Effects of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt treatment of patients with liver cirrhosis and portal hypertension: Case series

Rationale:Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is well established as an effective treatment tool for portal hypertension. However, the effects of TIPS in patients with liver cirrhosis and portal hypertension have not been adequately verified in clinical trials.Patient Concerns:To evaluate the effects of TIPS in patients with liver cirrhosis and portal hypertension with or without portal vein thrombosis (PVT).Interventions:A total of 55 patients with liver cirrhosis and portal hypertension received TIPS treatment from December 2014 to April 2018 were enrolled. Clinical data, including portal pressure, Child-Pugh score, and relevant complications were recorded.Outcomes:TIPS was successfully performed in 54 patients. The overall technical success rate was 98.19% without serious technical complications. After TIPS treatment, portal pressure was significantly reduced from 38.13 ± 4.00 cmH₂O to 24.14 ± 3.84 cmH₂O (P < 0.05). In addition, symptoms including gastrointestinal bleeding and ascites were improved after TIPS treatment. During the 6 to 21-month follow up, hepatic encephalopathy in 15 patients (27.8%), shunt dysfunction in 5 patients (9.3%), rebleeding in 12 patients (22.2%) and deterioration of liver function in 2 patients (3.7%) were recorded. Moreover, there were no significant differences in the rates of rebleeding and hepatic encephalopathy between patients with PVT and the non-PVT group, whereas the occurrence rate of TIPS dysfunction was higher in the PVT group, but not statistically significant.Lessons:TIPS treatment could alleviate the symptoms of liver cirrhosis and portal hypertension in individuals with or without PVT. However, complications during follow-up should be appropriately noted and addressed with corresponding treatments.     

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt versus open splenectomy and esophagogastric devascularization for portal hypertension with recurrent variceal bleeding

BACKGROUND: Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) and open splenectomy and esophagogastric devascu-larization (OSED) are widely used to treat patients with portal hypertension and recurrent variceal bleeding (PHRVB). This study aimed to compare the effectiveness between TIPS and OSED for the treatment of PHRVB.METHODS: The data were retrospectively retrieved from 479 cirrhotic patients (Child-Pugh A or B class) with PHRVB, who had undergone TIPS (TIPS group) or OSED (OSED group) between January 1, 2010 and October 31, 2014.RESULTS: A total of 196 patients received TIPS, whereas 283 underwent OSED. Within one month after TIPS and OSED, the rebleeding rates were 6.1% and 3.2%, respectively (P=0.122). Significantly lower incidence of pleural effusion, splenic vein thrombosis, and pulmonary infection, as well as higher hepatic encephalopathy rate, shorter postoperative length of hospital stay, and higher hospital costs were ob-served in the TIPS group than those in the OSED group. Dur-ing the follow-up periods (29 months), significantly higher incidences of rebleeding (15.3% vs 4.6%, P=0.001) and hepatic encephalopathy (17.3% vs 3.9%, P=0.001) were observed in the TIPS group than in the OSED group. The incidence of in-stent stenosis was 18.9%. The survival rates were 91.3% in the TIPS group and 95.1% in the OSED group. The long-term liver function did not worsen after either TIPS or OSED.CONCLUSION: For the patients with liver function in the Child-Pugh A or B class, TIPS is not superior over OSED in terms of PHRVB treatment and rebleeding prevention.     

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in the treatment of portal vein thrombosis: a critical review of literature

Reports of successful transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) surgery in patients with portal vein thrombosis (PVT) are considered anecdotal owing to the technical difficulty of the procedure and potential procedure-related complications. A literature review was undertaken to determine the feasibility and safety of TIPS in the treatment of PVT. All studies in which TIPS was attempted in patients with PVT were identified by searching through the PUBMED and MEDLINE databases. A total of 424 PVT patients undergoing TIPS were reported in 54 articles. The success rate of TIPS insertion was 67–100% in 19 case series. Further, 85 patients with portal cavernoma underwent successful TIPS insertions. Three therapeutic strategies of TIPS placement were used: (1) TIPS placement followed by portal vein recanalization via the shunt, (2) portal vein recanalization via percutaneous approaches followed by TIPS placement, and (3) TIPS insertion between a hepatic vein and a large collateral vessel without portal vein recanalization. Four approaches were used to access the portal vein: transjugular, transhepatic, transsplenic, and transmesenteric. Intra-abdominal hemorrhage secondary to hepatic capsule perforation was lethal in only three patients. No episode of pulmonary embolism was reported. Other procedure-related complications were reversible. The overall incidence of shunt dysfunction and hepatic encephalopathy was 8–33% and 0–50%, respectively. In conclusion, the reviewed studies uniformly support the feasibility and safety of TIPS for PVT even in the presence of portal cavernoma. Further, several major issues that remain unresolved are discussed.     

