cirrhotic patients who died within 5 days after acute variceal bleeding and those who did not (5/27 versus 27/158, ) [13].

3.3. 6-Week Mortality

Chen and colleagues reported that PVT was significantly associated with an increased 6-week mortality in the univariate Cox regression analysis (HR = 3.19, 95% CI = 1.59–6.41, ) [15]. But it was not identified as the independent predictor for the 6-week mortality in the multivariate Cox regression analysis.

D’Amico and colleagues did not find PVT as a significant predicator for the 6-week mortality in the multivariate logistic regression analysis [16].

Lee and colleagues showed that the proportion of PVT was not significantly different between cirrhotic patients who died within 6 weeks after the cessation of initial esophageal variceal bleeding than in those who did not (40% [4/10] versus 17.2% [15/87], ) [20].

3.4. 1-Year Mortality

Ferreira and colleagues found that the 1-year mortality was not significantly different between cirrhotic patients with and without PVT (the data was not shown) [18].

3.5. 3-Year Mortality

Ferreira and colleagues found that the 3-year mortality was significantly associated with PVT in cirrhotic patients () [18]. The prognostic significance of PVT for the 3-year mortality was confirmed in the multivariate logistic regression analysis (OR = 6, 95% CI = 2–18).

3.6. Overall Mortality

In a prospective longitudinal study by Attili and colleagues, the overall mortality was significantly higher in patients who developed PVT during follow-up than in those who did not (60% [15/25] versus 9.6% [10/104]) [14]. In the Kaplan-Meier curve, the cumulative survival rate was significantly lower in patients with incident PVT than in those without (, by log-rank test). The prognostic significance of incident PVT was also confirmed in the multivariate Cox regression analysis.

In a case-control study by Ferreira et al., the Kaplan-Meier curve demonstrated a significantly poorer long-term survival in PVT patients () [18]. The association between PVT and mortality was significant in patients with Child-Pugh classes A and B, but not in those with Child-Pugh class C.

In a randomized controlled trial by Hung and colleagues, the univariate Cox regression analysis demonstrated that PVT was significantly associated with a poorer overall survival in cirrhotic patients with gastric variceal bleeding undergoing the secondary prevention (HR = 6.024, 95% CI = 2.770–13.158, and ) [19]. In the multivariate Cox regression analysis, PVT remained the independent predictor for the overall survival (HR = 3.390, 95% CI = 1.499–7.692, and ).

In a retrospective study by Wu and colleagues, the univariate Cox regression analysis demonstrated that PVT was significantly associated with the survival in cirrhotic patients with gastric variceal bleeding after endoscopic therapy (HR = 12.6, 95% CI = 5.93–26.72, and ) [25]. The statistical significance was confirmed in the multivariate Cox regression analysis (HR = 6.99, 95% CI = 2.42–20.16, and ).

Only one study by Doumit and colleagues found a similar incidence of death between cirrhotic patients with and without PVT (16% versus 21%) [17].

3.7. Mortality after Surgical or Interventional Portosystemic Shunt

In a study by Windle and Peacock, the overall mortality after end-to-side anastomosis of the portal vein to the inferior vena cava was not significantly different between cirrhotic patients with and without PVT (7/10 [70%] versus 25/47 [53%], , by Chi-square test) [24].

In a study by Sarfeh, the overall mortality after portal decompressive procedures, such as portocaval or mesocaval shunt, was not significantly different between patients with PVT and patent portal veins (10/18 [56%] versus 26/68 [38%], , by Chi-square test) [23].

In a study by Orloff and colleagues, the Kaplan-Meier curve demonstrated a similar survival rate between patients with and without PVT after emergency (30 days: 69% versus 73%, 1 year: 66% versus 65%, 5 years: 65% versus 61%, 10 years: 55% versus 52%, and 15 years: 51% versus 45%) or elective (30 days: 95% versus 98.6%, 1 year: 90% versus 95%, 5 years: 70% versus 71%, 10 years: 65% versus 65%, and 15 years: 60% versus 61%) surgical portocaval shunt [21].

In a study by Perarnau and colleagues, the Kaplan-Meier curve demonstrated that the probability of survival after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) was not significantly different between patients with and without PVT (1 year: 80% versus 84%, 2 years: 72% versus 70%, and 4 years: 55% versus 52%; , by log-rank test) [22]. Additionally, the median survival time was 50 ± 12 months and 36 ± 5 months in patients with and without PVT, respectively.

