World Journal of

WJ H Hepatology
Submit a Manuscript: https://www.f6publishing.com World J Hepatol 2022 April 27; 14(4): 682-695

DOI: 10.4254/wjh.v14.i4.682 ISSN 1948-5182 (online)

MINIREVIEWS

Direct oral anticoagulant administration in cirrhotic patients with

portal vein thrombosis: What is the evidence?

Marco Biolato, Mattia Paratore, Luca Di Gialleonardo, Giuseppe Marrone, Antonio Grieco

Specialty type: Gastroenterology Marco Biolato, Giuseppe Marrone, Antonio Grieco, Internal and Liver Transplant Medicine Unit,
and hepatology CEMAD, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario
Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome 00168, Italy
Provenance and peer review:
Invited article; Externally peer Marco Biolato, Mattia Paratore, Luca Di Gialleonardo, Giuseppe Marrone, Antonio Grieco, Institute
reviewed. of Internal Medicine, Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Rome 00168, Italy

Peer-review model: Single blind Corresponding author: Marco Biolato, MD, PhD, Staff Physician, Internal and Liver Transplant
Medicine Unit, CEMAD, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Fondazione
Peer-review report’s scientific Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Largo A Gemelli 8, Rome 00168, Italy.
quality classification marco.biolato@policlinicogemelli.it
Grade A (Excellent): 0
Grade B (Very good): B
Grade C (Good): 0 Abstract
Grade D (Fair): 0 In recent years, the traditional concept that cirrhosis-related coagulopathy is an
Grade E (Poor): 0 acquired bleeding disorder has evolved. Currently, it is known that in cirrhotic
patients, the hemostatic system is rebalanced, which involves coagulation factors,
P-Reviewer: Voulgaris T, Greece
fibrinolysis and platelets. These alterations disrupt homeostasis, skewing it
Received: March 30, 2021 toward a procoagulant state, which can lead to thromboembolic manifestations,
Peer-review started: March 30, 2021 especially when hemodynamic and endothelial factors co-occur, such as in the
portal vein system in cirrhosis. Portal vein thrombosis is a common complication
First decision: July 27, 2021
of advanced liver cirrhosis that negatively affects the course of liver disease,
Revised: September 22, 2021
prognosis of cirrhotic patients and success of liver transplantation. It is still
Accepted: April 3, 2022 debated whether portal vein thrombosis is the cause or the consequence of
Article in press: April 3, 2022 worsening liver function. Anticoagulant therapy is the mainstay treatment for
Published online: April 27, 2022 acute symptomatic portal vein thrombosis. In chronic portal vein thrombosis, the
role of anticoagulant therapy is still unclear. Traditional anticoagulants, vitamin K
antagonists and low-molecular-weight heparin are standard-of-care treatments
for portal vein thrombosis. In the last ten years, direct oral anticoagulants have
been approved for the prophylaxis and treatment of many thromboembolic-
related diseases, but evidence on their use in cirrhotic patients is very limited. The
aim of this review was to summarize the evidence about the safety and effect-
iveness of direct oral anticoagulants for treating portal vein thrombosis in
cirrhotic patients.

Key Words: Dabigatran; Rivaroxaban; Apixaban; Edoxaban; Bleeding

©The Author(s) 2022. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.

WJH https://www.wjgnet.com 682 April 27, 2022 Volume 14 Issue 4

 Biolato M et al. Portal vein thrombosis

Core Tip: The role of anticoagulant therapy in portal vein thrombosis is still unclear, especially in partial,
chronic and asymptomatic thrombosis. Vitamin K antagonists and low-molecular-weight heparin were
demonstrated to be safe and effective, with a positive influence on liver function, portal hypertension and
mortality. Direct oral anticoagulants are a new approach to treat portal vein thrombosis in patients with
cirrhosis and have many advantages compared to classic anticoagulants, although evidence is still limited.
In patients awaiting liver transplantation, dabigatran may be promising for preventing thrombosis
progression because of the low rate of hepatotoxicity, predominant renal metabolism and reversibility in
perioperative management.

Citation: Biolato M, Paratore M, Di Gialleonardo L, Marrone G, Grieco A. Direct oral anticoagulant administration
in cirrhotic patients with portal vein thrombosis: What is the evidence? World J Hepatol 2022; 14(4): 682-695
URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-5182/full/v14/i4/682.htm
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4254/wjh.v14.i4.682

INTRODUCTION
Portal vein thrombosis
Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is defined as the presence of a thrombus within the portal vein, either in
the main trunk or intrahepatic branches, which can extend to the splenic or superior mesenteric vein
(SMV). Based on the degree of obstruction, PVT can be characterized as occlusive or nonocclusive.
Based on onset, PVT can be classified as acute or chronic. Acute PVT includes a symptomatic onset and
the exclusion of portoportal collaterals with imaging, while chronic PVT is defined as previously
diagnosed PVT or as PVT associated with long-lasting signs of thrombosis such as cavernoma. A
temporal cutoff dividing acute and chronic DVT has not been defined[1,2].

Prevalence and incidence

The heterogeneity of PVT incidence and prevalence is related to multiple factors, among the most
important of which are cirrhosis severity, the clinical presentation of PVT and diagnostic techniques
used to identify PVT. The analysis of a large multicenter study, which included 1243 cirrhotic patients
with Child-Pugh A (863) or B (380), showed that the cumulative PVT incidence was 4.6%, 8.2% and
10.7% at the 1-, 3- and 5-year follow-up, respectively[3]. However, in advanced cirrhosis, the annual
incidence was higher and ranged from 10% to 15%[1].
In the “Portal vein thrombosis Relevance On Liver cirrhosis: Italian Venous thrombotic Events
Registry” (PRO-LIVER) prospective multicenter study, the PVT prevalence in 753 cirrhotic patients who
underwent Doppler ultrasound was 17%, and Child-Pugh B or C, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC),
previous PVT and gastrointestinal bleeding were independently associated with PVT, suggesting that
there was a correlation between the progression of disease and PVT[4]. Interestingly, in this study, 45
patients who developed PVT received anticoagulant therapy. According to Zhang et al[5], the
prevalence was higher in advanced cirrhosis with acute decompensation than in compensated cirrhosis
(9.36% vs 5.24%). Acute PVT seems to be more common than chronic PVT in cirrhosis[6]. This is likely
related to the clinical presentation of acute PVT vs chronic PVT.
In the setting of liver transplantation, the prevalence of PVT ranges from 2% to 26%[7]. Francoz et al
[8] described a prevalence of 8.4% at the time of listing for transplantation and an annual incidence of
3.2% in patients without PVT at the time of listing.
In another retrospective study on approximately 400 Liver transplant candidates, the prevalence of
PVT was 10.3%, of which 25% had PVT at the time of listing for transplantation, 17.5% developed PVT
while waiting for transplantation and 57.5% were diagnosed with PVT during surgery[9].

Pathophysiology and risk factors for PVT

In noncirrhotic patients, PVT is uncommon and can occur more frequently in association with inherited
or acquired thrombophilia. Major risk factors for PVT in noncirrhotic patients are myeloproliferative
disorders, prothrombin gene G20210A mutation and antiphospholipid syndrome[10].
In cirrhotic patients, multiple systemic and local factors contribute to an increased risk of PVT. Recent
evidence changed the traditional understanding that cirrhotic patients acquired bleeding disorders due
to reduced levels of procoagulant factors. In chronic liver disease, the fragile rebalance of the hemostatic
system involves coagulation factors, platelets and fibrinolysis. Regarding the coagulation system, a
parallel modification of both prohemostatic and antihemostatic factors takes place. Antithrombin and
protein C reductions[11,12] and factor VIII increases were shown[12], and low fibrinogen levels and low
factor II, V, VII, IX, X and XI levels were demonstrated[12]. Concerning platelets, thrombocytopenia due
to sequestration, a shortened half-life and reduced production[13] may shift the balance toward

