-
Journal of Clinical and Experimental... 2023Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) leads to significant morbidity and mortality burden in patients with cirrhosis. An improved understanding of the utility of anticoagulation...
BACKGROUND
Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) leads to significant morbidity and mortality burden in patients with cirrhosis. An improved understanding of the utility of anticoagulation in patients with PVT will aid clinical decision making and inform future research. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the association between anticoagulation therapy and clinical outcomes in the context of treatment for PVT in cirrhosis.
METHODS
Pubmed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched from inception to February 13, 2022, for studies comparing the use of anticoagulation to other modalities as treatment for PVT in cirrhosis. Pooled odds ratios (OR) were calculated using a random-effects model for PVT improvement, recanalization, progression, bleeding events, and all-cause mortality in treatment studies.
RESULTS
We identified 944 records, of which 16 studies (n = 1126) examining anticoagulation as PVT treatment were included for subsequent analysis. Anticoagulation as PVT treatment was associated with PVT improvement (OR 3.64; 95% CI 2.56-5.17), PVT recanalization (OR 3.73; 95% CI 2.45-5.68), decreased PVT progression (OR 0.38; 95% CI 0.23-0.63), and decreased all-cause mortality (OR 0.47; 95% CI 0.29-0.75). The use of anticoagulation was not associated with bleeding events (OR 0.80; 95% CI 0.39-1.66). All analyses demonstrated low heterogeneity.
CONCLUSIONS
These results support the use of anticoagulation in cirrhosis as treatment for PVT. These findings may inform the clinical management of PVT and highlight the need for further studies such as large randomized controlled trials characterizing the safety and efficacy of anticoagulation for PVT in cirrhosis.
PubMed: 37250883
DOI: 10.1016/j.jceh.2022.12.016 -
World Journal of Surgical Oncology May 2023Peri-hilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) is a unique entity, and radical surgery provides the only chance for cure and long-term survival. But it is still under debate which... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Peri-hilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) is a unique entity, and radical surgery provides the only chance for cure and long-term survival. But it is still under debate which surgical strategy (i.e., left-sided hepatectomy, LH or right-sided hepatectomy, RH) should be followed and benefitted.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to analyze the clinical outcomes and prognostic value of LH versus RH for resectable pCCA. This study followed the PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines.
RESULTS
A total of 14 cohort studies include 1072 patients in the meta-analysis. The results showed no statistical difference between the two groups in terms of overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). But compared to the LH group, the RH group exhibited more employment of preoperative portal vein embolization (PVE), higher rate of overall complications, post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF), and perioperative mortality, while LH was associated with higher frequency of arterial resection/reconstruction, longer operative time, and more postoperative bile leakage. There was no statistical difference between the two groups in terms of preoperative biliary drainage, R0 resection rate, portal vein resection, intraoperative bleeding, and intraoperative blood transfusion rate.
CONCLUSIONS
According to our meta-analyses, LH and RH have comparable oncological effects on curative resection for pCCA patients. Although LH is not inferior to RH in DFS and OS, it requires more arterial reconstruction which is technically demanding and should be performed by experienced surgeons in high-volume centers. Selectin of surgical strategy between LH and RH should be based on not only tumor location (Bismuth classification) but also vascular involvement and future liver remnant (FLR).
Topics: Humans; Klatskin Tumor; Hepatectomy; Cholangiocarcinoma; Portal Vein; Bile Duct Neoplasms; Bile Ducts, Intrahepatic; Treatment Outcome; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37202795
DOI: 10.1186/s12957-023-03037-2 -
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 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2023Lenvatinib combined with programmed cell death protein-1 inhibitor has achieved good survival results in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor...
The treatment of transarterial chemoembolization/hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy combined with lenvatinib and PD-1 inhibitor is effective against hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombus: A systematic review.
BACKGROUND
Lenvatinib combined with programmed cell death protein-1 inhibitor has achieved good survival results in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombus. Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) or hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) has attracted attention because of its high response rate and favorable survival rate in patients with liver cancer and portal vein tumor thrombus. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of Lenvatinib combined with programmed cell death protein-1 inhibitor plus transarterial chemoembolization or hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombus.
METHOD
We searched PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library for studies. These included randomized controlled trials or clinical trials of Lenvatinib plus programmed cell death protein-1 inhibitor plus transarterial chemoembolization or hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (intervention group) versus Lenvatinib plus programmed cell death protein-1 inhibitor or Lenvatinib plus transarterial chemoembolization/hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy or Lenvatinib alone (control group) in liver cancer with portal vein tumor thrombus The primary outcomes were overall survival and progression-free time, and the secondary outcomes were response rate and the rate of adverse events. According to the heterogeneity among different studies, Revman5.4 was used to conduct fixed effect or random effect model analysis.
