NON-CIRRHOTIC PORTAL FIBROSIS CAUSING PORTAL HYPERTENSION

Portal hypertension is more prevalent in patients with liver cirrhosis and occurs infrequently in those without liver cirrhosis. Non-cirrhotic portal brosis (NCPF) and extrahepatic portal venous obstruction (EHPVO) are the two most common causes of non-cirrhotic portal hypertension. Unlike EHPVO, NCPF does not cause thrombosis of the extrahepatic portal vein. Sclerosis of the portal vein's medium and small branches occurs in NCPF. In NCPF, the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) is normal, in contrast to cirrhosis, where it is increased. Additionally, NCPF is referred to as non-cirrhotic intrahepatic portal hypertension (NCIPH), idiopathic portal hypertension, hepatoportal sclerosis, and benign intrahepatic portal hypertension. It is a disease with an unknown etiology that primarily affects middle-aged males and females and manifests as hematemesis and massive splenomegaly

Divergences in Macrophage Activation Markers Soluble CD163 and Mannose Receptor in Patients With Non-cirrhotic and Cirrhotic Portal Hypertension

IntroductionMacrophages are involved in development and progression of chronic liver disease and portal hypertension. The macrophage activation markers soluble (s)CD163 and soluble mannose receptor (sMR), are associated with portal hypertension in patient with liver cirrhosis but never investigated in patients with non-cirrhotic portal hypertension. We hypothesized higher levels in cirrhotic patients with portal hypertension than patients with non-cirrhotic portal hypertension. We investigated sCD163 and sMR levels in patients with portal hypertension due to idiopathic portal hypertension (IPH) and portal vein thrombosis (PVT) in patients with and without cirrhosis.MethodsWe studied plasma sCD163 and sMR levels in patients with IPH (n = 26), non-cirrhotic PVT (n = 20), patients with cirrhosis without PVT (n = 31) and with PVT (n = 17), and healthy controls (n = 15).ResultsMedian sCD163 concentration was 1.51 (95% CI: 1.24–1.83) mg/L in healthy controls, 1.96 (95% CI: 1.49–2.56) in patients with non-cirrhotic PVT and 2.16 (95% CI: 1.75–2.66) in patients with IPH. There was no difference between non-cirrhotic PVT patients and healthy controls, whereas IPH patients had significantly higher levels than controls (P < 0.05). The median sCD163 was significantly higher in the cirrhotic groups compared to the other groups, with a median sCD163 of 6.31 (95% CI: 5.16–7.73) in cirrhotics without PVT and 5.19 (95% CI: 4.18–6.46) with PVT (P < 0.01, all). Similar differences were observed for sMR.ConclusionSoluble CD163 and sMR levels are elevated in patients with IPH and patients with cirrhosis, but normal in patients with non-cirrhotic PVT. This suggests that hepatic macrophage activation is more driven by the underlying liver disease with cirrhosis than portal hypertension.

Banti’s Syndrome Presenting as Hematemesis - A Case Report

Massive splenomegaly presenting with hypersplenism, pancytopenia and portal hypertension, without any underlying known cause is known as Banti’s syndrome. There are various causes of splenomegaly. When all the known causes of portal hypertension are ruled out, it is termed as Banti’s syndrome. This syndrome was discovered by Guido Banti in 1882 and is named after him. Banti’s syndrome is also known as idiopathic portal hypertension or non-cirrhotic portal fibrosis.1 Banti’s syndrome is commonly found in India and Japan than in the West. 2 There is absence of any haematologic cause, primary hepatic cause or any tumour or mass lesion involving the spleen. Banti had stated that the primary organ involved was spleen and not the liver leading to secondary splenomegaly. Other features include normal liver function tests, varices seen in endoscopy, cytopenia of one or more cell lines, absence of cirrhosis, patent hepatic veins and elevated portal pressure with multiple collaterals. The complications include rupture of varices and massive bleeding. 3 We report a case of a 20-year-old male who presented to us with a history of fever for 7 days and one-episode of hematemesis on the day of admission. All known causes of hypersplenism were ruled out and he was diagnosed to have idiopathic massive splenomegaly with portal hypertension and hypersplenism.

Living donor liver transplantation for idiopathic portal hypertension with extrahepatic portal vein stenosis and splenic artery aneurysms: a case report and review of the literature

Background Idiopathic portal hypertension (IPH) generally has a good prognosis and rarely results in liver transplantation. Furthermore, there are few reports of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for IPH with extrahepatic portal vein stenosis. Case presentation We report the case of a 51-year-old female patient diagnosed with IPH more than 20 years ago. She suffered severe jaundice, massive ascites, and encephalopathy at the time of her visit to our hospital. The patient’s extrahepatic portal vein showed a scar-like stenosis, and the portal flow was completely hepatofugal. Collateral circulation such as the splenorenal shunt was well developed, and multiple splenic artery aneurysms up to 2 cm were observed in the splenic hilum. Her Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score increased to over 40 because of renal dysfunction, requiring temporary dialysis. We performed LDLT using her husband’s right lobe graft and splenectomy. The extrahepatic stenotic portal vein was completely resected, and the superficial femoral vein (SFV) graft collected from the recipient’s right leg was used for portal reconstruction as an interposition graft. Although the clinical course after LDLT had many complications, the patient was discharged on postoperative day 113 and has been fine for 2 years after LDLT. Histopathologically, the explanted liver had obliterative portal venopathy, nodular regenerative hyperplasia, and incomplete septal cirrhosis. Conclusion This case showed that severe IPH is occasionally associated with extrahepatic portal vein stenosis and can be treated with LDLT with portal vein reconstruction using an interposition graft. It was also suggested that the SFV is a useful choice for the interposition graft.

Idiopathic refractory ascites after allogeneic stem cell transplantation: a previously unrecognized entity

At our center, we observed a series of patients who developed transudative refractory ascites secondary to noncirrhotic, non-veno-occlusive disease (VOD)–related portal hypertension after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT). Patients were considered to have idiopathic portal hypertension-related refractory ascites (IRA) if they developed ascites secondary to intrahepatic portal hypertension (serum ascites albumin gradient ≥1.1 g/dL or hepatic venous pressure gradient [HVPG] >5 mm Hg), but did not meet the clinical criteria for classical VOD/sinusoidal obstructive syndrome (SOS) and did not have any alternate etiology of portal hypertension. From our institutional database, we identified 40 patients who developed IRA after allo-HSCT between 2004 and 2018. The patients’ median age at the time of allo-HSCT was 54 years (range, 21-73 years). The median time to development of IRA after allo-HSCT was 80 days (range, 16-576 days). The median number of paracentesis was 3 (range, 1-11), and 15 (38%) patients had an intraperitoneal catheter placed for continued drainage of the rapidly accumulating ascites. Portal pressures were measured in 19 patients; 6 (15%) had moderate portal hypertension (HVPG 6-9 mm Hg), and 13 (33%) had severe portal hypertension (HVPG ≥ 10 mm Hg). Liver biopsy was performed in 24 patients. None of the patients met the criteria for classical VOD/SOS (clinical/histological) or cirrhosis (histological). The cumulative incidence of nonrelapse mortality was 63%, and the median survival duration after the development of the IRA was 7 months (range, 0.8-125.6 months). IRA is a poorly understood and often fatal complication of allo-HSCT.