WJH https://www.wjgnet.com 683 April 27, 2022 Volume 14 Issue 4

Biolato M et al. Portal vein thrombosis

bleeding. Instead, high levels of von Willebrand factor (vWF) and reductions in its cleavage factor,
ADAMTS 13[14], promote thrombosis. Finally, the fibrinolytic system is rebalanced, with some
alterations, such as low plasmin inhibitor levels promoting fibrinolysis, and other alterations, such as
low plasminogen contrast fibrinolysis[14]. In liver cirrhosis, fibrinogen production is relatively
unchanged, but functional fibrinogen levels are reduced. This functional defect is called acquired
dysfibrinogenemia and is caused by the inadequate removal of excess sialic acid residues from
fibrinogen, resulting in fibrin polymerization impairment[15,16].
How is procoagulant imbalance in this setting possible? In 2011, Tripodi et al[17] demonstrated that
protein C reduction (caused by reduced liver synthetic activity) and factor VIII increases (caused by
vWF increases), which binds and protects factor VIII and reduces low-density lipoprotein-related
protein and triggers resistance to thrombomodulin activity, which is one of the most important antico-
agulant factors. Thus, it is not surprising that a decrease in protein C (PC) causes an increase in factor
VIII (FVIII) levels, and the FVIII/PC ratio predicts unfavorable outcomes in cirrhotic patients[18].
However, recent developments in this field suggest that in reality, coagulopathy in cirrhotic patients is
much more complicated than previously thought (as described by the classic view), and classic tests
used to determine this state are inaccurate. Therefore, new tools to detect cirrhosis-related
coagulopathy, which consider antithrombin, protein C and FVIII, are needed. One of the most
promising tests is the thrombin generation assay[19].
Hemodynamic factors play an important role in PVT development. A decrease in portal vein blood
flow velocity of less than 15 cm/second is closely related to PVT development in liver cirrhosis[20-22].
Considering this, all conditions that reduce the velocity of portal flow can promote PVT development,
such as nonselective beta blockers (NSBBs) or the presence of portosystemic shunts. NSBBs reduce the
portal pressure gradient by decreasing cardiac output and inducing unopposed alpha-1 adrenergic-
mediated splanchnic vasoconstriction, and they are widely used for the primary and secondary
prophylaxis of variceal bleeding[23,24]. A recent meta-analysis showed that NSBBs significantly
increased PVT risk in cirrhosis. In this study, the authors suggest ultrasound follow-up to estimate
portal vein blood flow in patients treated with long-term NSBBs[25]. Portosystemic shunts open when
portal pressure increases to deviate the portal flow to the inferior vena cava through various collateral
circles. The convergence of portal blood flow into these vessels, called the “steal effect”, slows the portal
flow velocity and is associated with a major risk of PVT, as found by Maruyama et al[26].
Inherited thrombophilic disorders, such as prothrombin gene G20210A polymorphisms[27],
deficiencies of antithrombin, protein C and protein S, factor V Leiden[28], or lupus anticoagulant[29],
increase PVT risk in patients with cirrhosis[30], but the low prevalence of these conditions does not
justify screening to search for these alterations[31,32]. Other risk factors were associated with PVT in
cirrhosis. Some evidence has demonstrated that the presence of endothelial damage predisposes
patients to thrombosis[33]. This damage could be related to higher intestinal permeability and higher
gut-derived bacterial lipopolysaccharide (LPS)[34], which also stimulate endothelial cells to produce
and release factor VIII[35].
Intrabdominal surgery, especially splenectomy, significantly affects the development of PVT[5]. The
etiology of liver disease may be associated with major PVT risk, such as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease
(NAFLD)[21] or with a lower risk of PVT in cases of alcoholic cirrhosis, which might be correlated with
the effect of alcohol on coagulant function and vitamin status[36].
Sarin et al[37] proposed a model to assess the pretest probability of PVT. It is based on major criteria,
such as Child-Pugh B or C, PVT history and presence of prothrombotic risk mutations, and minor
criteria, such as new onset or worsening of portal hypertension, reduction in portal flow velocity < 15
cm/second, evidence of portosystemic shunt, active HCC, history of VTE, recent abdominal
intervention, and acute abdominal clinical manifestations. The presence of 2 major, 1 major and 2 minor,
or the presence of 4 minor criteria, suggests a high risk for PVT development[37]. This score could help
clinicians understand which patient could benefit from anticoagulant prophylaxis, but prospective trials
are needed to establish the score’s predictive role.

Clinical manifestations
The clinical presentation of PVT depends mainly on two factors: the extent of thrombotic occlusion,
partial or complete, and the time of thrombus formation, acute or chronic.
Acute PVT typically presents with gastrointestinal symptoms (due to splanchnic congestion), such as
abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting, up to severe gastrointestinal complications, such as bleeding,
sepsis and lactic acidosis[38]. Splenomegaly is frequent, ascites is rare[39]. The symptoms can be more
severe and prognosis unfavorable in cases of complete mesenteric thrombosis[6].
Chronic PVT is often asymptomatic and is usually accidentally discovered during radiological
examinations performed for other reasons[40,41]. The clinical presentation of chronic PVT is related to
manifestations of portal hypertension, such as ascites, hepatic encephalopathy, gastroesophageal
variceal bleeding[6] and hypersplenism with pancytopenia[39]. In addition, neovessel formation and
cavernomatosis can alter the anatomy of biliary ducts. The effects of these alterations can manifest with
portal cholangiopathy, characterized by pruritus, obstructive jaundice and cholangitis, or
“pseudocholangiocarcinoma”, a tangle of neovessels mimicking cholangiocarcinoma cancer[39].

WJH https://www.wjgnet.com 684 April 27, 2022 Volume 14 Issue 4

 Biolato M et al. Portal vein thrombosis

Diagnosis and staging of PVT

Doppler ultrasound is the most common diagnostic technique for PVT, with high sensitivity and
specificity[40]. Generally, diagnosis with ultrasound occurs during screening for HCC in asymptomatic
patients but should be performed in patients with suggestive symptoms[42] or in patients with deteri-
orating hepatic decompensation[1]. Normal PV flow excludes PVT, while positive results need further
evaluations with second-level imaging techniques, such as CT or MRI, to confirm the presence of acute
or chronic PVT[22], to exclude the presence of a neoplastic thrombus and to examine thrombus
extension. Sherman et al[43] proposed a scoring system called A-VENA, which considers venous
expansion, thrombus enhancement, neovascularity, tumors adjacent to the thrombus and alpha-
fetoprotein levels to distinguish a tumor thrombus from a nonneoplastic thrombus in HCC patients
being evaluated for liver transplantation.
A recent review and meta-analysis investigated the diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound
(CEUS) to differentiate PVT from neoplastic invasion in HCC. It was demonstrated that CEUS has
excellent accuracy and could be considered a valid alternative to second-level imaging techniques[44].
In some cases, it is necessary to perform a histological exam of the thrombus to distinguish a nontumor
thrombus from HCC vascular invasion. In this cases, endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle
aspiration (EUS-FNA) represents a feasible and safe tool for selected patients as an alternative to classic
transabdominal ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration[45].
Despite the use of multiple imaging techniques, PVT diagnosis can occur during surgery for liver
transplantation. In the retrospective study conducted by Bert et al[9], incidental PVT diagnoses during
surgery occurred in more than half of the PVT cases in the entire cohort.
The staging of PVT extension is very important to select treatments and to predict the potential
response to treatment. However, a comprehensive classification of PVT does not exist. In the setting of
liver transplantation, Yerdel’s classification[46] divided PVT into four categories based on the degree of
main portal vein obstruction and proximal and distal SMV extension. Each stage correlates with a
different portal reconstruction approach, and for stages 2-4, with a lower graft survival. In 2016, Sarin et
al[37] proposed a new anatomico-functional classification of PVT in cirrhosis, which considers the site
and extension of the thrombus, obstruction degree, duration and presentation, and functional relevance
of the thrombosis; the aim of this classification is to allow for standardization in future research in this
field.

Natural history and prognosis

The evolution of untreated PVT is still unclear. Three possible scenarios exist: spontaneous resolution,
stabilization, or progression of the thrombus. Data regarding the occurrence of these possibilities are
highly variable[22]. Spontaneous resolution or stabilization of the thrombus is the most frequent
evolution of PVT and occurs in 45% to 70% of cases[41]. Currently, data on the predictive factors for
PVT progression are still lacking. Evidence suggests that the degree of occlusion and extension of the
PVT do not correlate with the evolution of thrombosis[47].
Regarding prognosis, PVT seems to be related to a worse prognosis and to negatively influence the
decompensation of cirrhosis and long-term survival[48]. Amitrano et al[27] showed that PVT is
associated with increased overall mortality risk in cirrhosis. The same result was described in more
recent studies, which reported that PVT is associated not only with an increased mortality risk[5,49] but
also with a major incidence of ascites[49] and major variceal bleeding risks[5]. It is still unclear whether
PVT is the cause or the consequence of liver deterioration, and the data are controversial because PVT is
clearly associated with more severe portal hypertension and advanced cirrhosis[3].
Conversely, in compensated cirrhosis, the development of PVT is independent of liver disease
progression and is not related to decompensation or lower OLT-free survival[50]. These findings might
be explained by the fact that the population considered in these studies included a majority of patients
with Child-Pugh A, who have fewer risk factors for PVT and a reduced mortality rate than patients with
advanced cirrhosis.
Regarding patients who are candidates for orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT), PVT can be
detected at the time of listing for liver transplantation or can be diagnosed while patients are on the
waiting list. The presence of PVT at the time of listing is associated with worse posttransplant survival
[51] and with graft failure after OLT[52].
Although PVT is not a major contraindication for liver transplantation, the presence of a thrombus
can reduce surgical feasibility, which is associated with a poor prognosis when nonphysiological
reconstruction is performed[53,54]. When end-to-end anastomosis is performed, the survival rate at 1
and 5 years is similar between patients with or without PVT[55]. Conversely, the risk of portal vein
rethrombosis, gastrointestinal bleeding and small bowel obstruction is higher when nonphysiological
anastomosis is performed[56].
PVT is also associated with a prolonged duration of transplantation surgery (especially when
incidentally discovered at the time of surgery), prolonged hospitalization after surgery, and lower 1-
year survival, which is independent of the time of detection[9]. The negative impact of PVT on post-OLT
survival was documented by a recent meta-analysis, which reported significantly higher 30-day and 1-
year mortality in patients with pre-OLT complete PVT than in those with partial PVT or without PVT

WJH https://www.wjgnet.com 685 April 27, 2022 Volume 14 Issue 4

Biolato M et al. Portal vein thrombosis

[57].
The presence of PVT before transplantation is a risk factor for PVT recurrence after liver
transplantation[7]. The onset of PVT after liver transplantation is associated with reduced graft and
patient survival[58].

