Therapeutic anticoagulation for splanchnic vein thrombosis in acute pancreatitis: A national survey and case-vignette study

BACKGROUND Splanchnic vein thrombosis(SVT)is a major complication of moderate and severe acute pancreatitis.There is no consensus on whether therapeutic anticoagulation should be started in patients with acute pancreatitis and SVT.AIM To gain insight into current opinions and clinical decision making of pancreatologists regarding SVT in acute pancreatitis.METHODS A total of 139 pancreatologists of the Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group and Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group were approached to complete an online survey and case vignette survey.The threshold to assume group agreement was set at 75%.RESULTS The response rate was 67%(n=93).Seventy-one pancreatologists(77%)regularly prescribed therapeutic anticoagulation in case of SVT,and 12 pancreatologists(13%)for narrowing of splanchnic vein lumen.The most common reason to treat SVT was to avoid complications(87%).Acute thrombosis was the most important factor to prescribe therapeutic anticoagulation(90%).Portal vein thrombosis was chosen as the most preferred location to initiate therapeutic anticoagulation(76%)and splenic vein thrombosis as the least preferred location(86%).The preferred initial agent was low molecular weight heparin(LMWH;87%).In the case vignettes,therapeutic anticoagulation was prescribed for acute portal vein thrombosis,with or without suspected infected necrosis(82%and 90%),and thrombus progression(88%).Agreement was lacking regarding the selection and duration of long-term anticoagulation,the indication for thrombophilia testing and upper endoscopy,and about whether risk of bleeding is a major barrier for therapeutic anticoagulation.CONCLUSION In this national survey,the pancreatologists seemed to agree on the use of therapeutic anticoagulation,using LMWH in the acute phase,for acute portal thrombosis and in the case of thrombus progression,irrespective of the presence of infected necrosis.

Direct oral anticoagulants for the treatment of splanchnic vein thrombosis:A state of art

Splanchnic vein thrombosis(SVT)is a manifestation of venous thromboembolism in an unusual site.Portal,mesenteric,and splenic veins are the most common vessels involved in SVT which occurs mainly in patients with liver cirrhosis,although non-cirrhotic patients could be affected as well.Thrombosis of hepatic veins,also known as Budd-Chiari syndrome,is another manifestation of SVT.Prompt diagnosis and intervention are mandatory in order to increase the recalization rate and reduce the risk of thrombus progression and hypertensive complications.Traditional anticoagulation with heparin and vitamin-K antagonists is the treatment of choice in these cases.However,recent studies have shown promising results on the efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants(DOACs)in this setting.Available results are mainly based on retrospective studies with small sample size,but first clinical trials have been published in the last years.This manuscript aims to provide an updated overview of the current evidence regarding the role of DOACs for SVT in both cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic patients.

High risk of thrombosis recurrence in people with idiopathic or only locally caused non-cirrhotic splanchnic vein thrombosis: it is time for guidelines’ revision

Portal hypertension caused by non-cirrhotic(and non neoplastic)splanchnic vein thrombosis(NC-SVT)is responsible for 5–10%of portal hypertension cases in the western world(1).Chronic myeloproliferative neoplasms(MPN)or systemic prothrombotic disorders are in cause in about 40%of subjects,while in about 30%a local condition,such as recent abdominal surgery or infection/inflammation triggers the event.The local condition,however,can only be the precipitating cause,since a thorough screening allows identifying the co-occurrence of systemic thrombophilia in about 30%of such cases.Hence,screening is mandatory even in cases where the cause of NC-SVT seems obvious.Nevertheless,about 30%of cases of NC-SVT remains unexplained and defined idiopathic(1).

From portal to splanchnic venous thrombosis:What surgeons should bear in mind

The present study aims to review the evolution of surgical management of portal(PVT) and splanch-nic venous thrombosis(SVT) in the context of liver transplantation over the last 5 decades. PVT is more commonly managed by endovenous thrombectomy, while SVT requires more complex technical expedients. Several surgical techniques have been proposed, such as extensive eversion thrombectomy, anastomosis to collateral veins, reno-portal anastomosis, cavo-portal hemi-transposition, portal arterialization and combined liver-intestinal transplantation. In order to achieve satisfactory outcomes, careful planning of the surgical strategy is mandatory. The excellent results that are ob-tained nowadays confirm that, even extended, splanch-nic thrombosis is no longer an absolute contraindication for liver transplantation. Patients with advanced portal thrombosis may preferentially be referred to specialized centres, in which complex vascular approaches and even multivisceral transplantation are performed.

Risk factors of thrombosis in abdominal veins

AIM: To estimate the prevalence of inherited and acquired thrombophilic risk factors in patients with abdominal venous thrombosis and to compare the risk factor profiles between Budd-Chiari syndromes (BCS) and splanchnic vein thrombosis (SVT). METHODS: In this retrospective study, 36 patients with abdominal venous thrombosis were studied. The patients were divided into Budd-Chiari group (hepatic vein, IVC thrombosis) and splanchnic venous thrombosis group (portal, splenic, superior mesenteric veins) based on the veins involved. Hereditary and acquired thrombophilic risk factors were evaluated in all patients. RESULTS: Twenty patients had SVT, 14 had BCS, and 2 had mixed venous thrombosis. Ten patients (28%) had hereditary and 10 patients (28%) acquired thrombophilic risk factors. The acquired risk factors were significantly more common in the SVT group (SVT vs BCS: 45% vs 7%, χ2 = 5.7, P = 0.02) while hereditary risk factors did not show significant differences between the two groups (SVT vs BCS: 25% vs 36%, χ2 = 0.46, P = 0.7). Multiple risk factors were present in one (7%) patient with BCS and in 3 patients (15%) with SVT. No risk factors were identified in 57% of patients with BCS and in 45% of patients with SVT. CONCLUSION: Hereditary and acquired risk factors play an important role in the etiopathogenesis of abdominal venous thrombosis. Acquired risk factorsare significantly more common in SVT patients while hereditary factors are similar in both groups.