脾切除术与TIPS术治疗肝硬化患者门静脉血栓发生率比较*

目的 比较脾切除术与经颈静脉肝内门腔静脉内支架分流术(TIPS)治疗肝硬化患者门静脉血栓(PVT)发生率的差异。方法 2017年1月～2018年12月兰州大学第一医院诊治的肝硬化并发脾功能亢进症患者96例,其中接受脾切除者45例,接受TIPS术治疗者51例。术后随访12个月,使用腹部超声或CT或CTA检查诊断PVT。应用Kaplan-Meier法计算PVT累计发生率。结果 在术后1个月、3个月、6个月和12个月,脾切除术组PVT累计发生率分别为40.0%、46.7%、48.9%和48.9%,显著高于TIPS术组(分别为7.8%、9.8%、15.7%和21.6%,P<0.05);在接受脾切除术患者,基线指标比较发现PVT组门静脉主干直径显著大于非PVT组,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05);在TIPS术后1年,发生PVT患者11例(21.6%)。基线指标比较,未发现发生与未发生PVT组各指标具有统计学差异(P>0.05)。结论 在肝硬化并发脾功能亢进症患者,接受脾切除术后PVT累计发生率显著高于TIPS术。因此,术前应认真评估病情,严格掌握适应证,择优选择手术方法,并积极给予防治处理。     

乙肝肝硬化患者门静脉宽度与门静脉血栓形成的关系

背景门静脉血栓(portal vein thrombosis,PVT)的早期诊断仍是临床上一个难题,急需要发现可早期预测诊断的无创指标.目的探讨门静脉宽度与PVT形成之间的关系.方法收集418例乙肝肝硬化患者.根据是否发生PVT分为PVT组(n=66)和非PVT组(n=352)组.比较两组患者的一般资料差异,使用多因素Logistic回顾分析影响PVT发生的危险因素.通过受试者工作特征(receiver operating characteristic,ROC)曲线评估不同危险因素预测PVT的效能.结果与非PVT组患者相比,PVT组患者的Child-Pugh评分更高、Child-Pugh A级比例更低、血小板水平更高、D-二聚体水平更高、门静脉宽度更宽、门静脉血流更慢,上述差异均存在统计学意义(P<0.05).Logistic回归显示门静脉宽度(OR=3.941,P=0.001)、门静脉血流(OR=0.841,P=0.007)、血小板水平(OR=1.024,P=0.008)和D-二聚体水平(OR=2.383,P=0.000)是肝硬化患者发生PVT的独立危险因素.门静脉宽度诊断PVT的ROC曲线下面积最大为0.874,最佳诊断值为>12.5 mm,此时的预测敏感性和特异性分别为78%和82%.结论门静脉直径增加是肝硬化患者PVT发生的危险因素,对PVT诊断具有一定价值.     

肝硬化合并门静脉血栓致门静脉高压症治疗现状

肝硬化合并门静脉血栓(PVT)并不少见,PVT会进一步加重门静脉高压症,此时针对PVT的治疗可改善肝硬化患者的预后。目前的治疗方式包括抗凝治疗及经颈静脉肝内门体支架分流术(TIPS)。本文就此类患者的治疗现状作一综述。     

肝硬化门静脉血栓形成的危险因素

门静脉血栓(PVT)在肝硬化患者中较常见,合并PVT的静脉曲张更容易出血,止血失败率及再出血率更高,对于肝移植患者,其预后更差。目前PVT形成的相关危险因素较多,如肝功能严重程度、非选择性β受体阻滞剂的使用、门静脉血流速度等。重点对肝硬化PVT形成的危险因素进行综述,以进一步了解PVT形成的相关机制和PVT的危险程度。     

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) for Budd-Chiari syndrome or portal vein thrombosis: review of indications and problems