ANTICOAGULANT THERAPY IN PVT WITH CIRRHOSIS

Anticoagulant agents are the mainstay of therapy in many cases of thromboembolism, such as for the
treatment of lower limb venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, or stroke prevention in atrial fibril-
lation.
The role of anticoagulants in cirrhotic patients with portal vein thrombosis is still unclear, especially
in chronic asymptomatic PVT and in nonliver transplant candidates. Current guidelines do not propose
definitive evidence-based treatment strategies for cirrhotic patients affected by portal vein thrombosis.
The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) suggests that the indication for
treatment, anticoagulant type and duration of therapy should be considered on a case-by-case basis[59].
The European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) recommends starting anticoagulation with
low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in the absence of major contraindications for anticoagulant
therapy, switching to vitamin K antagonist (VKA) treatment for at least 6 mo and ensuring that there is
prior adequate prophylaxis for gastrointestinal bleeding. No indications were provided for the use of
direct oral anticoagulants in this setting[2,59].
The classic anticoagulants commonly used in PVT in cirrhotic patients are LMWH and VKAs, which
each has advantages and limitations. LMWH does not require monitoring and has an effect for a limited
time. However, subcutaneous injection may reduce compliance, and low antithrombin III levels in
cirrhotic patients may compromise the LMWH mechanism of action.
VKAs are usually used for long-term anticoagulation. Their advantages are oral administration and
reversibility with vitamin K supplementation. Conversely, VKAs require INR monitoring (which is
altered in patients with cirrhosis and probably does not reflect the real hemostatic status) and induce a
decrease in anticoagulant proteins C and S, which are already reduced in cirrhotic patients.
Fondaparinux, an indirect factor X-activated inhibitor, seems to be effective and safe in advanced
cirrhosis, but very little evidence is available[60].

Efficacy and safety of classic anticoagulants in PVT with cirrhosis

A body of evidence suggests that anticoagulant treatment of PVT in cirrhosis is effective and safe. In a
recent meta-analysis that included 1696 cirrhotic patients with PVT, anticoagulation therapy was
significantly associated with portal vein recanalization, a decrease in PVT progression, and an
improvement in survival, especially when treatment was started early[61]. According to these results,
other recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses reported a pooled response rate to anticoagulation
therapy that was considerably higher than that of the control group (66.7% vs 26%)[62].
Recanalization of the portal vein in patients treated with anticoagulants is associated with decreased
portal hypertension and related complications, with higher OLT-free survival[63].
Instead, the discontinuation of therapy in patients with previous PVT, which is itself considered a risk
factor for recurrence[47], is associated with a high PVT recurrence risk[64] (rethrombosis rate of 46.7%)
after stopping anticoagulation[61]. Therefore, the duration of anticoagulation after portal vein recanal-
ization is controversial.
Regarding safety, anticoagulant therapy in cirrhotic PVT is not associated with a significant increase
in bleeding risk compared with that in untreated cirrhotic patients[62-64].
Regarding the incidence of bleeding, Mohan et al[62] reported a pooled rate of bleeding that was
similar in patients treated with anticoagulant and the corresponding controls (7.8% vs 15.4%). Upper
gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis on anticoagulation has the same severity and
mortality as in patients with cirrhosis without anticoagulation treatment[65]. In support of these
findings, Wang et al[61] demonstrated that anticoagulation did not influence overall bleeding and is,
therefore, not a predictive factor for bleeding events.
In cirrhotic patients who are candidates for liver transplantation and are affected by PVT, the goal of
anticoagulant therapy is to prevent PVT progression and to promote portal and superior mesenteric
vein recanalization, allowing end-to-end anastomosis, which is associated with better outcomes.
Available guidelines support the use of anticoagulant treatment in cirrhotic patients with PVT who are
candidates for transplantation[2,59]; a recent study demonstrated a trend toward recanalization and a
beneficial trend toward 1-year survival in cirrhotic patients with PVT awaiting LT who were treated
with anticoagulant therapy[9]. No consensus exists regarding anticoagulation therapy after LT. A short
course of anticoagulant therapy should be administered to reduce the risk of rethrombosis, while
prolonged therapy should be recommended when nonphysiological reconstruction of portal
anastomosis is performed[66].
As Ponziani et al[39] suggested, the best recommendation for the future is to avoid PVT-related
complications by identifying patients at a high risk for PVT and introducing prevention strategies and

WJH https://www.wjgnet.com 686 April 27, 2022 Volume 14 Issue 4

 Biolato M et al. Portal vein thrombosis

adequate prophylaxis. In this field, only one prospective study demonstrated that prophylactic antico-
agulation with LMWH in Child-Pugh B or C was associated with decreased hepatic decompensation
and better survival[67]. Gaballa et al[68] proposed a scoring system to predict and stratify the risk of
PVT in cirrhosis. This score, called the PVT risk index (PVT-RI), was developed to predict the incidence
of PVT in liver transplant candidates and considers five variables associated with a higher PVT risk:
Age, African American descent, the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score, moderate/severe
ascites and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). A PVT-RI < 2.6 has a negative predictive value of 94%
and could be used to establish the time of ultrasound surveillance. A PVT-RI > 4.6, with a positive
predictive value of 85%, could identify a high-risk population that would benefit from anticoagulant
prophylaxis[68].
In this review, neoplastic PVT, which occurs as a complication of HCC, was not considered since
anticoagulation therapy is not recommended. Instead, the treatment of choice for neoplastic PVT
includes surgical resection, radiotherapy, TACE and systemic therapy[69]. Nonneoplastic PVT occurs in
approximately a quarter of patients with HCC, but no evidence exists about the role of anticoagulants in
this setting[47].

Direct oral anticoagulants

In the last ten years, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been increasingly prescribed to prevent
stroke in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and to treat thromboembolic disorders, such as venous
thromboembolism and pulmonary embolism, after their approval[69,70].
In regard to pharmacodynamic properties, DOACs can be divided into two categories: Factor X-
activated inhibitors, such as rivaroxaban, apixaban and edoxaban, and factor II-activated inhibitors,
such as dabigatran. Compared with classic anticoagulant molecules (LWMHs and VKAs), among the
advantages of DOACs are their oral administration in fixed doses, poor interaction with other drugs
and predictable pharmacokinetic profiles and anticoagulant effects; therefore, they do not need
laboratory monitoring. Rivaroxaban is metabolized by cytochrome P450 without forming active
metabolites and is mostly eliminated by renal excretion. Apixaban and edoxaban are metabolized by
cytochrome P3A4 without forming active metabolites. Apixaban is eliminated by renal excretion
(approximately 25% of the absorbed dose) and hepatic metabolism but mainly by intestinal excretion
(approximately 55%). Edoxaban is eliminated by the hepatobiliary (approximately 65%) and renal
(approximately 35%) systems. Rivaroxaban, apixaban and edoxaban act independently of endogenous
antithrombin. This could be useful in cirrhosis where antithrombin is reduced. Dabigatran is an oral
prodrug metabolized by esterase in various organs, including the liver, but not by hepatic cytochrome,
and approximately 80% of it is eliminated by renal excretion[71]. Renal impairment is the main factor
that influences the pharmacokinetics of DOACs. Regarding hepatic function, clinical recommendations
or contraindications are based on a small amount of evidence because cirrhotic patients have usually
been excluded from trials of these drugs[47]. Experience from the long-term use of DOACs in this
setting is still limited. All DOACs can be used in patients with mild hepatic dysfunction (Child-Pugh A)
without a significant bleeding risk. In patients with moderate hepatic dysfunction (Child-Pugh B),
dabigatran, apixaban and edoxaban can be used with caution, while rivaroxaban should not be used
because of increased plasma concentrations and pharmacodynamic effects[72]. In severe hepatic
dysfunction (Child-Pugh C), DOACs are not recommended[73].
Regarding hepatotoxicity, a recent systematic literature review reported two new cases of hepato-
cellular liver injury in patients treated with rivaroxaban[74], in addition to a case report by Liakoni et al
[75], who described his experience with ximelagatran, which was withdrawn two years after approval
because of severe hepatotoxicity[76]. However, the real hepatotoxic effect of new oral anticoagulants is
still unknown. All new oral anticoagulants can lead to hepatotoxicity with an idiosyncratic mechanism,
but this adverse event is very rare[77]. A recent meta-analysis considering patients treated with DOACs
demonstrated that the incidence of drug-induced liver injury (DILI) was insignificant when the data of
each drug were individually analysed[78]. A prospective study showed that dabigatran, rivaroxaban,
apixaban and edoxaban are associated with a lower incidence of liver injury than warfarin, and among
these, dabigatran seems to be the safest[79], probably due to its pharmacokinetic characteristics.
When the EASL published guidelines about PVT treatment in cirrhosis in 2016, no specific indications
were described for the use of DOACs, and they emphasized the need for randomized trials to assess the
efficacy and safety of DOACs in cirrhosis[2]. These recommendations have been confirmed by the most
recent AASLD guidelines. The lack of evidence is the result of patients with signs of liver disease being
excluded from clinical trials with DOACs[59].

Safety of DOACs in cirrhosis: current evidence

Evidence regarding the safety of DOACs in cirrhotic patients affected by atrial fibrillation or venous
thromboembolism suggests that DOACs may be safe in patients with mild to moderate chronic liver
disease, with rates of bleeding similar to those of traditional anticoagulants[80]. In a recent publication,
Violi et al[47] concluded that DOACs may be considered for the treatment of deep venous thrombosis or
for prophylaxis in patients with atrial fibrillation when cirrhotic patients are not eligible for VKAs.

