-
European Journal of Internal Medicine Oct 2022Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) may be associated with negative outcomes in patients with liver cirrhosis. However, the prevalence and incidence of PVT in liver cirrhosis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) may be associated with negative outcomes in patients with liver cirrhosis. However, the prevalence and incidence of PVT in liver cirrhosis are heterogeneous among studies and have not been sufficiently determined yet.
METHODS
The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched. Eligible studies would explore the prevalence and/or incidence of PVT in liver cirrhosis without hepatocellular carcinoma or abdominal surgery. Pooled proportion with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using a random-effect model. Factors associated with the presence/occurrence of PVT were also extracted.
RESULTS
Among the 8549 papers initially identified, 74 were included. Fifty-four studies explored the prevalence of PVT in liver cirrhosis with a pooled prevalence of 13.92% (95%CI=11.18-16.91%). Based on cross-sectional data, Child-Pugh class B/C, higher D-dimer, ascites, and use of non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) were associated with the presence of PVT in liver cirrhosis. Twenty-three studies explored the incidence of PVT in liver cirrhosis with a pooled incidence of 10.42% (95%CI=8.16-12.92%). Based on cohort data, Child-Pugh class B/C, higher model of end-stage liver disease score, higher D-dimer, lower platelets count, decreased portal flow velocity, ascites, use of NSBBs, and moderate or high-risk esophageal varices could predict the occurrence of PVT in liver cirrhosis.
CONCLUSION
Approximately one seventh of cirrhotic patients have PVT, and one tenth will develop PVT. Progression of liver cirrhosis and portal hypertension seems to be in parallel with the risk of PVT. Prospective studies with detailed information about classification and extension of PVT in liver cirrhosis are needed.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Ascites; Cross-Sectional Studies; Humans; Liver Cirrhosis; Portal Vein; Prospective Studies; Venous Thrombosis
PubMed: 35688747
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejim.2022.05.032 -
Immunity, Inflammation and Disease Mar 2023Since publishing successful clinical trial results of mRNA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines in December 2020, multiple reports have arisen about... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Since publishing successful clinical trial results of mRNA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines in December 2020, multiple reports have arisen about cardiovascular complications following the mRNA vaccination. This study provides an in-depth account of various cardiovascular adverse events reported after the mRNA vaccines' first or second dose including pericarditis/myopericarditis, myocarditis, hypotension, hypertension, arrhythmia, cardiogenic shock, stroke, myocardial infarction/STEMI, intracranial hemorrhage, thrombosis (deep vein thrombosis, cerebral venous thrombosis, arterial or venous thrombotic events, portal vein thrombosis, coronary thrombosis, microvascular small bowel thrombosis), and pulmonary embolism.
METHODS
A systematic review of original studies reporting confirmed cardiovascular manifestations post-mRNA COVID-19 vaccination was performed. Following the PRISMA guidelines, electronic databases (PubMed, PMC NCBI, and Cochrane Library) were searched until January 2022. Baseline characteristics of patients and disease outcomes were extracted from relevant studies.
RESULTS
A total of 81 articles analyzed confirmed cardiovascular complications post-COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in 17,636 individuals and reported 284 deaths with any mRNA vaccine. Of 17,636 cardiovascular events with any mRNA vaccine, 17,192 were observed with the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine, 444 events with mRNA-1273 (Moderna). Thrombosis was frequently reported with any mRNA vaccine (n = 13,936), followed by stroke (n = 758), myocarditis (n = 511), myocardial infarction (n = 377), pulmonary embolism (n = 301), and arrhythmia (n = 254). Stratifying the results by vaccine type showed that thrombosis (80.8%) was common in the BNT162b2 cohort, while stroke (39.9%) was common with mRNA-1273 for any dose. The time between the vaccination dosage and the first symptom onset averaged 5.6 and 4.8 days with the mRNA-1273 vaccine and BNT162b2, respectively. The mRNA-1273 cohort reported 56 deaths compared to the 228 with BNT162b2, while the rest were discharged or transferred to the ICU.