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) in patients who present with portal vein thrombosis (PVT) or Budd-Chiari Syndrome (BCS). METHODS: Nine patients with recent PVT and four patients with BCS underwent TIPS. The diagnosis was confirmed by color Doppler ultrasound and by angiogram in most patients. Patients were followed clinically and had TIPS checked periodically for patency. The end point was mortality, subsequent surgical shunting or orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). RESULTS: TIPS was placed in 13 of 15 (87%) patients with BCS or PVT. The mean decrease in pressure gradient was 56%. Median and mean follow-up were 14 months and 16.9 months. Procedure related complications occurred in two of 13 (15%), both in the PVT group. Direct procedural mortality was one of 13 (8%). The majority of patients with PVT (five of eight) underwent OLT. Of the remaining three, one patient subsequently developed a cavernous transformation of portal vein but is stable, one patient is stable, without further variceal bleeding, and one patient died because of multiple organ failure. In patients with BCS, three of four (75%) did well with TIPS, but one patient required immediate surgical shunting after occlusion of the TIPS. Two patients underwent OLT and the fourth patient is stable 2 yr later but has cirrhosis on biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with BCS, TIPS placement is effective and can be used as a bridge to liver transplantation. TIPS in the noncavernous PVT group should only be recommended when cirrhosis and uncontrollable variceal bleeding are present.     

经颈静脉肝内门腔静脉分流术治疗肝癌合并门静脉高压的临床研究

目的 探讨经颈静脉肝内门腔静脉分流术(TIPS)治疗肝癌合并门静脉高压的有效性、安全性和临床价值.方法 收集肝癌合并门静脉高压患者95例,其中63例行TIPS治疗(TIPS组),观察术后情况并随访生存期资料,其余32例(对照组)行内科支持治疗,随访生存期资料.评估TIPS组术后情况、术后肝性脑病、再出血、死亡原因等.行Kaplan-Meier生存分析比较两组中位生存时间,分析Child-Pugh分级及终末期肝病评估模式(MELD)评分与术后生存时间的关系.结果 TIPS组术后门静脉压力梯度平均降低13.6 cmH2O(1 cmH2O-0.098 kPa),术后6个月肝性脑病和再出血的累积发生率分别为20.6%和26.3%,截至随访结束死亡56例,其中最终死于门静脉高压破裂出血者12例.TIPS组中位生存期较对照组延长.TIPS组中MELD评分≤13分者中位生存时间大于评分>13分者(x2=4.71,P=0.03),Child-Pugh分级A到C级中位生存时间依次缩短(x2=15.6,P=0.00).结论 TIPS是治疗肝癌合并门静脉高压及其并发症安全有效的方法 ,应根据术前肝功能状况选择手术患者.     

Distal splenorenal shunt versus transjugular intrahepatic portal systematic shunt for variceal bleeding: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Variceal bleeding refractory to medical treatment with beta-blockers and endoscopic therapy can be managed by variceal decompression with either surgical shunts or transjugular intrahepatic portal systemic shunts (TIPS). This prospective randomized trial tested the hypothesis that patients receiving distal splenorenal shunts (DSRS) would have significantly lower rebleeding and encephalopathy rates than TIPS in management of refractory variceal bleeding. METHODS: A prospective randomized controlled clinical trial at 5 centers was conducted. One hundred forty patients with Child-Pugh class A and B cirrhosis and refractory variceal bleeding were randomized to DSRS or TIPS. Protocol and event follow-up for 2-8 years (mean, 46 +/- 26 months) for primary end points of variceal bleeding and encephalopathy and secondary end points of death, ascites, thrombosis and stenosis, liver function, need for transplant, quality of life, and cost were evaluated. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in rebleeding (DSRS, 5.5%; TIPS, 10.5%; P = .29) or first encephalopathy event (DSRS, 50%; TIPS, 50%). Survival at 2 and 5 years (DSRS, 81% and 62%; TIPS, 88% and 61%, respectively) were not significantly different (P = .87). Thrombosis, stenosis, and reintervention rates (DSRS, 11%; TIPS, 82%) were significantly (P < .001) higher in the TIPS group. Ascites, need for transplant, quality of life, and costs were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: DSRS and TIPS are similarly efficacious in the control of refractory variceal bleeding in Child-Pugh class A and B patients. Reintervention is significantly greater for TIPS compared with DSRS. Because both procedures have equivalent outcomes, the choice is dependent on available expertise and ability to monitor the shunt and reintervene when needed.     