WJH https://www.wjgnet.com 687 April 27, 2022 Volume 14 Issue 4

Biolato M et al. Portal vein thrombosis

In a more recent extended systematic review and meta-analysis, Menichelli et al[81] investigated the
safety of DOACs compared to VKAs in patients with advanced liver disease who received antico-
agulants for atrial fibrillation or deep vein thrombosis. The primary endpoints were any bleeding, major
bleeding, gastrointestinal bleeding, and intracranial hemorrhage. Considering more than forty thousand
patients, the authors concluded that treatment with DOACs compared to VKAs is associated with a
lower risk of major bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage, and all types of bleeding (pooled hazard ratios
0.39, 0.48 and 0.73, respectively), with no difference in gastrointestinal bleeding. Subsequently, the
subanalysis of only cirrhotic patients showed no difference in safety outcomes between the DOAC and
VKA groups[81]. In accordance with this study, a retrospective longitudinal analysis conducted by
Serper et al[82] also demonstrated that DOACs were associated with a significantly lower incidence of
bleeding than VKAs in a cohort of cirrhotic patients with atrial fibrillation. Moreover, both antico-
agulant classes have been proven to be capable of reducing all-cause mortality and the incidence rate of
hepatic decompensation when compared with any anticoagulant therapy.
Regarding the safety of DOACs in cirrhotic patients with PVT, one of the first studies was conducted
by De Gottardi et al[83], who compared the rate of bleeding in cirrhotic patients with that in noncirrhotic
controls. In this study, 36 patients affected by mild to moderate liver cirrhosis treated with DOACs for a
mean of 9.6 mo were included. Major or minor bleeding was reported in 5 cirrhotic patients (13.9%);
however, in 58 noncirrhotic patients treated with DOACs, minor and major bleeding was reported in 9
(15.9%) patients.
Regarding the safety of DOACs compared to traditional anticoagulants, Intagliata et al[84] reported a
comparable bleeding rate in patients affected by mild to moderate cirrhosis. In this study, the rate of
bleeding was analyzed in 20 cirrhotic patients prophylactically or therapeutically treated with
rivaroxaban or apixaban compared with 19 cirrhotic patients treated with traditional anticoagulants.
The indications for anticoagulant therapy were atrial fibrillation or VTE, including PVT. The total
bleeding and major bleeding rates were not significantly different between the two groups[84].
Similarly, Hum et al[85] investigated the difference in bleeding events between DOACs and traditional
anticoagulants in cirrhotic patients. Twenty-seven patients treated with rivaroxaban or apixaban and 18
patients treated with warfarin or LMWH affected by atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism,
including PVT, were included. Total bleeding was similar in the two groups: 10 events in the traditional
group and 8 in the DOAC group (P = 0.12). Major bleeding was significantly higher in the traditional
group than in the DOAC group (5 vs 1, P = 0.03).
Table 1 summarizes the evidence about DOAC safety in cirrhosis. The main limitation in assessing
DOAC safety in patients with cirrhosis is the lack of uniformity in outcome definitions. In the studies
examined, different bleeding definitions were used. To address this lack of uniformity, Nisly et al[86]
conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis considering only studies in which the primary safety
outcome was major bleeding according to the definition of the International Society on Thrombosis and
Haemostasis (ISTH). In these studies, pooled analysis demonstrated the absence of a statistically
significant difference between DOACs and traditional anticoagulants for ISTH major bleeding in
cirrhotic patients treated for stroke prevention or venous thromboembolism[86].

Efficacy of DOACs in PVT: Current evidence

Studies regarding the efficacy of DOACs to treat PVT in cirrhosis are very limited (Table 2). Ai et al[87]
studied the efficacy of rivaroxaban and dabigatran[87]. In this prospective study, 80 patients with
chronic PVT were enrolled and divided into two groups: 40 patients were treated for 6 mo with DOACs,
26 patients with rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily, 14 patients with dabigatran 150 mg twice daily, and 40
control patients were not treated with anticoagulant therapy. At 0, 3 and 6 mo, patients were tested with
ultrasound and pulsed Doppler to establish the portal blood flow rate and CT portal angiography to
examine thrombus extension. Regarding efficacy, in treated patients, a significant response in terms of
complete/partial recanalization and improved portal blood flow velocity compared with the control
group was demonstrated, which was superior at 6 mo than at 3 mo. The majority of recanalized patients
were Child-Pugh A, and none of them were Child-Pugh C. Regarding safety, no significantly different
bleeding rates in the treated vs the control group were shown. In this study, patients with moderate to
severe esophageal varices and platelet counts below 50 × 109/L were excluded.
Comparing DOACs with classic anticoagulants, Hanafy et al[88] designed a randomized, controlled,
interventional study in which they compared the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban with warfarin to
treat acute portal thrombosis in HCV-related cirrhosis. Eighty patients were enrolled. After 3 days of
enoxaparin 1 mg/kg every 12 h, forty patients continued therapy with rivaroxaban 10 mg twice daily;
instead, controls were treated with warfarin at variable dosages to maintain the international
normalized ratio (INR) between 2 and 2.5. Regarding efficacy, the primary outcome was partial or
complete PVT recanalization; the secondary outcome was the absence of recurrence after the end of
therapy. Regarding safety, the main outcome was major bleeding. The results showed that rivaroxaban
was more effective than warfarin in terms of complete or partial recanalization, time to recanalization,
recurrence of PVT and safety, with a significantly lower risk of major bleeding[88].
In a retrospective analysis, Nagaoki et al[89] evaluated the efficacy and safety of edoxaban compared
with warfarin to treat PVT in cirrhotic patients after 2 wk of danaparoid sodium. Twenty patients were
enrolled in the edoxaban group and received 60 mg or 30 mg once daily depending on renal function,

WJH https://www.wjgnet.com 688 April 27, 2022 Volume 14 Issue 4

 Biolato M et al. Portal vein thrombosis

Table 1 Safety of direct oral anticoagulants in cirrhosis

Drug administrated (n Child-Pugh score Indication for Events in cases vs

Ref. Definition of events
of patients) at baseline anticoagulant therapy control
Ai et al[87] Rivaroxaban 20 mg once Mean 7.2 PVT No definition of events 3 vs 1 (P = 0.616); 1
daily (26 pts) hematuria in dabigatran; 1
hemoptysis in rivaroxaban;
Dabigatran 150 mg twice 1 melena in rivaroxaban
daily (14 pts)

No anticoagulant (40 pts) Mean 7.4

Hanafy et Rivaroxaban 10 mg twice Mean 6.4 PVT Major bleeding 0 vs 17 (P = 0.001)

al[88] daily (40 pts)

Warfarin (40 pts) Mean 6.2 Death bleeding related 0 vs 8 (P = 0.001)

Nagaoki et Edoxaban 60 mg or 30 mg Child-Pugh A; (15 PVT Adverse events of grades 3 vs 2 (P = 0.335)

al[89] once daily (20 pts) pts); Child-Pugh B; 3/4 according to Common
(5 pts) Terminology Criteria for
Adverse Events version 4.0
Warfarin (30 pts) Child-Pugh A; (15
pts); Child-Pugh B;
(10 pts); Child-
Pugh C; (5 pts)

De Rivaroxaban (30 pts); Mean 6 PVT (22 pts); Budd Chiari Major bleeding 1
Gottardi et Dabigatran (4 pts); syndrome (5 pts); Cardiac
al[83] Apixaban (2 pts) Arrhythmia (5 pts); DVT (2
pts); Other (2 pts)

Minor bleeding 4

Intagliata Apixaban 5 mg or 2.5 mg Child A; (9 pts); PVT (12 pts); Non-splanchnic Major bleeding 1 vs 2 (P = 0.6)
et al[84] twice daily or; Child B; (11 pts) VTE (4 pts); Atrial fibrillation
Rivaroxaban 20 mg or 10 (4 pts)
mg daily (20 pts)

LMWH or VKA (19 pts) Child A (9 pts); Moderate bleeding 1 vs 1

Child B (10 pts)
Mild event 2 vs 1

Hum et al Rivaroxaban 15 mg daily Child A; (11 pts); PVT (4 pts); DVT (12 pts); Major bleeding 1 vs 5 (P = 0.03)
[85] (17 pts); Apixaban 5 mg Child B; (12 pts); Atrial fibrillation (15 pts)
twice daily (10 pts) Child C; (4 pts)

LMWH or WKA (18 pts) Child A; (7 pts); Moderate bleeding 4 vs 5 (P = 0.45)

Child B; (9 pts);
Child C; (2 pts) Mild bleeding 3 vs 0 (P = 0.26)

Goriacko et Dabigatran (35 pts); Child A; (48 pts); Atrial fibrillation Major bleeding 3.3% vs 3.9% (P = No
al[91] Rivaroxaban (29 pts); Child B; (26 pts); significance)
Apixaban (11 pts) Child C; (1 pts)

Warfarin (158) Child A; (56 pts);

Child B; (93 pts);
Child C; (9 pts)

PVT: Portal vein thrombosis; DVT: Deep vein thrombosis; VTE: Venous thromboembolism; LMWH: Low molecular weight heparin; VKA: Vitamin K
antagonist.

body weight and concomitant drug administration. Thirty patients were enrolled in the control group
treated with warfarin, and the INR target was 1.5-2. The duration of the study was 6 mo. Efficacy was
evaluated in terms of PVT volume and PVT reduction rate at 2 wk and 1, 3 and 6 mo, as assessed with
dynamic CT. Safety was evaluated according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events
(CTCAE) version 4.0. Additionally, in this study, the findings demonstrated the effectiveness of DOACs
compared to warfarin, showing a significant reduction in thrombus volume after 6 mo of treatment and
a higher prevalence of complete response. Regarding safety, there were no significant dissimilarities
between the two groups[89].

AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY
Although evidence has shown the noninferiority of DOACs compared with traditional anticoagulant
therapy, the studies examined varied in design, and no universal outcome definition was used.