4. Discussion

Our study was the first to systematically analyze the effect of PVT on the survival of non-liver-transplant patients with liver cirrhosis. The majority of papers included in our systematic review provided the high-grade evidence. The major findings included the following: (1) PVT might not be significantly associated with the 5-day, 6-week, and 1-year mortality of liver cirrhosis; (2) PVT might be significantly associated with an increased 3-year mortality; (3) PVT might increase the overall mortality during follow-up; and (4) a preexistent PVT did not impact the survival of cirrhotic patients treated with surgical or interventional shunt.

It appears that the short-term survival is not influenced by the presence of PVT. By comparison, the markers of liver dysfunction play a more important role in the prediction of the short-term survival. For example, Amitrano et al. found that Child-Pugh and MELD scores were two significant factors associated with the 5-day mortality [13]; D’Amico and De Franchis also suggested that an increased bilirubin level, a decreased albumin, and encephalopathy predicted a higher 6-week mortality [16]; and Chen et al. reported that MELD score was the independent predictor for the 6-week mortality [15]. Thus, the prognostic value of PVT might be masked by the progressive deterioration of liver function during a relatively short follow-up. In addition, the presence of advanced HCC was often considered the independent predictor for the short-term mortality [13, 15, 16].

The long-term survival is negatively influenced by the presence of PVT in 4 of 5 studies [14, 18, 19, 25], which indicates the negative impact of PVT on the survival [26]. On the contrary, this is not supported by one study that was published in the abstract form [17]. However, the results of this study should be cautiously interpreted because nearly all decompensation events occurred more frequently in PVT group than in non-PVT group (ascites: 41% versus 28%; variceal bleeding: 39% versus 20%; spontaneous bacterial peritonitis: 23% versus 9%; hepatocellular carcinoma: 20% versus 8%; and portosystemic encephalopathy: 32% versus 27%), but the mortality was relatively lower (16% versus 21%) [17].

Villa and colleagues conducted a randomized controlled trial to explore the role of anticoagulation for the primary prevention of PVT in liver cirrhosis [27]. The investigators found that the prophylactic anticoagulation could not only decrease the incidence of PVT, but also reduce the development of hepatic decompensation events and improve the survival. Recently, it has been also proposed that the identification of thrombotic risk factors for PVT should be helpful to stratify the benefits of prophylactic anticoagulation in liver cirrhosis [28, 29]. However, we have to acknowledge that few thrombotic risk factors for PVT have been clearly established in a small number of patients with liver cirrhosis [30–33]. In addition, anticoagulation could be effective for the treatment of PVT in liver cirrhosis [34–37]. Thus, anticoagulation should be recommended for the management of PVT in liver cirrhosis. Importantly, if a PVT could be avoided in the future or a previously thrombosed portal vein was successfully recanalized, the survival might be further improved.

On the other hand, TIPS is also regarded as a treatment of choice for PVT in liver cirrhosis [38]. Its advantages are that the occluded vessels can be easily recanalized by endovascular techniques, and the patency of vessels can be effectively maintained by an accelerated blood flow through the main portal vein and shunt. However, its primary treatment goal remains to resolve the portal hypertension-related complications [39] because no controlled trials are available to confirm the benefits of TIPS versus anticoagulation for recanalizing the thrombosed portal vein [40]. Despite that, our systematic review showed that the survival of cirrhotic patients who were treated with TIPS or surgical shunts was not influenced by the presence of a preexistent PVT. The indirect evidence suggested that the creation of a portosystemic shunt might improve the survival of liver cirrhosis with PVT.

Our study had several limitations. First, we could not combine the data reported by these included studies into a general result. This was primarily because the ways of data expression and lengths of follow-up were heterogeneous among studies. For example, some papers reported the total number of patients and the number of death events; by contrast, the others reported the ORs or HRs. Additionally, some papers just reported the short-term survival; contrarily, the others reported the survival during the total follow-up. Second, we could not extract the information regarding whether or not the degree of PVT (complete occlusion versus partial occlusion) and Child-Pugh classes (class C versus classes A/B) were able to further stratify the effect of PVT on the survival of liver cirrhosis. Third, some included papers did not exclude the cases with hepatocellular carcinoma. This precluded us from distinguishing whether the nature of PVT was benign or malignant. The presence of malignant PVT was associated with very poor survival. Fourth, although the search strategy was extensive, the number of relevant papers was relatively small. Thus, the reproducibility of these findings remained to be confirmed.

In conclusion, the presence of PVT might be negatively associated with the long-term survival, but not with the short-term survival, which might support the necessity of anticoagulation or other treatment modalities for maintaining the portal vein patency in liver cirrhosis. Certainly, we should acknowledge that the effect of PVT on the long-term survival after surgical shunt or TIPS was not significant.