Diagnóstico y tratamiento de la trombosis portal en la cirrosis hepática

Improved imaging techniques and the routine use of color Doppler ultrasound in the follow-up of patients with liver cirrhosis has increased diagnosis of portal vein thrombosis (PVT) in these patients. The extension of PVT should be evaluated with computed tomography angiography or magnetic resonance angiography. The natural history of PVT in cirrhosis and its impact on liver disease is unknown but it seems clear that PVT could increase the morbidity and mortality associated with liver transplantation and can even be a contraindication to this procedure when the thrombus extends to the superior mesenteric vein. Anticoagulation is a relatively safe and effective treatment in achieving recanalization of the splenoportal axis or in preventing progression of thrombosis and is therefore frequently used. The use of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPS) is reserved for patients unresponsive to anticoagulation or in those with severe complications of portal hypertension.     

非侵入性检测指标与食管静脉曲张套扎术后2周内再次出血的关系研究

目的研究非侵入性检测指标与食管静脉曲张套扎术后2周内再次出血的关系。方法回顾性分析自2004年1月至2008年6月行食管静脉曲张套扎治疗患者的临床资料．并进行统计学分析。结果出血组与对照组患者的性别、年龄、Child-pugh分级无统计学差异．肝硬化、肝硬化合并肝癌、肝硬化合并肝癌及门静脉栓子病例所占百分比两组无差别。人院时两组患者腹水、肝性脑病、休克的发生率、血红蛋白、血清白蛋白的平均值相比无统计学差异。出血组血清总胆红素（59．51±40．87μmol／L）、门静脉直径（12．00±1．64mm）均高于对照组（分别为40．90±33．78μmol／L、11．37±1．06mm）,但尚无统计学意义。出血组中肝硬化伴门静脉栓子、既往有食管静脉曲张出血史及有糖尿病史的病例数明显高于对照组（P=0．020,P=0．037,P=0．020）。出血组患者血小板计数的平均值（76．43±18．47）明显低于对照组（89．03±21．75）（P=0．019）,而出血组凝血酶原时间的平均值（19．15±3．23s）则明显高于对照组（17．14±2．94S）（P=0．015）。对具有统计学意义的检测指标进行多变量Logistic回归分析,结果表明凝血酶原时间和既往有糖尿病史是食管静脉曲张套扎治疗后2周内再次出血的独立危险因素,OR值分别为0．808（95％CI：0．659—0．977）和0．172（95％CI：0．032—0．927）。结论凝血酶原时间延长和糖尿病史是食管静脉曲张套扎治疗术后2周内再次出血的独立危险因素。     

脾切除联合食管胃底曲张静脉断流术后应用华法林对门静脉血栓的防治作用

目的 探讨脾切除联合食管胃底曲张静脉断流术后应用华法林对门静脉血栓的防治效果。方法 2010年4月~2015年9月收治的48例门静脉血栓（PVT）患者,在行脾切除联合食管胃底曲张静脉断流术后,对25例患者短期应用华法林治疗1个月,23例患者应用华法林6个月,常规行彩色多普勒超声检查判断门静脉血栓变化。随访比较两组门静脉血栓变化和预后情况。结果 随访2年,48例术前存在PVT患者在脾切除联合断流术后,PVT进展20例（41.7%）,其中长期应用华法林组6例（26.1%）,显著低于短期应用华法林组的14例（56.0%,P<0.05）;PVT显著进展11例（22.9%）,其中长期应用华法林组2例（8.7%）,也显著低于短期应用华法林组的9例（36.0%,P<0.05）;短期应用华法林组PVT再通、再出血、肝癌和死亡发生率分别为0.0%、4.0%、8.0%和4.0%,与长期应用华法林组（分别为4.3%、4.3%、4.3%和0.0%）比,无显著性差异（P>0.05）。结论 在脾切除联合食管胃底曲张静脉断流术后应用华法林防治门静脉系统血栓安全、有效,可使患者获益。     