WJH https://www.wjgnet.com 689 April 27, 2022 Volume 14 Issue 4

Biolato M et al. Portal vein thrombosis

Table 2 Efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants in portal vein thrombosis treatment in cirrhosis

Drug
PVT
Ref. Study design administrated (n Duration of treatment Results (cases vs controls)
type
of patients)
Ai et al Prospective cohort Rivaroxaban 20 mg 6 mo Chronic At 3 mo:; Complete/partial
[87] study once daily (26 pts) PVT; recanalization: 5 vs 0 (P = 0.026); At
6 mo:; Complete/partial recanal-
Dabigatran 150 mg 6 mo ization: 11 vs 1 (P = 0.003)
twice daily (14 pts)

No treatment (40
pts)

Hanafy et Randomized, Rivaroxaban 10 mg Until recanalization and prolonged for 1 or 2 Acute Complete recanalization: 34 vs 18 (
al[88] controlled, interven- twice daily (40 pts) mo in complete recanalization of PVT which PVT P = 0.001); Partial recanalization: 6
tional, open-label non-involvement/ involvement of SMV and for vs 0 (P = 0.001)
study Warfarin (40 pts) 6 mo in case of positive thrombogenic assay or
partial recanalization;

Nagaoki Retrospective cohort Edoxaban 60 mg or 6 mo PVT Complete recanalization: 14 vs 6 (P

et al[86] study 30 mg once daily (20 < 0.001); Partial recanalization: 4 vs
pts) 3 (P = 0.312)

Warfarin (30 pts)

PVT: Portal vein thrombosis.

Furthermore, in these studies, no uniformity in dosage strategy, treatment duration, clear predictor
efficacy or evidence on the ideal time of initiation and duration of anticoagulant therapy were
described. This poses a challenge for establishing the real effect and benefit of anticoagulant therapy
with DOACs in terms of portal recanalization.
Regarding safety, the definition of bleeding events varied between studies. However, the safety of
DOACs appears comparable or superior to that of classic anticoagulants. In addition, a major limitation,
which is shared in these studies, regards the characteristics of the patients included. Most of the patients
considered were affected by compensated cirrhosis. Insufficient data are reported about the safety and
efficacy of DOACs in patients affected by advanced liver cirrhosis.
No evidence exists about the role of prophylactic anticoagulant therapy. Villa et al[67] demonstrated
that prophylactic anticoagulant therapy with LMWH has some beneficial effects on the deterioration of
liver function and survival. Most likely, DOACs may contribute to reducing liver damage, especially in
early cirrhosis stages, and superior drug tolerance makes them suitable for wider use. The pharmaco-
dynamic and pharmacokinetic characteristics of DOACs could be an important tool for portal vein
thrombosis prophylaxis, but patients who would benefit most from this therapy have not yet been
identified. A defined stratification of the portal vein thrombosis risk is still lacking. There is a need to
validate scores to establish PVT risk and subsequent prophylactic anticoagulant therapy.
In the setting of liver transplantation, anticoagulant therapy with DOACs in patients with PVT on a
waiting list is a potential option to allow recanalization of the portal vein and to allow physiological
reconstruction of vessels. The major advantage for patients who are waiting for liver transplantation is
the possibility of counteracting the anticoagulant effect with reversal agents at any time, such as
idarucizumab for dabigatran or andexanet alfa for rivaroxaban. The main limitations are the high cost,
availability, and lack of evidence about their use in cirrhotic patients, especially with decompensated
disease.

CONCLUSION
This review emphasizes that DOACs could represent a valid alternative to the currently poorly defined
standard of care for portal vein thrombosis. However, we show that the lack of evidence and inhomo-
geneity of studies regarding outcome definitions to evaluate efficacy and safety poses challenges to
clinical trial design to evaluate DOACs and, as consequence, its use in clinical practice.
As shown here, in cirrhotic patients with mild hepatic function impairment, the safety and efficacy of
new oral anticoagulants seems to be noninferior compared with classic anticoagulants, especially in
patients with a low bleeding risk (platelet count >100,000/mm3 and no high-risk esophageal varices).
No significant differences between dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and edoxaban have been observed, while
data on apixaban for treating portal vein thrombosis in cirrhotic patients are limited[90]. In patients
with moderate liver dysfunction, anticoagulant drugs need to be selected with caution, especially those
metabolized by liver cytochromes. Considering this, molecules with a predominantly renal metabolism

WJH https://www.wjgnet.com 690 April 27, 2022 Volume 14 Issue 4

 Biolato M et al. Portal vein thrombosis

might be preferred in more advanced liver disease. In patients awaiting liver transplantation,
dabigatran may be promising in preventing thrombosis progression because of the low rate of hepato-
toxicity, predominant renal metabolism and reversibility by idarucizumab in perioperative
management. Well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to further evaluate the safety and
efficacy of DOACs to treat PVT in cirrhotic patients, especially in patients listed in the OLT setting.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank Lohmeyer FM, PhD, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, for
her help revising our manuscript.

FOOTNOTES
Author contributions: Biolato M and Paratore M wrote the paper; Paratore M and Di Gialleonardo L performed
literature analysis; Marrone G and Grieco A revised the paper for important intellectual content.

Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors declare no conflicts of interest for this article.

Open-Access: This article is an open-access article that was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by
external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial (CC BY-
NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license
their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-
commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/Licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Country/Territory of origin: Italy

ORCID number: Marco Biolato 0000-0002-5172-8208; Mattia Paratore 0000-0002-7546-8041; Luca Di Gialleonardo 0000-
0003-3814-095X; Giuseppe Marrone 0000-0002-9475-3948; Antonio Grieco 0000-0002-0544-8993.

S-Editor: Wang LL
L-Editor: A
P-Editor: Wang LL

REFERENCES
1 Intagliata NM, Caldwell SH, Tripodi A. Diagnosis, Development, and Treatment of Portal Vein Thrombosis in Patients
With and Without Cirrhosis. Gastroenterology 2019; 156: 1582-1599.e1 [PMID: 30771355 DOI:
10.1053/j.gastro.2019.01.265]
2 European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines: Vascular diseases of the liver. J
Hepatol 2016; 64: 179-202 [PMID: 26516032 DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2015.07.040]
3 Nery F, Chevret S, Condat B, de Raucourt E, Boudaoud L, Rautou PE, Plessier A, Roulot D, Chaffaut C, Bourcier V,
Trinchet JC, Valla DC; Groupe d'Etude et de Traitement du Carcinome Hépatocellulaire. Causes and consequences of
portal vein thrombosis in 1,243 patients with cirrhosis: results of a longitudinal study. Hepatology 2015; 61: 660-667
[PMID: 25284616 DOI: 10.1002/hep.27546]
4 Violi F, Corazza GR, Caldwell SH, Perticone F, Gatta A, Angelico M, Farcomeni A, Masotti M, Napoleone L, Vestri A,
Raparelli V, Basili S; PRO-LIVER Collaborators. Portal vein thrombosis relevance on liver cirrhosis: Italian Venous
Thrombotic Events Registry. Intern Emerg Med 2016; 11: 1059-1066 [PMID: 27026379 DOI:
10.1007/s11739-016-1416-8]
5 Zhang Y, Xu BY, Wang XB, Zheng X, Huang Y, Chen J, Meng ZJ, Gao YH, Qian ZP, Liu F, Lu XB, Shi Y, Shang J, Li
H, Wang SY, Yin S, Sun SN, Hou YX, Xiong Y, Li BL, Lei Q, Gao N, Ji LJ, Li J, Jie FR, Zhao RH, Liu JP, Lin TF, Chen
LY, Tan WT, Zhang Q, Zou CC, Huang ZB, Jiang XH, Luo S, Liu CY, Zhang YY, Li T, Ren HT, Wang SJ, Deng GH,
Xiong SE, Liu XX, Wang C, Yuan W, Gu WY, Qiao L, Wang TY, Wu DD, Dong FC, Hua J. Prevalence and Clinical
Significance of Portal Vein Thrombosis in Patients With Cirrhosis and Acute Decompensation. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol
2020; 18: 2564-2572.e1 [PMID: 32109631 DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.02.037]
6 Cagin YF, Atayan Y, Erdogan MA, Dagtekin F, Colak C. Incidence and clinical presentation of portal vein thrombosis in
cirrhotic patients. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 2016; 15: 499-503 [PMID: 27733319 DOI:
10.1016/S1499-3872(16)60092-9]
7 Ponziani FR, Zocco MA, Senzolo M, Pompili M, Gasbarrini A, Avolio AW. Portal vein thrombosis and liver
transplantation: implications for waiting list period, surgical approach, early and late follow-up. Transplant Rev (Orlando)
2014; 28: 92-101 [PMID: 24582320 DOI: 10.1016/j.trre.2014.01.003]
8 Francoz C, Belghiti J, Vilgrain V, Sommacale D, Paradis V, Condat B, Denninger MH, Sauvanet A, Valla D, Durand F.
Splanchnic vein thrombosis in candidates for liver transplantation: usefulness of screening and anticoagulation. Gut 2005;
54: 691-697 [PMID: 15831918 DOI: 10.1136/gut.2004.042796]