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

Authors’ Contribution

Xingshun Qi conceived and drafted the paper. Xingshun Qi, Man Yang, Weirong Ren, Jia Jia, and Junna Dai performed the literature search and selection and/or data extraction. Xiaozhong Guo gave critical comments and revised the paper. All authors have made an intellectual contribution to the paper and approved the submission.

References

E. A. Tsochatzis, J. Bosch, and A. K. Burroughs, “Liver cirrhosis,” The Lancet, vol. 383, no. 9930, pp. 1749–1761, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Schuppan and N. H. Afdhal, “Liver cirrhosis,” The Lancet, vol. 371, no. 9615, pp. 838–851, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Lozano, M. Naghavi, K. Foreman et al., “Global and regional mortality from 235 causes of death for 20 age groups in 1990 and 2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010,” The Lancet, vol. 380, pp. 2095–2128, 2012.
View at: Google Scholar
C. J. Murray, T. Vos, R. Lozano et al., “Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 291 diseases and injuries in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010,” The Lancet, vol. 380, no. 9859, pp. 2197–2223, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. D'Amico, G. Garcia-Tsao, and L. Pagliaro, “Natural history and prognostic indicators of survival in cirrhosis: a systematic review of 118 studies,” Journal of Hepatology, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 217–231, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Garcia-Tsao, S. Friedman, J. Iredale, and M. Pinzani, “Now there are many (stages) where before there was one: in search of a pathophysiological classification of cirrhosis,” Hepatology, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 1445–1449, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. S. Bajaj, J. G. O'Leary, K. R. Reddy et al., “Second infections independently increase mortality in hospitalized patients with cirrhosis: the North American consortium for the study of end-stage liver disease (NACSELD) experience,” Hepatology, vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 2328–2335, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. Arvaniti, G. D'Amico, G. Fede et al., “Infections in patients with cirrhosis increase mortality four-fold and should be used in determining prognosis,” Gastroenterology, vol. 139, no. 4, pp. 1246.e5–1256.e5, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. S. Kamath and W. R. Kim, “The model for end-stage liver disease (MELD),” Hepatology, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 797–805, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Qi, G. Han, and D. Fan, “Management of portal vein thrombosis in liver cirrhosis,” Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology, vol. 11, no. 7, pp. 435–446, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Qi, M. Yang, W. Ren et al., “Find duplicates among the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library Databases in systematic review,” PLoS ONE, vol. 8, no. 8, Article ID e71838, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Qi, J. Jia, W. Ren et al., “Scientific publications on portal vein thrombosis and Budd-Chiari syndrome: a global survey of the literature,” Journal of Gastrointestinal and Liver Diseases, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 65–71, 2014.
View at: Google Scholar
L. Amitrano, M. A. Guardascione, F. Manguso et al., “The effectiveness of current acute variceal bleed treatments in unselected cirrhotic patients: refining short-term prognosis and risk factors,” The American Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 107, no. 12, pp. 1872–1878, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. F. Attili, M. Lupo, F. Gigliotti, S. Trapani, F. Attili, and A. de Santis, “Portal vein thrombosis is a risk factor for death and complications in liver cirrhosis,” Digestive and Liver Disease, vol. 44, supplement 2, p. S107, 2012.
View at: Google Scholar
P.-H. Chen, W.-C. Chen, M.-C. Hou et al., “Delayed endoscopy increases re-bleeding and mortality in patients with hematemesis and active esophageal variceal bleeding: a cohort study,” Journal of Hepatology, vol. 57, no. 6, pp. 1207–1213, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. D'Amico and R. De Franchis, “Upper digestive bleeding in cirrhosis. Post-therapeutic outcome and prognostic indicators,” Hepatology, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 599–612, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Doumit, S. Bolano, E. Yeung, K. Khalili, and F. Wong, “The prevalence of non-tumor related portal vein thrombosis,” Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 23, 2009.
View at: Google Scholar
C. N. Ferreira, T. Rodrigues, P. Alexandrino, F. Ramalho, and J. F. Velosa, “Portal vein thrombosis in cirrhotic patients is associated with advanced liver disease and predicts poor long-term prognosis,” Hepatology, vol. 52, article 1072A, 2010.
View at: Google Scholar
