Interventional recanalization therapy in patients with non-cirrhotic, non-malignant portal vein thrombosis: comparison between transjugular versus transhepatic access

Purpose To compare the safety and outcome of transjugular versus percutaneous technique in recanalization of non-cirrhotic, non-malignant portal vein thrombosis. Methods We present a retrospective bicentric analysis of 21 patients with non-cirrhotic, non-malignant PVT, who were treated between 2016 and 2021 by interventional recanalization via different access routes (percutaneous [PT] vs. transjugular in transhepatic portosystemic shunt [TIPS] technique). Complication rates with a focus on periprocedural bleeding and patency as well as outcome were compared. Results Of the 21 patients treated (median age 48 years, range of 19–78), seven (33%) patients had an underlying prothrombotic condition. While 14 (57%) patients were treated for acute PVT, seven (43%) patients had progressive thrombosis with known chronic PVT. Nine patients underwent initial recanalization via PT access and twelve via TIPS technique. There was no significant difference in complete technical success rate according to initial access route (55.5% in PT group vs. 83.3% in TIPS group, p = 0.331). However, creation of an actual TIPS was associated with higher technical success in restoring portal venous flow (86.6% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.030). 13 (61.9%) patients received thrombolysis. Nine (42.8%) patients experienced hemorrhagic complications. In a multivariate analysis, thrombolysis (p = 0.049) and PT access as the first procedure (p = 0.045) were significant risk factors for bleeding. Conclusion Invasive recanalization of the portal vein in patients with PVT and absence of cirrhosis and malignancy offers a good therapeutic option with high recanalization and patency rates. Bleeding complications result predominantly from a percutaneous access and high amounts of thrombolytics used; therefore, recanalization via TIPS technique should be favored.