Background: Splanchnic venous system thrombosis is a well recognized local vascular complication of acute pancreatitis (AP). It may involve thrombosis of splenic vein (SplV), portal vein (PV) and superior mesenteric vein (SMV), either separately or in combinations, and often detected incidentally, indeed some cases present with upper gastrointestinal bleed, bowel ischemia and hepatic decompensation. Incidence is variable depending on study subjects and diagnostic modalities. Pathogenesis is multifactorial centered on local and systemic inflammation. Management involves treatment of underlying AP and its complications. Universal use of anticoagulation may lead to increased risk of bleeding due to frequent need of interventions (radiologic/endoscopic/surgical). Literature on anticoagulation in setting of AP is sparse and at present there is no consensus guideline on it. Current article details our experience on splanchnic venous thrombosis (SVT) in AP in a well defined cohort of patients at a tertiary care center. Methods: Hospitalized patients with AP from January 2018 to December 2018 were included in the study. Detailed information on demographic, clinical, laboratory, radiologic features, and indication of anticoagulation use were collected prospectively during the index admission. Outcome variables were analyzed at the end of 6 months. Results: Twenty four out of 105 (22.85%) patients with AP develop SVT. Etiology of AP was alcohol use in 21/24 (87.5%) subjects. Most common vessel involved was isolated SplV in 11/24 (45.8%) patients followed by SplV along with PV and SMV 9/24 (37.50%, P < 0.001). Bowel ischemia 4/12 (33.3%), hepatic decompensation 3/12 (25%), triple vessel involvement 4/12 (33.3%) and pulmonary embolism 1/12 (8.3%) were reasons for anticoagulation. There was no statistical difference with respect to development of varices, collateral formation, recanalization, bleeding and mortality with use of anticoagulation (P > 0.05 with respect to all above variables). Conclusions: SVT is commonly seen in alcohol-induced AP. Anticoagulation does not affect outcomes of SVT. Subset of patients may benefit with anticoagulation.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is the most common hepatotropic viral infection affecting the patients on maintenance hemodialysis. Treatment of chronic HCV infection in stage 4 and 5 CKD includes a combination of elbasvir/grazoprevir and glecaprevir/pibrentasvir, which are not available in many countries. OBJECTIVE: Hence, we have conducted this study to look for the safety and efficacy of sofosbuvir combination therapy in this difficult to treat population. METHODS: We conducted a single-center, prospective, open-label study in which Stage 5 CKD patients on maintenance hemodialysis with HCV infection. Total of 18 patients was included. sofosbuvir with daclatasvir or ledipasvir was used according to genotype for 12 weeks. HCV RNA, genotype, transient elastography (TE) was considered for every patient. HCV RNA was quantified at 4th week, 12th week and 12 weeks post-treatment to look for sustained virologic response (SVR 12). RESULTS: Infection due to genotype 1 was seen in 12 (66.7%) patients followed by genotype 3 in 4 (22.3%) with each patient of genotype 2 and 5. The median value of HCV RNA was 2,35,000 IU/mL. On TE, all had liver stiffness of <9.4 KPa. All patients had HCV RNA of <15 IU/mL at 4th and 12th week of treatment and 12 weeks post-treatment. No significant change in hemoglobin, eGFR and liver stiffness was observed. CONCLUSION: Full dose sofosbuvir i.e. 400 mg, in combination with NS5A inhibitors daclatasvir or ledipasvir is found to be safe and effective in patients with end stage renal disease, who are on maintenance hemodialysis.

Objectives: Rectal diclofenac and hydration with Ringer lactate (RL) are proven therapies for prophylaxis of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP). This study was to analyze the effect of a combination of them for the prevention of PEP.Methods: This was single-center, open-label, randomized trial. Patients who were undergoing ERCP and who were at high risk for the development of PEP were selected for the study. Patients were randomized into 3 treatment groups: diclofenac suppository group, RL group, and a combination group.Results: Eight of 57 patients (14.03%) in the diclofenac group, 9 of 57 patients (15.78%) in the RL group, and 6 of 57 patients (10.52%) in the combination group developed PEP. The incidence of PEP between the three groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.70). Serum amylase level of >252 U/L had 91.3% sensitivity and 92.6% specificity for the diagnosis of PEP. Conclusions:Post-ERCP pancreatitis is usually mild to moderate 95% times. Female sex, age younger than 50 years, a benign indication of ERCP, and low bilirubin levels have higher chances of PEP. A combination of rectal diclofenac and hydration with RL does not offer better protection for PEP, as compared with individual prophylaxis.

No abstract