Antonios Katsounas

Background: In patients with liver cirrhosis, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is considered a standardized treatment of refractory ascites or variceal bleeding. TIPS thrombosis (TT) and/or portal vein thrombosis (PVT) are possible complications during/after TIPS placement. Previous studies suggested increased clotting activity in portal circulation (PORC). This pilot study aimed to evaluate alterations and differences of coagulation function in PORC and in peripheral circulation (PERC) via rotational thromboelastometry during TIPS. Methods: Blood samples were collected from cirrhotic patients (n = 13; median Model of End Stage Liver Disease, MELD Score: 12; median age: 60 years) undergoing TIPS (10/13 TIPSs were elective procedures due to refractory ascites) as follows: median cubital vein (MCV; PERC)—confluence of the three hepatic veins to the inferior cava vein (HV/ICV; PORC)—portal vein (PV; PORC)—TIPS (PORC). This research utilized four variables of the extrinsic test EXTEM, i.e., clotting time (CT), clot formation time (CFT), maximum clot firmness (MCF), and maximum lysis (ML). Results: EXTEM results [mean, M (range) ± standard deviation, SD (range)] showed no significant differences for CT [M (70–73) ± SD (9–13); p = 0.93] or CFT [M (137–155) ± SD (75–112); p = 0.97] or MCF [M (51–54) ± SD (9–10); p = 0.90] or ML [M (9–10) ± SD (4–5); p = 0.89] between the compartments, i.e., MCV vs. HV/ICV vs. PV vs. TIPS. Overall, we detected no differences in coagulation function between PERC and PORC. Conclusion: These results are in contrast to previous reports suggesting increased clotting activity in PORC vs. PERC in association with liver cirrhosis. Rotational thromboelastometry-based evaluation of coagulation function in PERC appears to reliably reflect coagulation function in PORC with respect to risk estimation for TT and/or PVT in cirrhotic patients undergoing TIPS.