Misdiagnosis of Budd Chiari syndrome, a case report from Afghanistan
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 5, 2025

Robotic Taj Mahal Hepatectomy for Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma
Published on: July 14, 2022
Fardeen Baray1, Mohammad Behroz Noori1, Mohammad Maroof Aram1
1Internal Medicine Department, Ali Abad Teaching Hospital, Kabul University of Medical Science (KUMS), Jamal mena, Kabul, Afghanistan.
Introduction:
Budd-Chiari syndrome is a rare disease characterized by hepatic venous flow obstruction. The obstruction may be thrombotic or non-thrombotic anywhere along the venous course from the hepatic venules to the inferior vena cava (IVC) junction to the right atrium. In clinical practice, cases can be misdiagnosed, particularly in regions where resources are limited, unless the clinician pays special attention to such diagnosis.
Case Report And Clinical Discussion:
Here, we would like to present a misdiagnosed case of Budd Chiari syndrome. This reported case is a case of 30 years old female patient complaining of dull abdominal pain and swelling. Initially, the patient consulted a local health facility where the patient was diagnosed with tuberculous peritonitis and subsequently treated with an anti-TB regimen empirically. Within a few days of taking medicine, she developed mild jaundice and lower limb edema. At this stage, the patient came to us, which after taking history, her physical examination unveiled mild jaundice, ascites, abdominal tenderness, and mild lower limb petting edema. The patient was recommended an abdominal CT scan with contrast, which revealed early enhancement and enlargement of the caudate lobe and non-opacification of hepatic veins with narrowing of the hepatic part of the inferior vena cava consistent with Budd-Chiari syndrome. The patient was started on warfarin and referred for a hepatic decongestive procedure. After four months of performing a transjugular portosystemic shunt, the patient came to us for follow-up. She had an excellent clinical improvement and was started on rivaroxaban 20 mg daily orally.
Conclusion:
The main takeaway lesson of this particular case is to consider the differential diagnosis of ascites from an etiologic point of view and not to overemphasize a single etiology.

