A221 CLINICAL CHARACTERISITICS OF PORTAL VEIN THROMBOSIS AMONG AN INPATIENT COHORT WITH CIRRHOSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) has a reported prevalence ranging from 0.6 to 26% in cirrhotic patients and yet optimal management in these patients remains unclear [1]. PVT can lead to poor outcomes including increased risk of bleeding, intestinal injury, and deterioration in liver function. Conversely, treatment of PVT in cirrhotic patients increases their risk of bleeding complications, particularly in patients with known varices. Aims The aim of this study is to better characterize the prevalence and impact of PVT in cirrhotic inpatients. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study based on data collected on adult patients admitted to the Ottawa Hospital between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2015. We included patients with a diagnosis of cirrhosis either before or during index admission. Patients with a radiology report indicating a PVT were compared to those without PVT. Non-Ontario residents were excluded and where there were multiple admissions per patient one admission was randomly selected to be used. Ethics approval was obtained from the Research Ethics Board at the University of Ottawa. Results This study found 34 patients with cirrhosis diagnosed with PVT during their hospitalization (3.73%). Of the patients with PVT, 23 were acute and 11 were chronic based on radiologic appearance. Mean age was similar between groups (PVT: 61.7, SD=9.8; No PVT: 62.3, SD=12.3). The mean Na-MELD was also similar (PVT: 17.6, no PVT: 17.3, p=0.82). Among patients with PVT, 11 patients presented with ascites, 10 with hepatic encephalopathy (HE), 5 with abdominal pain and 5 with an upper GI bleed. Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) occurred in 11.76% of patients with PVT as compared to 3% of patients without PVT (p value= 0.006). There also seemed to be a trend towards more HE in the cohort with PVT (20.6% vs 10.7%, p value= 0.07). With regards to screening for varices, 2 patients had an EGD in the 6 months prior to admission, 11 had an EGD on admission, 1 after anticoagulation due to bleeding, and 18 had no screening in the 6 months prior to admission. Twelve patients were treated for PVT, 17 were untreated and 5 did not have documentation about treatment. Of the patients that were not treated, 9 were due to palliative goals of care, 1 due to bleeding, 1 due to thrombocytopenia, 2 due to chronicity on imaging and 4 did not have reasons documented. Conclusions PVT is a known complication of cirrhosis, however the clinical significance and optimal management of patients with PVT is poorly understood. Although prevalence of PVT was low in this cohort, our data suggests some possible association between liver related complications and PVT, including SBP and HE. Further research is needed to determine how to best manage patients with PVT. 1. Garcia-Pagan JC, Valla DC. Portal vein thrombosis: a predictable milestone in cirrhosis? Journal of hepatology. 2009 Oct 1;51(4):632–4. Funding Agencies None
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".