According to a recent hypothesis, venous thrombosis results from the concurrence of several factors. This hypothesis was assessed in patients with portal or hepatic venous thrombosis by simultaneously investigating most of the currently identified prothrombotic disorders, local precipitating factors, and other risk factors such as oral contraceptive use. Patients with a tumorous obstruction and patients with cirrhosis with portal vein thrombosis were excluded. The prothrombotic disorders that were investigated included classical and occult myeloproliferative disorders; antiphospholipid syndrome; protein C; protein S and antithrombin deficiency; factor V Leiden; factor II; and methylene-tetrahydrofolate-reductase gene mutations. We found 1 or several prothrombotic disorders and a local precipitating factor in 26 and 10 of the 36 patients with portal vein thrombosis, respectively; and in 28 and none of the 32 patients with hepatic vein thrombosis, respectively. We found a combination of prothrombotic disorders in 5 and 9 patients with portal and hepatic vein thrombosis, respectively, whereas such a combination is expected in less than 1% of asymptomatic subjects. Of the 10 patients with a local precipitating factor, 8 had a prothrombotic disorder. Of the 13 patients who use oral contraceptives, 10 had a prothrombotic disorder. We conclude that portal or hepatic venous thrombosis should be regarded as an index for 1 or several prothrombotic disorders, whether or not local precipitating factors or oral contraceptive use are found. Concurrence of prothrombotic disorders is more common than expected.

Summary Myeloproliferative disorders (MPD) are reported in 25–65% of patients with splanchnic vein thrombosis (SVT). Diagnostic criteria for MPD have not been fully established in this context. Using clusters of abnormal megakaryocytes in bone marrow (BM) biopsy as a reference standard for Philadelphia negative MPD, we assessed the relevance of other criteria currently recommended for the diagnosis of MPD in SVT (128 consecutive SVT patients). First, usual criteria were compared with BM results: endogenous erythroid colony formation (EEC) was strongly correlated with BM results; splenomegaly, blood cell count, total red cell volume, erythropoietin level and cytogenetic were much less accurate. Then, patients were assigned to three groups according to the combination of BM and EEC findings (group I: both present; group II: both absent; group III: other patients); clinical presentation and outcome were compared in each group. At a mean follow‐up of 6·09 ± 6·6 years, progression to a severe form of MPD occurred in 7 of 31 group I patients (23%), in 1 of 34 group III patients (3%) and 0 of 63 group II patients. The combination of marked splenomegaly and platelet count >200 × 109/l was restricted to groups I and III. In conclusion, in patients with SVT, BM findings and EEC allowed the diagnosis of MPD at risk of aggravation. Marked splenomegaly in association with platelet counts >200 × 109/l constitute a simple index with high specificity but low sensitivity.

(Gut 2001;48:264-268)

No abstract

A widely accepted definition of resistance or intolerance to hydroxyurea (HU) in patients with essential thrombocythemia (ET) is lacking. An international working group (WG) was convened to develop a consensus formulation of clinically significant criteria for defining resistance/intolerance to HU in ET. To this aim, an analytic hierarchy process (AHP), a multiple-attribute decision-making technique, was used. The steps consisted of selecting the candidate criteria for defining resistance/intolerance; identifying the motivations that could influence the preference of the WG for any individual criterion; comparing the candidate criteria in a pair-wise manner; and grading them according their ability to fulfill the motivations. Every step in the model was derived by questionnaires or group discussion. The WG proposed that the definition of resistance/ intolerance should require the fulfillment of at least one of the following criteria: platelet count greater than 600 000/ll after 3 months of at least 2 g/day of HU (2.5 g/day in patients with a body weight over 80 kg); platelet count greater than 400 000/ll and WBC less than 2500/ll or Hb less than 10 g/dl at any dose of HU; presence of leg ulcers or other unacceptable mucocutaneous manifestations at any dose of HU; HU-related fever.