CONCLUSION
Available literature includes more studies with the BNT162b2 vaccine than mRNA-1273. Future studies must report mortality and adverse cardiovascular events by vaccine types.
Topics: Humans; 2019-nCoV Vaccine mRNA-1273; BNT162 Vaccine; COVID-19; COVID-19 Vaccines; Myocardial Infarction; Myocarditis; Pulmonary Embolism; Stroke; Thrombocytopenia; Thrombosis
PubMed: 36988252
DOI: 10.1002/iid3.807 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2022Patients with kidney failure require vascular access to receive maintenance haemodialysis (HD), which can be achieved by an arteriovenous fistula or a central venous... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Patients with kidney failure require vascular access to receive maintenance haemodialysis (HD), which can be achieved by an arteriovenous fistula or a central venous catheter (CVC). CVC use is related to frequent complications such as venous stenosis and infection. Venous stenosis occurs mainly due to trauma caused by the entrance of the catheter into the venous lumen and repeated contact with the vein wall. A biofilm, a colony of irreversible adherent and self-sufficient micro-organisms embedded in a self-produced matrix of exopolysaccharides, is associated with the development of infections in patients with indwelling catheters. Despite its clinical relevance, the treatment of catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs) in patients receiving maintenance HD remains controversial, especially regarding catheter management. Antibiotic lock solutions may sterilise the catheter, treat the infection and prevent unnecessary catheter procedures. However, such treatment may also lead to antibiotic resistance or even clinical worsening in certain more virulent pathogens. Catheter removal and delayed replacement may remove the source of infection, improving infectious outcomes, but this approach may also increase vascular access stenosis, thrombosis or both, or even central vein access failure. Catheter guidewire exchange attempts to remove the source of infection while maintaining access to the same vein and, therefore, may improve clinical outcomes and preserve central veins for future access.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of different interventions for CRBSI treatment in patients receiving maintenance HD through a permanent CVC, such as systemic antibiotics alone or systemic antibiotics combined with either lock solutions or catheter guidewire exchange or catheter replacement.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 21 December 2021 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register were identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs evaluating the management of CRBSI in permanent CVCs in people receiving maintenance HD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed their risk of bias, and performed data extraction. Results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) or hazard ratios (HR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). The certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified two RCTs and one quasi-RCT that enrolled 760 participants addressing the treatment of CRBSIs in people (children and adults) receiving maintenance HD through CVC. No two studies compared the same interventions. The quasi-RCT compared two different lock solutions (tissue plasminogen activator (TPA) and heparin) with concurrent systemic antibiotics. One RCT compared systemic antibiotics alone and in association with an ethanol lock solution, and the other compared systemic antibiotics with different catheter management strategies (guidewire exchange versus removal and replacement). The overall certainty of the evidence was downgraded due to the small number of participants, high risk of bias in many domains, especially randomisation, allocation, and other sources of bias, and missing outcome data. It is uncertain whether an ethanol lock solution used with concurrent systemic antibiotics improved CRBSI eradication compared to systemic antibiotics alone (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.23) because the certainty of this evidence is very low. There were no reported differences between the effects of TPA and heparin lock solutions on cure rates (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.15) or between catheter guidewire exchange versus catheter removal with delayed replacement, expressed as catheter infection-free survival (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.79). To date, no results are available comparing other interventions. Outcomes such as venous stenosis and/or thrombosis, antibiotic resistance, death, and adverse events were not reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Currently, there is no available high certainty evidence to support one treatment over another for CRBSIs. The benefit of using ethanol lock treatment in combination with systemic antibiotics compared to systemic antibiotics alone for CRBSIs in patients receiving maintenance HD remains uncertain due to the very low certainty of the evidence. Hence, further RCTs to identify the benefits and harms of CRBSI treatment options are needed. Future studies should unify CRBSI and cure definitions and improve methodological design.
