Briggs, William M.

INTRODUCTION: Acute portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is a rare diagnosis frequently associated with cirrhosis. Clinical presentation is typically nonspecific with potentially catastrophic short-term complications including sepsis, bowel infarction, and death. Management strategies differ for acute and chronic PVT. Guidelines for treating acute PVT recommend immediate initiation of systemic anticoagulation. Direct and indirect thrombolytic therapy (mechanical thrombectomy and fibrinolytic therapy) may be used in combination with systemic anticoagulation in the setting of bowel ischemia or as an adjunct in patients with a contraindication to systemic anticoagulation. We aimed to assess the success of thrombolytic therapy for non-malignant acute PVT and to compare the success of direct versus indirect thrombolytic therapy. METHODS: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis in which two independent librarians searched the following databases from the date of inception to March 2019: Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Scopus and Web of Science. All included studies provided technical and clinical success data, as well as adverse events, and technique(s) used for the intervention of non-malignant acute PVT. RESULTS: The two independent database searches yielded 143 citations, of which 79 duplicates were removed leaving a total of 64 references and 11 were included in our analyses. The overall success rate of thrombolytic therapy using the random effects model was 83% (95%CI: 0.67, 0.92; P = <0.01; I 2 = 61%). The overall clinical improvement rate of thrombolytic therapy using the fixed effects model was 95% (95%CI: 0.88, 0.98; P = 0.73; I 2 = 0%). The overall mortality of thrombolytic therapy using the fixed effects model was 5% (95%CI: 0.03, 0.11; P = 0.92; I 2 = 0%). In the direct and indirect thrombolytic groups, the rate of technical success was 84% and 52%, respectively, with an odds ratio of 3.37 (95%CI (0.96, 7.67), P -value = 0.127). CONCLUSION: Our analysis demonstrates that thrombolytic therapy successfully eliminates non-malignant acute PVTs with low rates of mortality. Direct thrombolysis may produce increased efficacy compared to indirect thrombolytic therapy. Larger prospective randomized trials comparing these interventions are warranted.

Insulin resistance is highly prevalent in Asian Indians and contributes to worldwide public health problems, including diabetes and related disorders. Surrogate measurements of insulin sensitivity/resistance are used frequently to study Asian Indians, but these are not formally validated in this population. In this study, we compared the ability of simple surrogate indices to accurately predict insulin sensitivity as determined by the reference glucose clamp method. In this cross-sectional study of Asian-Indian men ( n = 70), we used a calibration model to assess the ability of simple surrogate indices for insulin sensitivity [quantitative insulin sensitivity check index (QUICKI), homeostasis model assessment (HOMA2-IR), fasting insulin-to-glucose ratio (FIGR), and fasting insulin (FI)] to predict an insulin sensitivity index derived from the reference glucose clamp method (SIClamp). Predictive accuracy was assessed by both root mean squared error (RMSE) of prediction as well as leave-one-out cross-validation-type RMSE of prediction (CVPE). QUICKI, FIGR, and FI, but not HOMA2-IR, had modest linear correlations with SIClamp(QUICKI: r = 0.36; FIGR: r = −0.36; FI: r = −0.27; P < 0.05). No significant differences were noted among CVPE or RMSE from any of the surrogate indices when compared with QUICKI. Surrogate measurements of insulin sensitivity/resistance such as QUICKI, FIGR, and FI are easily obtainable in large clinical studies, but these may only be useful as secondary outcome measurements in assessing insulin sensitivity/resistance in clinical studies of Asian Indians.