biostudies-literatureUnknown34(1)Ghazaleh S<h4>Background</h4>The role of anticoagulation in treating non-malignant portal vein (PV) thrombosis (PVT) in patients with liver cirrhosis remains unclear. In our meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of anticoagulation for the treatment of non-malignant PVT in these patients.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a meta-analysis to estimate the effects of anticoagulation on non-malignant PVT in patients with liver cirrhosis. We assessed the rates of PV recanalization, variceal bleeding, and any bleeding.<h4>Results</h4>We included 9 observational studies which involved 474 patients. The rate of PV recanalization was significantly higher in patients who received anticoagulation compared to those who did not: 65.2% vs. 25.2%; relative risk (RR) 2.31, 95% confidence interval (CIAnnals of gastroenterology104-110https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC7774659biostudies-literatureEfficacy and safety of anticoagulation in non-malignant portal vein thrombosis in patients with liver cirrhosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.PMC7774659Nehme CKhader YAburayyan KPatel DSharma SAziz MAbdel-Aziz YBeran AGhazaleh SNawras AHammad TfalseEfficacy and safety of anticoagulation in non-malignant portal vein thrombosis in patients with liver cirrhosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.<h4>Background</h4>The role of anticoagulation in treating non-malignant portal vein (PV) thrombosis (PVT) in patients with liver cirrhosis remains unclear. In our meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of anticoagulation for the treatment of non-malignant PVT in these patients.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a meta-analysis to estimate the effects of anticoagulation on non-malignant PVT in patients with liver cirrhosis. We assessed the rates of PV recanalization, variceal bleeding, and any bleeding.<h4>Results</h4>We included 9 observational studies which involved 474 patients. The rate of PV recanalization was significantly higher in patients who received anticoagulation compared to those who did not: 65.2% vs. 25.2%; relative risk (RR) 2.31, 95% confidence interval (CI2021-01-01T00:00:00Z20212025-04-26T06:34:51.444Z2025-04-06T11:53:38.138ZS-EPMC77746593341462910.20524/aog.2020.0544