Topics: Adult; Catheter-Related Infections; Central Venous Catheters; Child; Heparin; Humans; Renal Dialysis; Sepsis
PubMed: 35363884
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013554.pub2 -
PloS One 2023The 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... (Meta-Analysis)
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.
Topics: Humans; Warfarin; Portal Vein; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight; Splenectomy; Postoperative Complications; Venous Thrombosis; Anticoagulants; Liver Cirrhosis
PubMed: 37582105
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0290164 -
Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) Jan 2023Pylephlebitis, defined as infective thrombophlebitis of the portal vein, is a rare condition with an incidence of 0.37-2.7 cases per 100,000 person-years, which can... (Review)
Review
Pylephlebitis, defined as infective thrombophlebitis of the portal vein, is a rare condition with an incidence of 0.37-2.7 cases per 100,000 person-years, which can virtually complicate any intra-abdominal or pelvic infections that develop within areas drained by the portal venous circulation. The current systematic review aimed to investigate the etiology behind pylephlebitis in terms of pathogens involved and causative infective processes, and to report the most common symptoms at clinical presentation. We included 220 individuals derived from published cases between 1971 and 2022. Of these, 155 (70.5%) were male with a median age of 50 years. There were 27 (12.3%) patients under 18 years of age, 6 (2.7%) individuals younger than one year, and the youngest reported case was only 20 days old. The most frequently reported symptoms on admission were fever (75.5%) and abdominal pain (66.4%), with diverticulitis (26.5%) and acute appendicitis (22%) being the two most common causes. Pylephlebitis was caused by a single pathogen in 94 (42.8%) cases and polymicrobial in 60 (27.2%) cases. However, the responsible pathogen was not identified or not reported in 30% of the included patients. The most frequently isolated bacteria were (25%), spp. (17%), and spp. (15%). The treatment of pylephlebitis consists initially of broad-spectrum antibiotics that should be tailored upon bacterial identification and continued for at least four to six weeks after symptom presentation. There is no recommendation for prescribing anticoagulants to all patients with pylephlebitis. However, they should be administered in patients with thrombosis progression on repeat imaging or persistent fever despite proper antibiotic therapy to increase the rates of thrombus resolution or decrease the overall mortality, which is approximately 14%.
PubMed: 36766534
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics13030429 -
Annals of Palliative Medicine Nov 2023A number of therapeutic treatment strategies exist for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and portal vein thrombosis (PVT). The aim of this review is to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
A number of therapeutic treatment strategies exist for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and portal vein thrombosis (PVT). The aim of this review is to provide a current understanding of treatment options and determine the relative effectiveness of treatment options in preventing mortality over 24 months.
METHODS
A search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane CENTRAL from 2007 to 2022. Articles were screened to identify those that reported on all-cause mortality among treated, non-palliative patients with HCC and PVT. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions tool (ROBINS-1). Mortality rates at prespecified timepoints between 6 and 24 months were extracted and summarized using a random-effects DerSimonian-Laird model. This review was registered a priori on PROSPERO (CRD42022290708).
RESULTS
When comparing radiotherapy (RT) to sorafenib and combined transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), there was a trend that RT yields better survival at 6 months [odds ratio (OR) 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.28-1.76]. When comparing sorafenib to Y90 and RT, sorafenib was associated with higher odds for mortality at 6 months (OR 2.20, 95% CI: 1.11-4.39). No significant differences were noticed from 12 to 24 months.
CONCLUSIONS
Future strategies for HCC with PVT should look at the combination of radiation and systemic treatments either concurrently or sequentially.