H.-H. Hung, C.-J. Chang, M.-C. Hou et al., “Efficacy of non-selective beta-blockers as adjunct to endoscopic prophylactic treatment for gastric variceal bleeding: a randomized controlled trial,” Journal of Hepatology, vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 1025–1032, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. W. Lee, T. Y. Lee, C. S. Chang, C. W. Ko, H. Z. Yeh, and S. S. Yang, “Independent factors associated with early outcome in Chinese cirrhotic patients after cessation of initial esophageal variceal hemorrhage,” Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, vol. 44, no. 6, pp. e123–e127, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. J. Orloff, M. S. Orloff, S. L. Orloff, and B. Girard, “Portal vein thrombosis in cirrhosis with variceal hemorrhage,” Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 123–131, 1997.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J.-M. Perarnau, A. Baju, L. D'Aalteroche, J. Viguier, and J. Ayoub, “Feasibility and long-term evolution of TIPS in cirrhotic patients with portal thrombosis,” European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, vol. 22, no. 9, pp. 1093–1098, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. J. Sarfeh, “Portal vein thrombosis associated with cirrhosis: clinical importance,” Archives of Surgery, vol. 114, no. 8, pp. 902–905, 1979.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Windle and J. H. Peacock, “Prognosis after portocaval anastomosis: a 15 year follow up,” British Journal of Surgery, vol. 62, no. 9, pp. 701–706, 1975.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C.-Y. Wu, H.-Z. Yeh, and G.-H. Chen, “Pharmacologic efficacy in gastric variceal rebleeding and survival: including multivariate analysis,” Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 127–132, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Qi, M. Bai, Z. Yang et al., “Occlusive portal vein thrombosis as a new marker of decompensated cirrhosis,” Medical Hypotheses, vol. 76, no. 4, pp. 522–526, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Villa, C. Cammà, M. Marietta et al., “Enoxaparin prevents portal vein thrombosis and liver decompensation in patients with advanced cirrhosis,” Gastroenterology, vol. 143, no. 5, pp. 1253.e4–1260.e4, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Qi, X. Guo, and D. Fan, “Benefit stratification of prophylactic anticoagulation in liver cirrhosis: more questions than answers,” Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. B. Fallon and S. Batra, “Inherited thrombophilia and the risk of portal vein thrombosis: progress toward individualized anticoagulation in cirrhosis?” Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, vol. 12, no. 11, pp. 1813–1814, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Qi, Z. Yang, V. de Stefano, and D. Fan, “Methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase C677T gene mutation and hyperhomocysteinemia in Budd-Chiari syndrome and portal vein thrombosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies,” Hepatology Research, vol. 44, pp. E480–E498, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Qi, W. Ren, V. De Stefano, and D. Fan, “Associations of coagulation factor V Leiden and prothrombin G20210A mutations with Budd-Chiari syndrome and portal vein thrombosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, vol. 12, pp. 1801–1812, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Qi, H. Chen, and G. Han, “Effect of antithrombin, protein c and protein s on portal vein thrombosis in liver cirrhosis: a meta-analysis,” The American Journal of the Medical Sciences, vol. 346, no. 1, pp. 38–44, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Qi, V. de Stefano, C. Su, M. Bai, X. Guo, and D. Fan, “Associations of antiphospholipid antibodies with splanchnic vein thrombosis: a systematic review with meta-analysis,” Medicine, vol. 94, no. 4, article e496, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Senzolo, T. M. Sartori, V. Rossetto et al., “Prospective evaluation of anticoagulation and transjugular intrahepatic portosistemic shunt for the management of portal vein thrombosis in cirrhosis,” Liver International, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 919–927, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. G. Delgado, S. Seijo, I. Yepes et al., “Efficacy and safety of anticoagulation on patients with cirrhosis and portal vein thrombosis,” Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, vol. 10, no. 7, pp. 776–783, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Amitrano, M. A. Guardascione, A. Menchise et al., “Safety and efficacy of anticoagulation therapy with low molecular weight heparin for portal vein thrombosis in patients with liver cirrhosis,” Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 448–451, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Qi, V. de Stefano, H. Li, J. Dai, X. Guo, and D. Fan, “Anticoagulation for the treatment of portal vein thrombosis in liver cirrhosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies,” European Journal of Internal Medicine, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 23–29, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Qi and G. Han, “Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in the treatment of portal vein thrombosis: a critical review of literature,” Hepatology International, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 576–590, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. D. Boyer and Z. J. Haskal, “The role of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in the management of portal hypertension,” Hepatology, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 386–400, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Qi, C. He, Z. Yin et al., “Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for the prevention of variceal rebleeding in cirrhotic patients with portal vein thrombosis: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial,” BMJ Open, vol. 3, no. 7, Article ID e003370, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2015 Xingshun Qi et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

2694

Downloads

1316

Citations