Review
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2023.
World J Gastroenterol. Sep 7, 2023; 29(33): 4962-4974
Published online Sep 7, 2023. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v29.i33.4962
Table 1 Characteristics of studies on non-cirrhotic patients with portal vein thrombosis treated with direct oral anticoagulants
Study
Population
Outcomes
Adverse events
Ref.
ProspectiveNon-cirrhotic, atypical sites (including PVT); Riva and Api for PVT (n = 16) vs enoxa for PVT (n = 13)Riva and Apixaban are effective and safe in patients with venous thrombosis of atypical locationsNo major difference in bleeding rateJanczak et al[40], 2018
RetrospectiveNon-malignant PVT, both cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic; Edo (n = 4), Api (n = 3), Riva (n = 2), Dabi (n = 1) vs traditional AC (n = 12), no AC (n = 39)Favourable outcomes with DOACs with regression/resolution of thrombus in 20% of patients and stability or nonprogression in 80%One bleeding episode in DOACsScheiner et al[41], 2018
RetrospectiveNon-cirrhotic PVT; Riva (n = 65), Api (n = 20), Dabi (n = 8) vs Warf (n = 108), Enoxa (n = 70), Fondap (n = 2)Resolution rate: Dabi (75%), Api (65%), Riva (65%), Enoxa (57%), Warf (31%); Recanalization rates are higher in DOACs compared to Warf but similar to EnoxaLess major bleeding incidence in DOACsNaymagon et al[42], 2020
RetrospectiveIBD-associated PVT; DOACs (n = 23) vs Warf (n = 22), Enoxa (n = 13)Resolution rate: DOACs (96%), Warf (55%); DOACs group needed a shorter course of anticoagulation (median 3.9 vs 8.5)N/ANaymagon et al[43] 2021
RetrospectiveIntraabdominal surgery < 3 mo prior to PVT diagnosis; DOACs (n = 35) vs Warf (n = 31), Enoxa (n = 29), no AC (n = 12)Complete resolution rate: DOACs (77%), Enoxa (69%), Warf (45%), no AC (17%)N/ANaymagon et al[44], 2021
RetrospectivePVT with/without cirrhosis; DOACs (n = 13; 8 non-cirrhotic) vs Warf (n = 20; 15 non cirrotic)Treatment failure: DOACs (n = 0); Warf (n = 4)Major bleedings: DOACs: n=0; VKA: n=1Ilcewicz et al[45], 2021
ProspectiveSVT without cirrhosis; Riva 15 BID for 3 wk + Riva 20 mg OD for 3 mo (n = 100)Recanalization > 80% at 3 mo (47% complete)2 major bleeding; 2 SVT recurrenceAgeno et al[46], 2022
Table 2 Comparison of main clinical practice guidelines for the management of portal vein thrombosis in non-cirrhotic patients

EASL 2016[30]
AASLD 2020[38]
ACG 2020[52]
Baveno VII 2022[35]
ClassificationAcute; ChronicRecent: < 6 mo; Chronic: > 6 moAcute; ChronicRecent: < 6 mo; Chronic: > 6 mo
TreatmentAcute: AC; Chronic: Not specifiedRecent PVT: AC; Chronic complete PVT or cavernous transformation: No benefit from ACAcute PVT: AC; Chronic: thrombophilia, progression of thrombus into mesenteric veins, current or previous evidence of bowel ischemiaRecent PVT: At diagnosis; Chronic PVT: After prophylaxis for portal hypertensive bleeding in high-risk varices
Choice of anticoagulationLMWH, VKALMWH, VKA, DOACsUFH, LMWH for initiation; LMWH or VKA for maintenance (DOACs absorption limited in the presence of intestinal oedema)LMWH, VKA, DOACs
Duration of treatmentAt least 6 mo in presence of transient risk factor; long term for persistent risk factor or in case of chronic PVT with history of intestinal ischemia or recurrent thrombosisAC for 3 moAt least 6 mo for acute without thrombophilia; long term with thrombophiliaRecent PVT: At least 6 mo; Chronic: Long term for patient with permanent prothrombotic state
NotesEVL can be performed safely without withdrawing VKA
Table 3 Characteristics of studies on cirrhotic patients with portal vein thrombosis treated with direct oral anticoagulants
Study
Population
Aim of study
Doses and duration
Outcomes
Adverse events
Ref.