RESULTS
Five clinical trials were included, including 311 cases in the intervention group and 309 cases in the control group. In terms of efficacy, compared with the control group, the overall survival (HR=1.88, 95%CI: 1.57-2.25, P < 0.00001) and progression-free survival (HR=1.62, 95%CI: 1.41-1.86, P < 0.00001), better efficacy, and better disease response than the control group. In terms of safety, the risk of treatment-related adverse events in the intervention group was higher than that in the control group, and White Blood cell count decreased (RR=0.72, 95%CI: 0.38-1.37, P=0.32), Platelet count decreased (RR=0.99, 95%CI: 0.65-1.51, P=0.96) and Total bilirubin increased (RR=0.86, 95%CI: Increased) 0.88-1.28, P=0.46) were lower than those in the control group, and the rest were higher than those in the control group, and the differences in some results were statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS
Transarterial chemoembolization or hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy combined with Lenvatinib plus programmed cell death protein-1 inhibitor can effectively delay the progression, prolong the survival period and improve the quality of life of liver cancer patients with portal vein tumor thrombus.
PubMed: 36969065
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1054072 -
HPB : the Official Journal of the... Aug 2023To this day, a discrepancy exists between donor liver demand and supply. Domino liver transplantation (DLT) can contribute to increasing the number of donor livers... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
To this day, a discrepancy exists between donor liver demand and supply. Domino liver transplantation (DLT) can contribute to increasing the number of donor livers available for transplantation.
METHODS
The design of this systematic review was based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA). A qualitative analysis of included studies was performed. Primary outcomes were mortality and peri- and postoperative complications related to DLT.
RESULTS
Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria. All included studies showed that DLT outcomes were comparable to outcomes of deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) in terms of mortality and complications. One-year patient survival rate ranged from 66.7% to 100%. Re-transplantation rate varied from 0 to 12.5%. Most frequent complications were related to biliary (3.7%-37.5%), hepatic artery (1.6%-9.1%), portal vein (12.5-33.3%) and hepatic vein events (1.6%), recurrence of domino donor disease (3.3%-17.4%) and graft rejection (16.7%-37.7%). The quality of the evidence was rated as moderate according to the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS).
CONCLUSION
DLT outcomes were similar to DDLT in terms of mortality and complications. Even though DLT will not solve the entire problem of organ shortage, transplant programs should always consider using this tool to maximize the availability of liver grafts.
Topics: Humans; Living Donors; Liver Transplantation; Tissue and Organ Procurement; Hepatic Artery; Postoperative Complications; Graft Survival; Treatment Outcome; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 36935291
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2023.03.006 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is an effective way to improve portal hypertension, however, the role of anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy...
Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is an effective way to improve portal hypertension, however, the role of anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy following TIPS remains controversial. We conducted this study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy following TIPS. A literature search was conducted on anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy after TIPS using Pubmed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane. The retrieval period was from the earliest accessible date in the database to 31 October 2022. We collected information on the incidence of stent dysfunction, bleeding, hepatic encephalopathy, the new occurrence of portal vein thrombosis, and the survival rate. Stata was analyzed in RevMan. 1. Four studies received anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy after TIPS without control groups. According to the single-group rate meta-analysis, stent dysfunction occurred at 27% [95% CI (0.19, 0.38)], bleeding occurred at 21% [95% CI (0.14, 0.29)], new portal vein thrombosis occurred at 17% [(95%CI(0.04.0.71)], hepatic encephalopathy occurred at 47% [95%CI (0.34, 0.63)], and death occurred at 31% [95% CI (0.22, 0.42)]. 2. Eight studies, including 1025 patients, compared anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy after TIPS to TIPS alone. In terms of stent dysfunction, bleeding, and hepatic encephalopathy, there were no significant differences between the two groups. The use of anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy may result in a significant decrease in the incidence of new portal vein thrombosis and mortality over 1 year. Anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy may not improve the patency rate of TIPS, but may effectively prevent new portal vein thrombosis after TIPS. Following TIPS, the use of anticoagulants or antiplatelet drugs does not lead to an increase in bleeding or death.
PubMed: 36891262
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1116177 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2023Sorafenib was the first drug approved for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, it is limited by poor efficacy for HCC with portal vein tumor thrombus... (Review)
Review
Hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy versus sorafenib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombus: An updated meta-analysis and systematic review.
BACKGROUND
Sorafenib was the first drug approved for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, it is limited by poor efficacy for HCC with portal vein tumor thrombus (PVTT). Some studies suggested that hepatic artery infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) could provide survival benefits to patients with advanced HCC with PVTT.