WJH https://www.wjgnet.com 691 April 27, 2022 Volume 14 Issue 4

Biolato M et al. Portal vein thrombosis

9 Bert J, Geerts A, Vanlander A, Abreu de Carvalho L, Degroote H, Berrevoet F, Rogiers X, van Vlierberghe H, Verhelst X.
Up to 50% of portal vein thrombosis remains undiagnosed until liver transplantation. Clin Transplant 2020; 34: e14107
[PMID: 33030231 DOI: 10.1111/ctr.14107]
10 Plessier A, Darwish-Murad S, Hernandez-Guerra M, Consigny Y, Fabris F, Trebicka J, Heller J, Morard I, Lasser L,
Langlet P, Denninger MH, Vidaud D, Condat B, Hadengue A, Primignani M, Garcia-Pagan JC, Janssen HL, Valla D;
European Network for Vascular Disorders of the Liver (EN-Vie). Acute portal vein thrombosis unrelated to cirrhosis: a
prospective multicenter follow-up study. Hepatology 2010; 51: 210-218 [PMID: 19821530 DOI: 10.1002/hep.23259]
11 Tripodi A, Primignani M, Lemma L, Chantarangkul V, Mannucci PM. Evidence that low protein C contributes to the
procoagulant imbalance in cirrhosis. J Hepatol 2013; 59: 265-270 [PMID: 23583273 DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2013.03.036]
12 Tripodi A, Primignani M, Lemma L, Chantarangkul V, Mannucci PM. Evidence that low protein C contributes to the
procoagulant imbalance in cirrhosis. J Hepatol 2013; 59: 265-270 [PMID: 23583273 DOI: 10.1111/jth.14011]
13 Moore AH. Thrombocytopenia in Cirrhosis: A Review of Pathophysiology and Management Options. Clin Liver Dis
(Hoboken) 2019; 14: 183-186 [PMID: 31879561 DOI: 10.1002/cld.860]
14 Zermatten MG, Fraga M, Moradpour D, Bertaggia Calderara D, Aliotta A, Stirnimann G, De Gottardi A, Alberio L.
Hemostatic Alterations in Patients With Cirrhosis: From Primary Hemostasis to Fibrinolysis. Hepatology 2020; 71: 2135-
2148 [PMID: 32090357 DOI: 10.1002/hep.31201]
15 Martinez J, MacDonald KA, Palascak JE. The role of sialic acid in the dysfibrinogenemia associated with liver disease:
distribution of sialic acid on the constituent chains. Blood 1983; 61: 1196-1202 [PMID: 6839020 DOI:
10.1182/blood.V61.6.1196.1196]
16 Ahmad S, Hunt BJ. Coagulopathy of Liver Disease. In: Gonzalez E, Moore HB, Moore EE, editors. Trauma Induced
Coagulopathy. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2016: 471-482 [DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-28308-1_29]
17 Tripodi A, Mannucci PM. The coagulopathy of chronic liver disease. N Engl J Med 2011; 365: 147-156 [PMID: 21751907
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMra1011170]
18 Kalambokis GN, Oikonomou A, Christou L, Kolaitis NI, Tsianos EV, Christodoulou D, Baltayiannis G. von Willebrand
factor and procoagulant imbalance predict outcome in patients with cirrhosis and thrombocytopenia. J Hepatol 2016; 65:
921-928 [PMID: 27297911 DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2016.06.002]
19 Lebreton A, Sinegre T, Lecompte T, Talon L, Abergel A, Lisman T. Thrombin Generation and Cirrhosis: State of the Art
and Perspectives. Semin Thromb Hemost 2020; 46: 693-703 [PMID: 32820480 DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1715102]
20 Zocco MA, Di Stasio E, De Cristofaro R, Novi M, Ainora ME, Ponziani F, Riccardi L, Lancellotti S, Santoliquido A, Flore
R, Pompili M, Rapaccini GL, Tondi P, Gasbarrini GB, Landolfi R, Gasbarrini A. Thrombotic risk factors in patients with
liver cirrhosis: correlation with MELD scoring system and portal vein thrombosis development. J Hepatol 2009; 51: 682-
689 [PMID: 19464747 DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2009.03.013]
21 Stine JG, Argo CK, Pelletier SJ, Maluf DG, Caldwell SH, Northup PG. Advanced non-alcoholic steatohepatitis cirrhosis:
A high-risk population for pre-liver transplant portal vein thrombosis. World J Hepatol 2017; 9: 139-146 [PMID: 28217250
DOI: 10.4254/wjh.v9.i3.139]
22 Nicoară-Farcău O, Soy G, Magaz M, Baiges A, Turon F, Garcia-Criado A, Barrufet M, Burrel M, Hernández-Gea V,
García-Pagán JC. New Insights into the Pathogenesis, Risk Factors, and Treatment of Portal Vein Thrombosis in Patients
with Cirrhosis. Semin Thromb Hemost 2020; 46: 673-681 [PMID: 32820481 DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1715473]
23 Garcia-Tsao G, Bosch J. Management of varices and variceal hemorrhage in cirrhosis. N Engl J Med 2010; 362: 823-832
[PMID: 20200386 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMra0901512]
24 European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of patients with
decompensated cirrhosis. J Hepatol 2018; 69: 406-460 [PMID: 29653741 DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2018.03.024]
25 Xu X, Guo X, De Stefano V, Silva-Junior G, Goyal H, Bai Z, Zhao Q, Qi X. Nonselective beta-blockers and development
of portal vein thrombosis in liver cirrhosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hepatol Int 2019; 13: 468-481 [PMID:
31175581 DOI: 10.1007/s12072-019-09951-6]
26 Maruyama H, Okugawa H, Takahashi M, Yokosuka O. De novo portal vein thrombosis in virus-related cirrhosis:
predictive factors and long-term outcomes. Am J Gastroenterol 2013; 108: 568-574 [PMID: 23381015 DOI:
10.1038/ajg.2012.452]
27 Amitrano L, Guardascione MA, Brancaccio V, Margaglione M, Manguso F, Iannaccone L, Grandone E, Balzano A. Risk
factors and clinical presentation of portal vein thrombosis in patients with liver cirrhosis. J Hepatol 2004; 40: 736-741
[PMID: 15094219 DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2004.01.001]
28 Amitrano L, Brancaccio V, Guardascione MA, Margaglione M, Iannaccone L, D'Andrea G, Marmo R, Ames PR, Balzano
A. Inherited coagulation disorders in cirrhotic patients with portal vein thrombosis. Hepatology 2000; 31: 345-348 [PMID:
10655256 DOI: 10.1002/hep.510310213]
29 Kirkeby MH, Larsen JB, Grønbaek H, Hvas AM. Thrombophilia testing in patients with portal vein thrombosis. Scand J
Clin Lab Invest 2020; 80: 694-698 [PMID: 33026843 DOI: 10.1080/00365513.2020.1827289]
30 Ma SD, Wang J, Bezinover D, Kadry Z, Northup PG, Stine JG. Inherited thrombophilia and portal vein thrombosis in
cirrhosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Res Pract Thromb Haemost 2019; 3: 658-667 [PMID: 31624785 DOI:
10.1002/rth2.12253]
31 Rodriguez-Castro KI, Vitale A, Fadin M, Shalaby S, Zerbinati P, Sartori MT, Landi S, Pettinari I, Piscaglia F, Han G,
Burra P, Simioni P, Senzolo M. A prediction model for successful anticoagulation in cirrhotic portal vein thrombosis. Eur J
Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019; 31: 34-42 [PMID: 30188408 DOI: 10.1097/MEG.0000000000001237]
32 Fortea JI, Carrera IG, Puente Á, Cuadrado A, Huelin P, Tato CÁ, Fernández PÁ, Montes MDRP, Céspedes JN, López AB,
Sanchez FJG, Hoyos ML, Crespo J, Fábrega E. Portal Thrombosis in Cirrhosis: Role of Thrombophilic Disorders. J Clin
Med 2020; 9 [PMID: 32878264 DOI: 10.3390/jcm9092822]
33 Shalaby S, Simioni P, Campello E, Spiezia L, Gavasso S, Bizzaro D, Cardin R, D'Amico F, Gringeri E, Cillo U, Barbiero
G, Battistel M, Zanetto A, Ruzzarin A, Burra P, Senzolo M. Endothelial Damage of the Portal Vein is Associated with
Heparin-Like Effect in Advanced Stages of Cirrhosis. Thromb Haemost 2020; 120: 1173-1181 [PMID: 32604425 DOI:
10.1055/s-0040-1713169]

