Portal vein thrombosis: etiology, diagnostic strategy, therapy and management

VASA ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 81-92 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hidajat ◽  
Stobbe ◽  
Griesshaber ◽  
Schroder ◽  
Felix

Myeloproliferative disorder, liver cirrhosis with portal hypertension, deficiency of natural anticoagulant proteins, gene mutation and hepatocellular carcinoma are the most frequent causes of portal vein thrombosis (PVT). Higher accuracy of the diagnostic methods is the reason why today the cause of PVT can be found more frequently. With imaging methods, PVT with or without cavernous transformation can be diagnosed. Fresh thrombus can be undetected in sonography due to the low echogenity but can be recognized in color Doppler sonography, especially with contrast-enhancing agent. Contrast-enhanced 3D MR angiography allows a comparable accuracy in the detection of PVT as digital subtraction angiography. Therapeutical options of PVT consist of mechanical recanalization of the portal vein, local fibrinolysis with or without placement of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent shunt (TIPS), combination of mechanical recanalization and local fibrinolysis, systemic thrombolytic therapy, anticoagulation alone and surgical thrombectomy. Once PVT is found in sonography, Doppler sonography may be performed in order to distinguish benign from malignant thrombus. If further information is needed, MR angiography or contrast enhanced CT is the next step. If these tests are unsatisfactory, digital subtraction angiography should be performed. Until the early nineties, shunt surgery was recommended in patients with PVT who bled despite endoscopic treatment. Today, in symptomatic noncavernomatous PVT, recanalization with local methods is recommended. Additional implantation of TIPS should be performed when the patient is cirrhotic. In recent PVT in non-cirrhotic patients anticoagulation alone is recommended. It is expected that in old PVT anticoagulation can prevent further extension of the thrombus.

Radiology ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 225 (3) ◽  
pp. 829-834 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johannes H. M. Smits ◽  
Clemens Bos ◽  
Otto E. H. Elgersma ◽  
Wil A. M. A. van der Mark ◽  
Peter J. Blankestijn ◽  
...  

2000 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 125-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Lundin ◽  
Å. Svensson ◽  
E. Henriksen ◽  
T. Jonason ◽  
C. Forssell ◽  
...  

Purpose: To evaluate and compare the diagnostic accuracy of duplex ultrasound (US) and MR angiography (MRA) at 1.0 T in aortoiliac arterial disease using digital subtraction angiography (DSA) as the reference standard. In addition, a comparison of the 2D time-of flight (TOF) and 3D contrast-enhanced MRA (CE MRA) techniques was performed. Material and Methods: Prospectively, 39 patients with symptoms of lower-extremity arterial occlusive disease were examined using US, TOF MRA, CE MRA and DSA. Significant lesions (stenosis ≥50%) and occlusions were evaluated blindly for each method. Results: For all segments, the sensitivity for US, TOF MRA and CE MRA with regard to significant lesions was 0.72, 0.81 and 0.81, respectively, and the specificity for each was 0.97, 0.91 and 0.92, respectively. For significant lesions above the inguinal ligament the corresponding sensitivity was 0.84, 0.89 and 0.94 and the specificity 0.93, 0.82 and 0.73, respectively. The specificity was higher when the two MRA methods were combined. TOF MRA overgraded 7 segments as occluded. In most cases, the length of the occlusions was correctly determined on CE MRA, overestimated on TOF MRA and uncertain on US. Conclusion: Neither US nor MRA were sufficiently accurate to fully replace angiography. MRA was preferable to US as a non-invasive test when vascular intervention was contemplated. Although CE MRA was superior to TOF MRA, the most accurate results were achieved when the two methods were combined.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document