AIM
The study aimed to compare the efficacy of HAIC versus sorafenib in patients with HCC accompanied by PVTT.
METHODS
The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies published until September 2022. Statistical analyses were performed using Stata SE 15 software.
RESULTS
Eight studies with 672 patients, 403 in the HAIC group and 269 in the sorafenib group, were included in the meta-analysis. The rates of complete response (RR=3.88, 95%CI:1.35-11.16, P=0.01), partial response (RR=3.46, 95%CI:1.94-6.18, P<0.0001), objective response rate (RR=4.21, 95%CI:2.44-7.28, P<0.00001) and disease control rate (RR=1.73, 95%CI:1.28-2.35, P=0.0004) were significantly higher in the HAIC group compared to the sorafenib group, whereas the progressive disease rate (RR=0.57, 95%CI:0.40-0.80, P=0.02) was significantly lower in the former. In contrast, the stable disease rate (RR=1.10, 95%CI (0.69-1.76), P=0.68) was similar in both groups. The overall survival (HR=0.50, 95%CI:0.40-0.63, P<0.05) and progression-free survival (HR=0.49, 95%CI:0.35-0.67, P<0.05) rates were significantly higher in the HAIC group compared to the sorafenib group.
CONCLUSION
HAIC has better efficacy against HCC with PVTT than sorafenib and may be considered an alternative to the latter. However, more high-quality randomized control trials and longer follow-ups are needed to verify our findings.
PubMed: 36776344
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1085166 -
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 -
Clinical and Experimental Medicine Oct 2023Selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) is a developing technique and its efficacy and modality of application in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are still... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparison of the efficacy and safety of selective internal radiotherapy and sorafenib alone or combined for hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) is a developing technique and its efficacy and modality of application in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are still controversial. This network meta-analysis aims to determine whether the efficacy and safety of SIRT alone and in combination are superior to that of sorafenib.
METHODS
Four databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) were searched before August 2022. Cochrane Randomized Trial Risk of Bias Assessment Tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale were used to assess the quality. The outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events (AEs).
RESULTS
A total of 9 eligible trials involving 1954 patients were included, and SIRT ranked first among the three treatment modalities in terms of both OS (probability, 52.3%) and PFS (probability, 68.6%). The combination of SIRT and sorafenib did not improve OS or PFS in patients with HCC. Although the combination of SIRT and sorafenib did not raise the risk of grade 3 or higher AEs, it may have introduced more AEs than either alone.
CONCLUSIONS
SIRT alone was found to be superior to sorafenib and the combination of the two in improving OS or PFS in patients with non-surgical HCC, especially in patients with combined portal vein tumor thrombus. The AEs induced by SIRT were different from those of sorafenib, but the overall toxicity was manageable, the combination of the two may cause an increase in the types of AEs that occur.
Topics: Humans; Carcinoma, Hepatocellular; Sorafenib; Liver Neoplasms; Bayes Theorem; Network Meta-Analysis
PubMed: 36737488
DOI: 10.1007/s10238-023-00997-3 -
Current Oncology (Toronto, Ont.) Jan 2023Background: Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) combined with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) may enhance the efficacy of treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Efficacy of Transarterial Chemoembolization Combined with Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients with Portal Vein Tumor Thrombus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Background: Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) combined with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) may enhance the efficacy of treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with portal vein tumor thrombus (PVTT); however, it remains unclear. We aim to evaluate the efficacy of TACE combined with TKIs. Methods: A thorough literature search was performed on major databases since their inception until October 2022. Based on the eligibility criteria, eight studies (2103 patients) were included. Results: Meta-analysis showed that TACE+sorafenib/apatinib had a better tumor response (objective response rate (ORR): RR = 4.85, 95% CI 2.68−8.75, disease control rate (DCR): RR = 3.23, 95% CI 1.88−5.56), and prolonged OS (HR = 0.50, 95%CI 0.42−0.60, p < 0.00001) than TACE alone. TACE+lenvatinib was stronger than TACE+sorafenib in ORR (60.7% vs. 38.9%) and TTP (HR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.43−0.86), whereas it was similar in DCR (96.4% vs. 96.3%) and OS (HR = 0.70 95% CI 0.46−1.05). Conclusions: TACE plus sorafenib or apatinib was superior to TACE alone for hepatocellular carcinoma with PVTT; no significant advantage was found between TACE+lenvatinib and TACE+sorafenib, although TACE+lenvatinib performed better in terms of ORR and TTP.
Topics: Humans; Carcinoma, Hepatocellular; Sorafenib; Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors; Liver Neoplasms; Portal Vein; Chemoembolization, Therapeutic; Treatment Outcome; Thrombosis
PubMed: 36661745
DOI: 10.3390/curroncol30010096