Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 27, 2025
New Thrombectomy Technique for Total Portal Vein Thrombosis in Liver Transplantation
Published on: June 27, 2025
Machine learning predicts portal vein thrombosis after splenectomy in patients with portal hypertension: Comparative
Jian Li1, Qi-Qi Wu2, Rong-Hua Zhu1
1Hepatic Surgery Center, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, Hubei Province, China.
Background:
For patients with portal hypertension (PH), portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is a fatal complication after splenectomy. Postoperative platelet elevation is considered the foremost reason for PVT. However, the value of postoperative platelet elevation rate (PPER) in predicting PVT has never been studied.
Aim:
To investigate the predictive value of PPER for PVT and establish PPER-based prediction models to early identify individuals at high risk of PVT after splenectomy.
Methods:
We retrospectively reviewed 483 patients with PH related to hepatitis B virus who underwent splenectomy between July 2011 and September 2018, and they were randomized into either a training (n = 338) or a validation (n = 145) cohort. The generalized linear (GL) method, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO), and random forest (RF) were used to construct models. The receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC), calibration curve, decision curve analysis (DCA), and clinical impact curve (CIC) were used to evaluate the robustness and clinical practicability of the GL model (GLM), LASSO model (LSM), and RF model (RFM).
Results:
Multivariate analysis exhibited that the first and third days for PPER (PPER1, PPER3) were strongly associated with PVT [odds ratio (OR): 1.78, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.24-2.62, P = 0.002; OR: 1.43, 95%CI: 1.16-1.77, P < 0.001, respectively]. The areas under the ROC curves of the GLM, LSM, and RFM in the training cohort were 0.83 (95%CI: 0.79-0.88), 0.84 (95%CI: 0.79-0.88), and 0.84 (95%CI: 0.79-0.88), respectively; and were 0.77 (95%CI: 0.69-0.85), 0.83 (95%CI: 0.76-0.90), and 0.78 (95%CI: 0.70-0.85) in the validation cohort, respectively. The calibration curves showed satisfactory agreement between prediction by models and actual observation. DCA and CIC indicated that all models conferred high clinical net benefits.
Conclusion:
PPER1 and PPER3 are effective indicators for postoperative prediction of PVT. We have successfully developed PPER-based practical models to accurately predict PVT, which would conveniently help clinicians rapidly differentiate individuals at high risk of PVT, and thus guide the adoption of timely interventions.