RetrospectiveCirrhotic, CP A/B/C; any indication (incl. PVT); subgroup with PVT: Riva or Api (n = 4) vs Enoxa or VKA (n = 3)Efficacy and safety of DOACs vs traditional AC in cirrhosisRiva 15 mg OD +/- 20 mg OD load; Api 5 mg BID +/- 10 mg BID load 10.6 mo (mean)Recurrent thrombosis: DOACs (n = 1); Trad AC (n = 1)Total bleeding events were similar in the two groups (with lesser major bleeding in the DOACs group)Hum et al[87], 2017
RetrospectiveCirrhotic, CP A/BAny indication (incl. PVT); subgroup with PVT: Riva or Api (n = 12) vs LMWH or Warf (n = 6)Compare the bleeding rates in cirrhotic patientsRiva 20 mg OD; Api 5 mg BID 10.6 mo (mean)No statistical difference between therapeutic and prophylactic dosing between groupsSimilar rates of major and minor bleeding in the two groupsIntagliata et al[89], 2016
RetrospectiveBoth cirrhotic and non, CP A/B; any indication (incl. PVT); subgroup with cirrhosis and PVT: Riva, Api or Dabi (n = 22)Indication for starting or switching to DOACs and report short-term efficacy and safetyCirrhotic: Different doses 9.6 mo (mean)Cirrhotic: recurrent PVT (n = 1, 4.5%)Cirrhotic group any indication: Major bleeding (n = 1), minor bleeding (n = 4)De Gottardi et al[88], 2017
RetrospectiveBoth cirrhotic and non, CP A/B/C; non-malignant PVT; Edo (n = 4), Api (n = 3), Riva (n = 2), Dabi (n = 1) vs traditional AC (n = 12), no AC (n = 39)Efficacy and safety of AC in non-malignant PVTEdo 30/60 mg OD, Api 5 mg BID, Riva 10 mg OD, Dabi 110 mg BID 9.2 mo (median)Favourable outcomes with DOACs: Regression/resolution 20%; stability/non-progression 80%Portal hypertensive gastropathy bleedingScheiner et al[41], 2018
RetrospectiveCirrhotic, CP A/B; non-malignant PVT; Edo (n = 20) vs Warf (n = 30) (following 2 wk Danaparoid)Compare the efficacy and safety of Edo and Warf for treatment of chronic PVT in cirrhotic patientsEdo 60 mg OD, (if CrCl > 50; n = 4) or Edo 30 mg OD (if CrCl < 50; n = 16) 6 mo (max)Edo group had more complete resolution and less PVT progression than Warf groupMajor GI bleeding: Edo (n = 3; 7%); Warf (n = 2; 15%)Nagaoki et al[91], 2018
ProspectiveCirrhotic, CP A; chronic PTV; Riva (n = 26), Dabi (n = 14) vs no AC (n = 40)Compare the efficacy and safety of DOACs and no AC in chronic PVT in cirrhotic patientsRiva 20 mg OD; Dabi 150 mg BID; 6 mo (max)Recanalization rate with DOACs 28.2% (statistically higher) and improvement of liver functionNo statistically significant difference between the DOACs and the control group in bleeding eventsAi et al[92], 2020
ProspectiveCirrhotic, CP A/B/C; non-malignant PVT; TIPS + AC (n = 197, 18 Riva) vs AC only (n = 63, 4 Riva) vs TIPS only (n = 88) vs nothing (n = 48)Compare the management using a wait-and-see strategy, AC, and TIPS to treat PVT in cirrhosisRiva 10 mg OD; 21.0 mo (median)Recanalization: 0% with Riva only (all with PVT and SMV thrombosis), 100% with Riva + TIPSMajor bleeding events: AC only (n = 14); TIPS+AC (n = 30)Lv et al[93], 2021