Topics: Humans; Carcinoma, Hepatocellular; Sorafenib; Liver Neoplasms; Portal Vein; Chemoembolization, Therapeutic; Treatment Outcome; Venous Thrombosis
PubMed: 37953217
DOI: 10.21037/apm-23-463 -
Hepatobiliary & Pancreatic Diseases... Jun 2023Post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) is the Achilles' heel of hepatic resection for colorectal liver metastases. The most commonly used procedure to generate... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Simultaneous portal and hepatic vein embolization is better than portal embolization or ALPPS for hypertrophy of future liver remnant before major hepatectomy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) is the Achilles' heel of hepatic resection for colorectal liver metastases. The most commonly used procedure to generate hypertrophy of the functional liver remnant (FLR) is portal vein embolization (PVE), which does not always lead to successful hypertrophy. Associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS) has been proposed to overcome the limitations of PVE. Liver venous deprivation (LVD), a technique that includes simultaneous portal and hepatic vein embolization, has also been proposed as an alternative to ALPPS. The present study aimed to conduct a systematic review as the first network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of the three regenerative techniques.
DATA SOURCES
A systematic search for literature was conducted using the electronic databases Embase, PubMed (MEDLINE), Google Scholar and Cochrane.
RESULTS
The time to operation was significantly shorter in the ALPPS cohort than in the PVE and LVD cohorts by 27 and 22 days, respectively. Intraoperative parameters of blood loss and the Pringle maneuver demonstrated non-significant differences between the PVE and LVD cohorts. There was evidence of a significantly higher FLR hypertrophy rate in the ALPPS cohort when compared to the PVE cohort, but non-significant differences were observed when compared to the LVD cohort. Notably, the LVD cohort demonstrated a significantly better FLR/body weight (BW) ratio compared to both the ALPPS and PVE cohorts. Both the PVE and LVD cohorts demonstrated significantly lower major morbidity rates compared to the ALPPS cohort. The LVD cohort also demonstrated a significantly lower 90-day mortality rate compared to both the PVE and ALPPS cohorts.
CONCLUSIONS
LVD in adequately selected patients may induce adequate and profound FLR hypertrophy before major hepatectomy. Present evidence demonstrated significantly lower major morbidity and mortality rates in the LVD cohort than in the ALPPS and PVE cohorts.
Topics: Humans; Hepatectomy; Hepatic Veins; Network Meta-Analysis; Treatment Outcome; Liver; Portal Vein; Liver Neoplasms; Hepatomegaly; Hypertrophy; Embolization, Therapeutic; Ligation
PubMed: 36100542
DOI: 10.1016/j.hbpd.2022.08.013 -
Digestive Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) 2022Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is technically challenging in the treatment of portal vein cavernous transformation (PVCT), and there is no... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is technically challenging in the treatment of portal vein cavernous transformation (PVCT), and there is no high-quality evidence regarding whether it is an option for patients with PVCT. We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the feasibility and safety of TIPS for PVCT.
METHODS
Systematic search of PubMed, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) database, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Wanfang database through December 2021 for appropriate studies reporting efficacy and safety in patients with PVCT undergoing TIPS. The main outcome included the technical success rate, postoperative rebleeding rate, postoperative hepatic encephalopathy rate, stent patency rate, preoperative, and postoperative portal pressure.
RESULTS
Ten studies, including 292 patients were included. Our results showed that TIPS was technically successful in 82.97% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 77.14%-88.41%, p = 0.297) with low heterogeneity (I2 = 18.39%, p = 0.279). Postoperative rebleeding occurred in 9.56% (95% CI: 4.55%-16.77%, p = 0.073) with moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 46.45%, p = 0.06). Postoperative hepatic encephalopathy occurred in 18.55% (95% CI: 9.23%-27.05%, p = 0.343) with moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 48.62%, p = 0.049). Stent patency during follow-up was in 78.43% (95% CI: 70.74%-85.20%, p = 0.805) with low heterogeneity (I2 = 0%, p = 0.654). Postoperative portal pressure significantly reduced (WMD = 12.79 mm Hg, 95% CI: 12.09-13.48 mm Hg, p < 0.00001) with high heterogeneity (I2 = 61.4%, p = 0.02). Both Begg test and funnel plot showed that there was no significant publication bias.