WJH https://www.wjgnet.com 692 April 27, 2022 Volume 14 Issue 4

 Biolato M et al. Portal vein thrombosis

34 Praktiknjo M, Trebicka J, Carnevale R, Pastori D, Queck A, Ettorre E, Violi F. Von Willebrand and Factor VIII
Portosystemic Circulation Gradient in Cirrhosis: Implications for Portal Vein Thrombosis. Clin Transl Gastroenterol 2020;
11: e00123 [PMID: 32032127 DOI: 10.14309/ctg.0000000000000123]
35 Carnevale R, Raparelli V, Nocella C, Bartimoccia S, Novo M, Severino A, De Falco E, Cammisotto V, Pasquale C,
Crescioli C, Scavalli AS, Riggio O, Basili S, Violi F. Gut-derived endotoxin stimulates factor VIII secretion from
endothelial cells. Implications for hypercoagulability in cirrhosis. J Hepatol 2017; 67: 950-956 [PMID: 28716745 DOI:
10.1016/j.jhep.2017.07.002]
36 Fan X, Huang X, Hershman M, Zheng X, Jiang C, Yue B, Weisberg I. Portal vein thrombosis prevalence and mortality
among alcoholic cirrhosis in a nationwide inpatient cohort. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020; 32: 1160-1167 [PMID:
31834054 DOI: 10.1097/MEG.0000000000001624]
37 Sarin SK, Philips CA, Kamath PS, Choudhury A, Maruyama H, Nery FG, Valla DC. Toward a Comprehensive New
Classification of Portal Vein Thrombosis in Patients With Cirrhosis. Gastroenterology 2016; 151: 574-577.e3 [PMID:
27575821 DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2016.08.033]
38 Primignani M. Portal vein thrombosis, revisited. Dig Liver Dis 2010; 42: 163-170 [PMID: 19766546 DOI:
10.1016/j.dld.2009.08.003]
39 Ponziani FR, Zocco MA, Campanale C, Rinninella E, Tortora A, Di Maurizio L, Bombardieri G, De Cristofaro R, De
Gaetano AM, Landolfi R, Gasbarrini A. Portal vein thrombosis: insight into physiopathology, diagnosis, and treatment.
World J Gastroenterol 2010; 16: 143-155 [PMID: 20066733 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v16.i2.143]
40 Alzubaidi S, Patel I, Saini A, Knuttinen G, Naidu S, Kriegshuaser S, Albadawi H, Oklu R. Current concepts in portal vein
thrombosis: etiology, clinical presentation and management. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2019; 44: 3453-3462 [PMID: 31407054
DOI: 10.1007/s00261-019-02174-1]
41 Rugivarodom M, Charatcharoenwitthaya P. Nontumoral Portal Vein Thrombosis: A Challenging Consequence of Liver
Cirrhosis. J Clin Transl Hepatol 2020; 8: 432-444 [PMID: 33447527 DOI: 10.14218/JCTH.2020.00067]
42 Margini C, Berzigotti A. Portal vein thrombosis: The role of imaging in the clinical setting. Dig Liver Dis 2017; 49: 113-
120 [PMID: 27965037 DOI: 10.1016/j.dld.2016.11.013]
43 Sherman CB, Behr S, Dodge JL, Roberts JP, Yao FY, Mehta N. Distinguishing Tumor From Bland Portal Vein Thrombus
in Liver Transplant Candidates With Hepatocellular Carcinoma: the A-VENA Criteria. Liver Transpl 2019; 25: 207-216
[PMID: 30246323 DOI: 10.1002/Lt.25345]
44 Chen J, Zhu J, Zhang C, Song Y, Huang P. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound for the characterization of portal vein thrombosis
vs tumor-in-vein in HCC patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 2020; 30: 2871-2880 [PMID:
32020403 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-019-06649-z]
45 Gimeno Garcia AZ, Aparicio JR, Barturen A, Moreno M, Nicolas-Perez D, Quintero E. Short article: Endoscopic
ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of portal vein thrombosis in patients with chronic liver disease and suspicion of
hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018; 30: 418-423 [PMID: 29420366 DOI:
10.1097/MEG.0000000000001094]
46 Yerdel MA, Gunson B, Mirza D, Karayalçin K, Olliff S, Buckels J, Mayer D, McMaster P, Pirenne J. Portal vein
thrombosis in adults undergoing liver transplantation: risk factors, screening, management, and outcome. Transplantation
2000; 69: 1873-1881 [PMID: 10830225 DOI: 10.1097/00007890-200005150-00023]
47 Violi F, Loffredo L, Pastori D. Anticoagulation in patients with advanced liver disease: an open issue. Intern Emerg Med
2021; 16: 61-71 [PMID: 33073317 DOI: 10.1007/s11739-020-02526-6]
48 Qi X, Dai J, Yang M, Ren W, Jia J, Guo X. Association between Portal Vein Thrombosis and Survival in Non-Liver-
Transplant Patients with Liver Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2015; 2015:
480842 [PMID: 25810714 DOI: 10.1155/2015/480842]
49 Stine JG, Shah PM, Cornella SL, Rudnick SR, Ghabril MS, Stukenborg GJ, Northup PG. Portal vein thrombosis, mortality
and hepatic decompensation in patients with cirrhosis: A meta-analysis. World J Hepatol 2015; 7: 2774-2780 [PMID:
26644821 DOI: 10.4254/wjh.v7.i27.2774]
50 Noronha Ferreira C, Reis D, Cortez-Pinto H, Tato Marinho R, Gonçalves A, Palma S, Leite I, Rodrigues T, Pedro AJ,
Alexandrino P, Serejo F, Sobral Dias M, Ferreira P, Vasconcelos M, Damião F, Xavier Brito L, Baldaia C, Fatela N,
Ramalho F, Velosa J. Anticoagulation in Cirrhosis and Portal Vein Thrombosis Is Safe and Improves Prognosis in
Advanced Cirrhosis. Dig Dis Sci 2019; 64: 2671-2683 [PMID: 30852769 DOI: 10.1007/s10620-019-05572-z]
51 Montenovo M, Rahnemai-Azar A, Reyes J, Perkins J. Clinical Impact and Risk Factors of Portal Vein Thrombosis for
Patients on Wait List for Liver Transplant. Exp Clin Transplant 2018; 16: 166-171 [PMID: 28621635 DOI:
10.6002/ect.2016.0277]
52 Ghabril M, Agarwal S, Lacerda M, Chalasani N, Kwo P, Tector AJ. Portal Vein Thrombosis Is a Risk Factor for Poor
Early Outcomes After Liver Transplantation: Analysis of Risk Factors and Outcomes for Portal Vein Thrombosis in
Waitlisted Patients. Transplantation 2016; 100: 126-133 [PMID: 26050013 DOI: 10.1097/TP.0000000000000785]
53 Turon F, Hernández-Gea V, García-Pagán JC. Portal vein thrombosis: yes or no on anticoagulation therapy. Curr Opin
Organ Transplant 2018; 23: 250-256 [PMID: 29432256 DOI: 10.1097/MOT.0000000000000506]
54 Chen H, Turon F, Hernández-Gea V, Fuster J, Garcia-Criado A, Barrufet M, Darnell A, Fondevila C, Garcia-Valdecasas
JC, Garcia-Pagán JC. Nontumoral portal vein thrombosis in patients awaiting liver transplantation. Liver Transpl 2016; 22:
352-365 [PMID: 26684272 DOI: 10.1002/Lt.24387]
55 Francoz C, Valla D, Durand F. Portal vein thrombosis, cirrhosis, and liver transplantation. J Hepatol 2012; 57: 203-212
[PMID: 22446690 DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2011.12.034]
56 Hibi T, Nishida S, Levi DM, Selvaggi G, Tekin A, Fan J, Ruiz P, Tzakis AG. When and why portal vein thrombosis
matters in liver transplantation: a critical audit of 174 cases. Ann Surg 2014; 259: 760-766 [PMID: 24299686 DOI:
10.1097/SLA.0000000000000252]
57 Zanetto A, Rodriguez-Kastro KI, Germani G, Ferrarese A, Cillo U, Burra P, Senzolo M. Mortality in liver transplant
recipients with portal vein thrombosis - an updated meta-analysis. Transpl Int 2018; 31: 1318-1329 [PMID: 30230053 DOI:
10.1111/tri.13353]

