|
|
|||
|
| |||
|
| |||
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Pankaj Jain, Sandeep Nijhawan, Department of Gastro-enterology, Sms Medical College,Jaipur, India Correspondence to: Professor Sandeep Nijhawan, Department of Gastroenterology, Sms Medical College, Jaipur, India. dr_nijhawan@yahoo.com Telephone: +91-141-2722335 Fax: +91-141-2560994 Received: July 19, 2007 Revised: August 18, 2007
Abstract The etiology and pathogenesis of portal vein thrombosis are unclear. Portal venous thrombosis presentation differs in cirrhotic and tumor-related versus non-cirrhotic and non-tumoral extrahepatic portal venous obstruction (EHPVO). Non-cirrhotic and non-tumoral EHPVO patients are young and present with well tolerated bleeding. Cirrhosis and tumor-related portal vein thrombosis patients are older and have a grim prognosis. Among the 118 patients with portal vein thrombosis, 15.3% had cirrhosis, 42.4% had liver malignancy (primary or metastatic), 6% had pancreatitis (acute or chronic), 5% had hypercoagulable state and 31.3% had idiopathy, 12% had hypercoagulable state in the EHPVO group.
© 2007 WJG. All rights reserved.
Key words: Portal vein thrombosis; Cirrhosis; Malignancy; Extrahepatic portal venous obstruction
Jain P, Nijhawan S. Portal vein thrombosis: Etiology and clinical outcome of cirrhosis and malignancy-related non-cirrhotic, non-tumoral extrahepatic portal venous obstruction. World J Gastroenterol 2007; 13(39): 5288-5289
http://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/13/5288.asp
TO THE EDITOR We read with great interest the article “Portal hypertension due to portal venous thrombosis: Etiology, clinical outcomes” by Harmanci et al[1] in the May 14, 2007 issue of World Journal of Gastroenterology. We agree that portal vein thrombosis (PVT) should be considered under two different categories [acute or chronic PVT (noncirrhotic and nontumoral), (b) PVT due to cirrhosis and tumors], as the presentation, clinical course and prognosis are different in the two categories.
Of the 118 cases of PVT admitted
to our hospital over the 2-year period (from January 1, 2005 to
December 31, 2006), 50 were due to extrahepatic portal vein
obstruction (EHPVO) and 68 were due to cirrhosis and tumors. The
clinical and laboratory characteristics of 50 patients with EHPVO
are given in
Table 1.The patients were young and commonly
presented with features of hematemesis, hypersplenism, abdominal
pain and distension. Ten patients had acute PVT and 2 had
presentation as acute Budd-Chiari syndrome, 2 patients had pregnancy
and delivered the fetus at term with supportive treatment.
Thirty-six patients who presented with hematemesis were managed with
endoscopic variceal ligation (2-4 sessions), and four patients were
treated with gastric varices glue injection. These patients were
maintained on beta-blockers and follow-up endoscopic surveillance.
Four patients with symptomatic portal biliopathy were managed with
stent placement EHPVO affects young individuals who present with well-tolerated bleeding. The etiology and pathogenesis of PVT are unclear. It was initially proposed that umbilical sepsis or catheterization of umbilical veins in the neonatal period is responsible for PVT[2]. In recent years, the presence of congenital or acquired prothrombotic conditions has been considered an interesting hypothesis for the causation of PVT. FVL mutation is known to be less common among Asians as compared to the population of European descent. Koshy et al[3,4] reported that FVL mutation has been found in 3% patients with portal vein thrombosis and prothrombin G20210A gene in patients with portal vein thrombosis in a south Indian study. In our study, FVL mutation was present in 2% of cases. The clinical and laboratory features of 68 patients in cirrhosis and tumor groups are given in Table 1. The clinical presentation was abdominal pain and distension and jaundice. During a mean follow-up period of 7 mo (range 1-24 mo), 48% of the patients died. Of 118 cases of PVT admitted to our hospital, 15.3% had cirrhosis, 42.4% had liver malignancy (primary or metastatic), 6% had pancreatitis (acute or chronic), 5% had hypercoagulable state and 31.3% had idiopathy. The higher percentage in idiopathic group might be due to a low prevalence of hypercoagulable factors, abnormality and attribution of umbilical sepsis in childhood. The role of JAK2 mutation in early diagnosis of overt or silent myeloproliferative disease cannot be undermined but requires standardization[5]. In conclusion, the presentation, etiology and prognosis in non-cirrhotic and non-tumoral EHPVO patients are different from those in cirrhosis and tumor-related portal vein thrombosis patients.
REFERENCES 1 Harmanci O, Bayraktar Y. Portal hypertension due to portal venous thrombosis: etiology, clinical outcomes. World J Gastroenterol 2007; 13: 2535-2540 PubMed 2 Webb LJ, Sherlock S. The aetiology, presentation and natural history of extra-hepatic portal venous obstruction. Q J Med 1979; 48: 627-639 PubMed 3 Koshy A, Jeyakumari M. Factor V Leiden is not commonly associated with idiopathic portal vein thrombosis in southern India. Indian J Gastroenterol 2006; 25: 140-142 PubMed 4 Koshy A, Jeyakumari M. Prothrombin G20210A gene variant is not associated with idiopathic portal vein thrombosis in an area endemic for portal vein thrombosis. Ann Hematol 2006; 85: 126-128 PubMed 5 Primignani M, Barosi G, Bergamaschi G, Gianelli U, Fabris F, Reati R, Dell'Era A, Bucciarelli P, Mannucci PM. Role of the JAK2 mutation in the diagnosis of chronic myeloproliferative disorders in splanchnic vein thrombosis. Hepatology 2006; 44: 1528-1534 PubMed
S- Editor Liu Y L- Editor Wang XL E- Editor Li JL
|
|
|
|
|