CONCLUSIONS
TIPS is feasible and safe in patients with PVCT and PVCT should not be considered an absolute contraindication to TIPS.
Topics: Humans; Portal Vein; Portasystemic Shunt, Transjugular Intrahepatic; Hepatic Encephalopathy; Portal Pressure; Treatment Outcome; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 35130546
DOI: 10.1159/000522313 -
Research and Practice in Thrombosis and... Oct 2019Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is common in cirrhosis. PVT is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Individual reports suggest that PVT occurs more frequently in...
BACKGROUND
Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is common in cirrhosis. PVT is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Individual reports suggest that PVT occurs more frequently in patients with cirrhosis and inherited thrombophilia. The relationship between cirrhosis, PVT development, and inherited thrombophilia was explored in this study. The aim of the study was to determine whether cirrhotic patients with nontumoral PVT have an increased rate of inherited thrombophilia.
METHODS
Studies were identified by searching electronic databases up to October 2017 with English language and human subject restrictions. Two independent reviewers screened citations and extracted data. Magnitude of effect was calculated to obtain aggregate estimates of effect size and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Between-study variability and heterogeneity were assessed.
RESULTS
Of 2893 citations identified, 9 studies composed of 1929 subjects with cirrhosis were included. The overall prevalence of PVT was 6.5% (n = 125). Both prothrombin G20210A mutation (odds ratio [OR], 2.43; 95% CI, 1.07-5.53; = 0.03) and factor V Leiden (FVL) (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.06-3.68; = 0.03) were significantly associated with PVT risk. Methyltetrahydrofolate reductase C677T mutation was not associated with increased PVT risk. No heterogeneity or publication bias was observed. One important study with opposite findings could not be included due to lack of primary data.
CONCLUSIONS
FVL and PTG20210A mutation were associated with increased PVT risk in patients with cirrhosis. This finding reframes the role of inherited thrombophilia in PVT development in patients with cirrhosis. Future prospective studies investigating screening for inherited thrombophilia in all cirrhosis patients with PVT seem warranted.
PubMed: 31624785
DOI: 10.1002/rth2.12253 -
Clinics and Research in Hepatology and... Dec 2015A systematic review of the literature was conducted to explore the association of portal vein thrombosis (PVT) with the risk of bleeding in liver cirrhosis. (Review)
Review
AIMS
A systematic review of the literature was conducted to explore the association of portal vein thrombosis (PVT) with the risk of bleeding in liver cirrhosis.
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases were searched for all relevant papers, which compared the prevalence of bleeding at baseline and/or incidence of bleeding during follow-up between cirrhotic patients with and without PVT.
RESULTS
Eighteen papers were eligible for this systematic review. The heterogeneity among studies was marked with regards to the treatment modalities, sources of bleeding, lengths of follow-up, and ways of data expression. But most of their findings were homozygous and suggested that the cirrhotic patients with PVT were more likely to have previous histories of bleeding at their admission and to develop de novo bleeding and/or rebleeding during the short- and long-term follow-up. The association of PVT with the risk of bleeding might be weakened in the multivariate analyses. Additionally, as for the cirrhotic patients with gastric variceal bleeding treated with medical/endoscopic therapy, the association of PVT with the risk of rebleeding remained controversial in 2 studies; as for the cirrhotic patients undergoing transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts for the management of variceal bleeding, a pre-existing PVT was not associated with the risk of rebleeding.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on a systematic review of the literature, there was a positive association between the presence of PVT and risk of bleeding in liver cirrhosis in most of clinical conditions. However, whether PVT aggravated the development of bleeding during follow-up needed to be further explored.
Topics: Esophageal and Gastric Varices; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Humans; Liver Cirrhosis; Portal Vein; Recurrence; Risk Factors; Venous Thrombosis
PubMed: 25956490
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinre.2015.02.012