WJH https://www.wjgnet.com 693 April 27, 2022 Volume 14 Issue 4

Biolato M et al. Portal vein thrombosis

58 Duffy JP, Hong JC, Farmer DG, Ghobrial RM, Yersiz H, Hiatt JR, Busuttil RW. Vascular complications of orthotopic liver
transplantation: experience in more than 4,200 patients. J Am Coll Surg 2009; 208: 896-903; discussion 903 [PMID:
19476857 DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2008.12.032]
59 Northup PG, Garcia-Pagan JC, Garcia-Tsao G, Intagliata NM, Superina RA, Roberts LN, Lisman T, Valla DC. Vascular
Liver Disorders, Portal Vein Thrombosis, and Procedural Bleeding in Patients With Liver Disease: 2020 Practice Guidance
by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Hepatology 2021; 73: 366-413 [PMID: 33219529 DOI:
10.1002/hep.31646]
60 Zhang ZH, Zhang JW, He P, Zhou Y, Sun CY. Fondaparinux is effective for acute portal vein thrombosis in
decompensated cirrhotic patients. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017; 96: e8256 [PMID: 29049216 DOI:
10.1097/MD.0000000000008256]
61 Wang L, Guo X, Xu X, De Stefano V, Plessier A, Noronha Ferreira C, Qi X. Anticoagulation Favors Thrombus
Recanalization and Survival in Patients With Liver Cirrhosis and Portal Vein Thrombosis: Results of a Meta-Analysis. Adv
Ther 2021; 38: 495-520 [PMID: 33155180 DOI: 10.1007/s12325-020-01550-4]
62 Mohan BP, Aravamudan VM, Khan SR, Ponnada S, Asokkumar R, Adler DG. Treatment response and bleeding events
associated with anticoagulant therapy of portal vein thrombosis in cirrhotic patients: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ann Gastroenterol 2020; 33: 521-527 [PMID: 32879600 DOI: 10.20524/aog.2020.0503]
63 La Mura V, Braham S, Tosetti G, Branchi F, Bitto N, Moia M, Fracanzani AL, Colombo M, Tripodi A, Primignani M.
Harmful and Beneficial Effects of Anticoagulants in Patients With Cirrhosis and Portal Vein Thrombosis. Clin
Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018; 16: 1146-1152.e4 [PMID: 29066371 DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.10.016]
64 Pettinari I, Vukotic R, Stefanescu H, Pecorelli A, Morelli M, Grigoras C, Sparchez Z, Andreone P, Piscaglia F; BO-LIVES
(BOlogna LIVEr vascular Studies). Clinical Impact and Safety of Anticoagulants for Portal Vein Thrombosis in Cirrhosis.
Am J Gastroenterol 2019; 114: 258-266 [PMID: 30538290 DOI: 10.1038/s41395-018-0421-0]
65 Cerini F, Gonzalez JM, Torres F, Puente Á, Casas M, Vinaixa C, Berenguer M, Ardevol A, Augustin S, Llop E, Senosiaín
M, Villanueva C, de la Peña J, Bañares R, Genescá J, Sopeña J, Albillos A, Bosch J, Hernández-Gea V, Garcia-Pagán JC.
Impact of anticoagulation on upper-gastrointestinal bleeding in cirrhosis. A retrospective multicenter study. Hepatology
2015; 62: 575-583 [PMID: 25773591 DOI: 10.1002/hep.27783]
66 Bhangui P, Fernandes ESM, Di Benedetto F, Joo DJ, Nadalin S. Current management of portal vein thrombosis in liver
transplantation. Int J Surg 2020; 82S: 122-127 [PMID: 32387201 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.04.068]
67 Villa E, Cammà C, Marietta M, Luongo M, Critelli R, Colopi S, Tata C, Zecchini R, Gitto S, Petta S, Lei B, Bernabucci V,
Vukotic R, De Maria N, Schepis F, Karampatou A, Caporali C, Simoni L, Del Buono M, Zambotto B, Turola E, Fornaciari
G, Schianchi S, Ferrari A, Valla D. Enoxaparin prevents portal vein thrombosis and liver decompensation in patients with
advanced cirrhosis. Gastroenterology 2012; 143: 1253-1260.e4 [PMID: 22819864 DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2012.07.018]
68 Gaballa D, Bezinover D, Kadry Z, Eyster E, Wang M, Northup PG, Stine JG. Development of a Model to Predict Portal
Vein Thrombosis in Liver Transplant Candidates: The Portal Vein Thrombosis Risk Index. Liver Transpl 2019; 25: 1747-
1755 [PMID: 31436367 DOI: 10.1002/Lt.25630]
69 Steffel J, Verhamme P, Potpara TS, Albaladejo P, Antz M, Desteghe L, Haeusler KG, Oldgren J, Reinecke H, Roldan-
Schilling V, Rowell N, Sinnaeve P, Collins R, Camm AJ, Heidbüchel H; ESC Scientific Document Group. The 2018
European Heart Rhythm Association Practical Guide on the use of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in patients
with atrial fibrillation. Eur Heart J 2018; 39: 1330-1393 [PMID: 29562325 DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehy136]
70 Konstantinides SV, Meyer G, Becattini C, Bueno H, Geersing GJ, Harjola VP, Huisman MV, Humbert M, Jennings CS,
Jiménez D, Kucher N, Lang IM, Lankeit M, Lorusso R, Mazzolai L, Meneveau N, Ní Áinle F, Prandoni P, Pruszczyk P,
Righini M, Torbicki A, Van Belle E, Zamorano JL; ESC Scientific Document Group. 2019 ESC Guidelines for the
diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism developed in collaboration with the European Respiratory Society
(ERS). Eur Heart J 2020; 41: 543-603 [PMID: 31504429 DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz405]
71 Harder S, Graff J. Novel oral anticoagulants: clinical pharmacology, indications and practical considerations. Eur J Clin
Pharmacol 2013; 69: 1617-1633 [PMID: 23619611 DOI: 10.1007/s00228-013-1510-z]
72 Kubitza D, Roth A, Becka M, Alatrach A, Halabi A, Hinrichsen H, Mueck W. Effect of hepatic impairment on the
pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of a single dose of rivaroxaban, an oral, direct Factor Xa inhibitor. Br J Clin
Pharmacol 2013; 76: 89-98 [PMID: 23294275 DOI: 10.1111/bcp.12054]
73 Graff J, Harder S. Anticoagulant therapy with the oral direct factor Xa inhibitors rivaroxaban, apixaban and edoxaban and
the thrombin inhibitor dabigatran etexilate in patients with hepatic impairment. Clin Pharmacokinet 2013; 52: 243-254
[PMID: 23389892 DOI: 10.1007/s40262-013-0034-0]
74 Licata A, Puccia F, Lombardo V, Serruto A, Minissale MG, Morreale I, Giannitrapani L, Soresi M, Montalto G, Almasio
PL. Rivaroxaban-induced hepatotoxicity: review of the literature and report of new cases. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol
2018; 30: 226-232 [PMID: 29120909 DOI: 10.1097/MEG.0000000000001030]
75 Liakoni E, Rätz Bravo AE, Terracciano L, Heim M, Krähenbühl S. Symptomatic hepatocellular liver injury with
hyperbilirubinemia in two patients treated with rivaroxaban. JAMA Intern Med 2014; 174: 1683-1686 [PMID: 25155865
DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.3912]
76 Keisu M, Andersson TB. Drug-induced liver injury in humans: the case of ximelagatran. Handb Exp Pharmacol 2010; 407-
418 [PMID: 20020269 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-00663-0_13]
77 Liakoni E, Rätz Bravo AE, Krähenbühl S. Hepatotoxicity of New Oral Anticoagulants (NOACs). Drug Saf 2015; 38: 711-
720 [PMID: 26138527 DOI: 10.1007/s40264-015-0317-5]
78 Caldeira D, Barra M, Santos AT, de Abreu D, Pinto FJ, Ferreira JJ, Costa J. Risk of drug-induced liver injury with the new
oral anticoagulants: systematic review and meta-analysis. Heart 2014; 100: 550-556 [PMID: 24476812 DOI:
10.1136/heartjnl-2013-305288]
79 Alonso A, MacLehose RF, Chen LY, Bengtson LG, Chamberlain AM, Norby FL, Lutsey PL. Prospective study of oral
anticoagulants and risk of liver injury in patients with atrial fibrillation. Heart 2017; 103: 834-839 [PMID: 28057799 DOI:
10.1136/heartjnl-2016-310586]
80 Steuber TD, Howard ML, Nisly SA. Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Chronic Liver Disease. Ann Pharmacother 2019; 53:

WJH https://www.wjgnet.com 694 April 27, 2022 Volume 14 Issue 4

 Biolato M et al. Portal vein thrombosis

1042-1049 [PMID: 30947523 DOI: 10.1177/1060028019841582]

81 Menichelli D, Ronca V, Di Rocco A, Pignatelli P, Marco Podda G; CAR. Direct oral anticoagulants and advanced liver
disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Clin Invest 2021; 51: e13397 [PMID: 32895926 DOI:
10.1111/eci.13397]
82 Serper M, Weinberg EM, Cohen JB, Reese PP, Taddei TH, Kaplan DE. Mortality and Hepatic Decompensation in Patients
With Cirrhosis and Atrial Fibrillation Treated With Anticoagulation. Hepatology 2021; 73: 219-232 [PMID: 32267547
DOI: 10.1002/hep.31264]
83 De Gottardi A, Trebicka J, Klinger C, Plessier A, Seijo S, Terziroli B, Magenta L, Semela D, Buscarini E, Langlet P,
Görtzen J, Puente A, Müllhaupt B, Navascuès C, Nery F, Deltenre P, Turon F, Engelmann C, Arya R, Caca K, Peck-
Radosavljevic M, Leebeek FWG, Valla D, Garcia-Pagan JC; VALDIG Investigators. Antithrombotic treatment with direct-
acting oral anticoagulants in patients with splanchnic vein thrombosis and cirrhosis. Liver Int 2017; 37: 694-699 [PMID:
27778440 DOI: 10.1111/Liv.13285]
84 Intagliata NM, Henry ZH, Maitland H, Shah NL, Argo CK, Northup PG, Caldwell SH. Direct Oral Anticoagulants in
Cirrhosis Patients Pose Similar Risks of Bleeding When Compared to Traditional Anticoagulation. Dig Dis Sci 2016; 61:
1721-1727 [PMID: 26725062 DOI: 10.1007/s10620-015-4012-2]
85 Hum J, Shatzel JJ, Jou JH, Deloughery TG. The efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants vs traditional
anticoagulants in cirrhosis. Eur J Haematol 2017; 98: 393-397 [PMID: 28009449 DOI: 10.1111/ejh.12844]
86 Nisly SA, Mihm AE, Gillette C, Davis KA, Tillett J. Safety of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with mild to moderate
cirrhosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thromb Thrombolysis 2021; 52: 817-827 [PMID: 33728575 DOI:
10.1007/s11239-021-02424-4]
87 Ai MH, Dong WG, Tan XP, Xu L, Xu C, Zhang Q, Zhang Y, Li J. Efficacy and safety study of direct-acting oral
anticoagulants for the treatment of chronic portal vein thrombosis in patients with liver cirrhosis. Eur J Gastroenterol
Hepatol 2020; 32: 1395-1400 [PMID: 32675774 DOI: 10.1097/MEG.0000000000001846]
88 Hanafy AS, Abd-Elsalam S, Dawoud MM. Randomized controlled trial of rivaroxaban versus warfarin in the management
of acute non-neoplastic portal vein thrombosis. Vascul Pharmacol 2019; 113: 86-91 [PMID: 29886103 DOI:
10.1016/j.vph.2018.05.002]
89 Nagaoki Y, Aikata H, Daijyo K, Teraoka Y, Shinohara F, Nakamura Y, Hatooka M, Morio K, Nakahara T, Kawaoka T,
Tsuge M, Hiramatsu A, Imamura M, Kawakami Y, Ochi H, Chayama K. Efficacy and safety of edoxaban for treatment of
portal vein thrombosis following danaparoid sodium in patients with liver cirrhosis. Hepatol Res 2018; 48: 51-58 [PMID:
28342265 DOI: 10.1111/hepr.12895]
90 Dibiasi C, Wiegele M, Gratz J. Orthotopic liver transplantation in a patient receiving apixaban for portal vein thrombosis. J
Clin Anesth 2019; 56: 41-42 [PMID: 30684925 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2019.01.020]
91 Goriacko P, Veltri KT. Safety of direct oral anticoagulants vs warfarin in patients with chronic liver disease and atrial
fibrillation. Eur J Haematol 2018; 100: 488-493 [PMID: 29444357 DOI: 10.1111/ejh.13045]

WJH https://www.wjgnet.com 695 April 27, 2022 Volume 14 Issue 4

 Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc
7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA
Telephone: +1-925-3991568
E-mail: bpgoffice@wjgnet.com
Help Desk: https://www.f6publishing.com/helpdesk
https://www.wjgnet.com

© 2022 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.