肝硬化患者门静脉血栓形成危险因素的Logistic回归分析

目的研究肝硬化患者门静脉血栓（PVT）形成的相关危险因素。方法回顾性分析我院消化内科2007—2008年确诊的肝硬化患者80例,其中19例肝硬化PVT患者作为血栓组,61例肝硬化非血栓患者作为对照组,收集相关临床资料,对可能影响PVT形成的因素进行单因素分析和Logistic回归模型分析。结果Logistic回归模型分析结果显示,血浆D-二聚体、门静脉宽度（MPV）、血小板（PLT）是肝硬化患者PVT形成的独立危险因素（P值分别为0.003、0.012、0.036）。结论肝硬化患者应注意监测血浆D-二聚体、门静脉宽度、血小板等指标,以便早期预防和发现PVT的形成。     

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt is effective in patients with chronic portal vein thrombosis and variceal bleeding

Background: Studies about treatment of patients with chronic portal vein thrombosis(CPVT) are still limited, especially in different types of CPVT. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt(TIPS) in all types of CPVT with variceal bleeding. Methods: Patients with CPVT who received TIPS treatment between January 2011 and June 2019 were divided into four types according to the extent of thrombosis. All patients had a history of variceal bleeding. The characteristics and clinical parameters were collected and recorded. Data on procedure success rate, variation in portal vein pressure, rebleeding, hepatic encephalopathy(HE), stent stenosis, and overall mortality were analyzed. Results: A total of 189 patients were included in this study(39 in type 1, 84 in type 2, 48 in type 3, 18 in type 4). The TIPS procedure success rate was 86.2%. The success rate was significantly different among the four types(89.7% vs. 88.1% vs. 83.3% vs. 77.8%, P = 0.001). In the TIPS success group, portal vein pressure was significantly reduced from 27.15 ± 6.59 to 19.74 ± 6.73 mm Hg after the procedure( P 0.001) and the rebleeding rate was significantly lower than that of the fail group(14.7% vs. 30.8%, P = 0.017). In addition, there were no significant differences in HE rate(30.7% vs. 26.9%, P = 0.912) or overall mortality(12.9% vs. 19.2%, P = 0.403) between the TIPS success group and the fail group. In the TIPS success group, we found that the occurrence of HE was significantly different( P = 0.020) among the four types, while there were no significant differences in rebleeding rate( P = 0.669), stent stenosis rate( P = 0.056), or overall mortality( P = 0.690). Conclusions: TIPS was safe and effective in decreasing portal vein pressure and rebleeding rate in patients with CPVT.     

Predictive value of D-dimer for portal vein thrombosis after portal hypertension surgery in hepatitis B virus-related cirrhosis

AIM: To evaluate the predictive value of D-dimer as a predictive indicator of portal vein thrombosis (PVT) after portal hypertension surgery in hepatitis B virus-related cirrhosis. METHODS: A prospective study was carried out in 52 patients who had undergone surgery for portal hypertension in hepatitis B virus-related cirrhosis. Changes in perioperative dynamic D-dimer were observed. The sensitivity, specifi city, positive predictive values and negative predictive values of D-dimer were calculated, and ROC curves were analyzed. RESULTS: The D-dimer levels in the group developing postoperative PVT was signifi cantly higher than those in the group not developing PVT (P = 0.001), and the ROC semi-quantitative and qualitative analysis of D-dimer showed a moderate predictive value in PVT (semi- quantitative value Az = 0.794, P = 0.000; qualitative analysis: Az = 0.739, P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Dynamic monitoring of D-dimer levels in patients with portal hypertension after surgery can help early diagnosis of PVT, as in cases where the D-dimer levels steadily increase and exceed 16 μg/mL, the possibility of PVT is very high.     

