Anticoagulation in cirrhosis: ready … set … wait!

Newer Oral Anticoagulants in the Treatment of Acute Portal Vein Thrombosis in Patients with and without Cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Newer oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are being utilized increasingly for the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE). NOAC use is the standard of care for stroke prophylaxis in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and treatment of acute VTE involving extremities and pulmonary embolism. In contrast, most guidelines in the literature support the treatment of acute portal vein thrombosis (PVT) with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and vitamin K antagonists (VKA). Literature evaluating NOAC use in the treatment of acute portal vein thrombosis is sparse. This review focuses on the safety and efficacy of the use of NOACs in the treatment of acute PVT in patients, with or without concomitant cirrhosis, based on the most recent data available in the current literature.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted through a series of advanced searches in the following medical databases: PubMed, BioMed Central, Cochrane, and Google Scholar. Keywords utilized were as follows: NOAC, DOAC (direct oral anticoagulants), portal vein thrombosis, rivaroxaban, apixaban, dabigatran, and edoxaban. Articles related to newer anticoagulant use in patients with portal vein thrombosis were included.

RESULTS

The adverse events, including bleeding events (major and minor) and the failure of anticoagulation (propagation of thrombus or recurrence of PVT), are similar between the NOACs and traditional anticoagulants for the treatment of acute PVT, irrespective of the presence of cirrhosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Newer oral anticoagulants are safe and efficacious alternatives to traditional anticoagulation with low molecular weight heparin and vitamin K antagonists in the treatment of acute portal vein thrombosis with or without cirrhosis.

Anticoagulation in Patients With Cirrhosis: Caught Between a Rock-Liver and a Hard Place

OBJECTIVE

To review current literature for anticoagulation in patients with cirrhosis and provide a summary of the effects of cirrhosis on the coagulation cascade, therapeutic monitoring through interpretation of antifactor Xa (anti-Xa), activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), and international normalized ratio (INR) as well as current prophylaxis and treatment recommendations in cirrhotic patients.

METHODS

A systematic electronic literature search was conducted in PubMed using the key termsanticoagulation, warfarin, low-molecular-weight heparin(LMWH),unfractionated heparin(UFH),target-specific oral anticoagulants, deep-vein thrombosis(DVT),pulmonary embolism(PE),portal vein thrombosis(PVT),venous thromboembolism, anti-Xa, activated partial thromboplastin time, anticoagulation therapeutic monitoring, coagulopathy, coagulation cascade, chronic liver disease, cirrhosis, anddecompensated liver disease

STUDY SELECTION

Studies written in the English language from January 2000 to December 2015 were considered for this review article. All search results were reviewed, and the relevance of each article was determined by authors independently.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with cirrhosis are at higher risk for both bleeding and thrombosis-related complications. Cirrhosis affects production of both procoagulant and anticoagulant factors, thus resulting in increased INR and aPTT levels and decreased anti-Xa levels. LMWH is the treatment of choice for the prevention and treatment of DVT/PE/PVT in patients with cirrhosis, and monitoring with anti-Xa levels for dose adjustment is not recommended. UFH is an alternative in cirrhotic patients for shorter-term use and in cases of severe renal dysfunction and/or hemodynamic instability. Cirrhotic patients on anticoagulation therapy should be monitored closely for signs and symptoms of bleeding and thrombosis.

Progress in treatment of nontumoral portal vein thrombosis in liver cirrhosis

Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is not uncommon in patients with liver cirrhosis, and it increases the risk of gastroesophageal hemorrhage. At present, pharmacological treatment is the preferred selection of management of PVT. Studies have shown that anticoagulation therapy does not increase the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. Therefore, patients having indications should be given anticoagulation therapy as early as possible. When patients fail to respond to anticoagulation therapy, interventional therapy or surgery may be considered. This article reviews the recent knowledge about the treatment of PVT and discusses the progress in treatment of nontumoral PVT in liver cirrhosis.

Management of portal vein thrombosis in liver cirrhosis

Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is a fairly common complication of liver cirrhosis. Importantly, occlusive PVT might influence the prognosis of patients with cirrhosis. Evidence from a randomized controlled trial has shown that anticoagulation can prevent the occurrence of PVT in patients with cirrhosis without prior PVT. Evidence from several case series has also demonstrated that anticoagulation can achieve portal vein recanalization in patients with cirrhosis and PVT. Early initiation of anticoagulation therapy and absence of previous portal hypertensive bleeding might be positively associated with a high rate of portal vein recanalization after anticoagulation. However, the possibility of spontaneous resolution of partial PVT questions the necessity of anticoagulation for the treatment of partial PVT. In addition, a relatively low recanalization rate of complete PVT after anticoagulation therapy suggests its limited usefulness in patients with complete PVT. Successful insertion of a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) not only recanalizes the thrombosed portal vein, but also relieves the symptomatic portal hypertension. However, the technical difficulty of TIPS potentially limits its widespread application, and the risk and benefits should be fully balanced. Notably, current recommendations regarding the management of PVT in liver cirrhosis are insufficient owing to low-quality evidence.