Incidence and clinical presentation of portal vein thrombosis in cirrhotic patients

BACKGROUND: Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is due to many risk factors, but its pathogenesis is still not clearly understood. To identify the risk factors for PVT, we analyzed the clinical characteristics and complications associated with PVT in cir-rhotic patients.
METHODS: We studied patients with liver cirrhosis who were admitted to our unit from April 2009 to December 2014. The patients were divided into the PVT and non-PVT groups, and were compared by variables including gender, age, the etiology of cirrhosis, stage of cirrhosis, complications, imaging, and treatment.
RESULTS: PVT was found in 45 (9.8%) of 461 cirrhotic pa-tients admitted to our hospital. Most patients (45.9%) had hepatitis B virus (HBV)-related cirrhosis, with a similar dis-tribution of etiologies between the groups. However, there was no positive relationship between PVT and etiologies of cirrhosis. Most patients (71.5%) were in the stage of hepatic decompensation. No statistically signiifcant differences were found in complications including esophageal varices, ascites, and hepatic encephalopathy between the groups. However, there was a signiifcant positive correlation between hepatocel-lular carcinoma (HCC) and PVT (P<0.01). In 30 patients with PVT, thrombosis occurred in the portal vein and/or portal branches, 37.8% were diagnosed on ultrasound.
CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of PVT was 9.8%, mainly in patients with HBV-related cirrhosis. The development of PVT was associated with the severity of liver disease and HCC.     

The Role of TIPS in Patients with Refractory Ascites and Portal Vein Thrombosis

Nowadays the contraindication for transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) in patients with portal vein thrombosis (PVT) had been modify. The experience and technology have reduce the complications for this procedure. We report a case of refractory ascites and portal vein thrombosis to emphasize the role of TIPS in the treatment for this condition.     

肝硬化脾切除术后门静脉系统血栓形成的危险因素分析*

目的 分析影响肝硬化患者脾切除术后门静脉系统血栓形成（PVT）的危险因素。方法 2015年1月~2018年6月我院收治的肝硬化患者94例,接受脾切除联合食管下段周围曲张血管离断术,使用彩色多普勒超声检查门静脉系统。采用多因素Logistic回归分析影响术后PVT形成的危险因素。结果 术后1个月随访,经彩色多普勒超声检查,发现PVT形成30例,未发生PVT患者64例;PVT组有腹水者为56.7%,显著高于无PVT组的32.8%（P<0.05）,脾脏厚度为（75.8±9.4） mm,显著大于无PVT组【（69.1±8.8） mm,P<0.05】,脾脏体积为（141.7±18.1） mm2,显著大于无PVT组【（126.8±17.2） mm2,P<0.05】,门静脉内径为（16.2±2.1） mm,显著大于无PVT组【（14.1±1.9） mm,P<0.05】,门静脉血流流速为（12.2±1.5） cm/s,显著慢于无PVT组【（14.6±1.6） cm/s,P<0.05】;应用低分子右旋糖苷或低分子肝素抗凝干预患者所占比例显著低于无PVT组（P<0.05）;Logistic回归分析显示,未应用抗凝治疗（OR=0.503,P=0.023）、门静脉流速减慢（OR=0.491,P=0.014）、脾脏体积增加（OR=1.872,P=0.044）和门静脉内径增宽（OR=1.982,P=0.021）是肝硬化脾切除术患者术后PVT形成的独立危险因素。结论 肝硬化脾切除术患者术后可能存在PVT形成,了解一些危险因素并给予积极的干预可能减少PVT形成的发生,使患者获益。     

Acute portal vein thrombosis due to chronic relapsing pancreatitis: a fistula between a pancreatic pseudocyst and the splenic vein

Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is a relatively common complication in patients with liver cirrhosis, but several other causes might play an important role in PVT pathogenesis. We present a case of alcoholic chronic pancreatitis complicated by acute extensive PVT. The patient was managed conservatively with danaparoid sodium at first, but the thrombosis gradually extended. We then tried radiological intervention using the direct transhepatic and transjugular intrahepatic postsystemic shunt approaches. Although we were able to successfully catheterize the percutaneous transhepatic portal vein (PTP), we could not achieve recanalization of the portal vein. Therefore, PTP catheterization and systemic intravenous infusion of urokinase and heparin was performed to prevent further progression of the thrombosis and cavernous transformation was finally achieved. Computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography revealed a pancreatic stone which had possibly induced dilatation of the tail duct and formation of a pancreatic pseudocyst and caused intractable pancreatitis. We performed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and placed a stent in the pancreatic duct, which completely cured the pancreatitis. Retrospectively, the previous CT with curved multi-planar reconstruction was reviewed and a fistula was detected between the pancreatic pseudocyst and splenic vein. We concluded that the etiology of the PVT was not only inflammatory extension from pancreatitis but also a fistula between the pancreatic duct and the splenic vein.