The worldwide geographical distribution of primary and secondary BCS is highly variable, and there is scarcity of data in developing countries due to its rarity. The third most common reason for the occurrence of BCS in Turkey (where the incidence of BD is extremely high) is BD (
4). The BCS occurrence rate during the course of BD was reported as being 0.35% in a study conducted in Turkey, in which the diagnosis of BD was made at the same time as the diagnosis of BCS in 71.4% of the patients (
8). In our series, the BCS occurrence rate during the course of BD was 1.2%, and the diagnosis of BD was made at the same time as the diagnosis of BCS in 40% of the patients.
BCS results from occlusion of the three hepatic veins in about 2/3 of cases, isolated occlusion of the IVC in about 10% of cases, and combined occlusion in almost 1/3 of cases (
9). Uskudar et al. and Harmanci et al. found there to be 30% combined venous occlusion in BD patients with BCS (
4,
5). In our series, the combined venous occlusion rate was 100%.
In a study by Bayraktar et al., which followed 14 BD patients with BCS within a series of 493 BD patients (3%), the authors concluded that the extent of vascular thrombosis within the inferior vena cava, rather than the presence of the hepatic vein thrombosis per se, was the major determinant of survival (
10). Nowadays, in addition to the involvement of HVs and the VCI, PVT has come into prominence as a prognostic indicator in BD patients with BCS (
4,
5,
11,
12). Harmanci et al. found that none of the aforementioned prognostic parameters (i.e., vascular involvement sites) were correlated with mortality, except for the presence of PVT (which had an estimated instantaneous risk of 8.4). They explain that PVT may indirectly reflect the degree of hepatic distress produced by outflow production due to the “hepatoportal venous reflex” (
5). Darwish Murad et al. undertook a large international study, investigating patients diagnosed with nonmalignant BCS between 1984 and 2001 and classifying them into isolated BCS cases (n = 204), BCS-PVT cases without spleno-mesenteric vein thrombosis (SMVT; n = 15), and cases of BCS-PVT with SMVT (n = 18). The survival rate after five years was 59% (95% with a CI of 39% - 80%) in BCS-PVT, versus 85% (95% with a CI of 76% - 88%) in isolated BCS (P = 0.11) (12). The data obtained from the literature on BCS patients reflects that the results come from heterogeneous, general patient groups. Further analysis reveals that PVT was present in just one of the eight BCS patients with BD in Harmanci et al.’s research (P = 0.667) and in none of the nine BCS patients with BD in the study by Uskudar et al. Although both studies conclude that PVT is a negative factor in the prognosis for BCS generally, it was impossible to determine the effect of PVT upon BCS patients with BD specifically due to limited patient numbers (
4,
5). In light of the worsening prognosis for BCS patients with PV involvement, it might be argued that determining the factors that can contribute to the development of PVT would be benefical in terms of seeking methods of prevention and treatment. Bagheri Lankarani et al. found, however, that there were no significant risk factors for PVT patients with cirrhosis awaiting liver transplantation in Shiraz, Iran (
13). In our study, PVT was determined in one patient only, who died during the acute period due to ALF; the other patients, all of whom survived, tested negative for PVT. A study including large numbers of BCS patients with BD and demonstrating PVT would be helpful in determining the long-term prognostic significance of PVT in BCS patients with BD.
The survival time of patients after diagnosis of BCS can vary from between 3 months and 16 years, according to the literature (
14). Our data, therefore, with a survival time of 1 month to 16 years after diagnosis of BCS, was consistent with the literature.
Hepatic masses might be detected during long-term follow-ups for BCS patients. To date, several studies from different regions have reported that a proportion of cases of BCS, especially in patients with VCI obstruction, are complicated by the development of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the long term (
14,
15). As patients with HCC and concomitant hepatitis were excluded from these studies, the pooled prevalence of HCC in BCS was 15.4%. The risk factors for HCC in BCS included the hepatic venous pressure gradient and being female (in two Asian studies), and factor V Leiden mutation, being male, and inferior vena cava obstruction (in one European study) (
14). As is evident, there are huge differences between studies. The risk factors for HCC in BCS vary, depending on the geographical origin of the studies. As well as HCC, large regenerative nodules (LRNs) caused by outflow obstructions in the hepatic veins or vena cava are the masses most commonly associated with BCS (
16). Nodular regenerative hyperplasia (NRH) and LRNs are distinct types of hepatocellular nodules. Indeed, the distinction between them is critical because their clinical significance is quite different. Ames et al. found that NRH was often associated with organ transplantation, myeloproliferative disease, and autoimmune processes. In their study, CT and MRI showed no enhancing liver masses in any of the patients with NRH. In contrast, LRNs were often associated with BCS (
17). In accordance with the literature, hepatic masses were detected in 2 patients in this study through radiological surveillance and liver biopsies (LNRs in Case 3 and NRH with cirrhosis in Case 4).
Currently, clinical judgment and local expertise play important roles in the management of BCS. Medical therapy consists of the treatment of underlying disease, anticoagulation efforts, and symptom control. Emerging technologies have offered new minimally invasive treatment modalities, such as percutaneous catheter-directed thrombolysis, angioplasty, stenting, and TIPS (
9). Although there is no controlled study in the existing literature regarding the benefits of immunosuppressive drug therapy for patients with BCS caused by BD, treatments used in the literature for BD with BCS include immunosuppressive and anticoagulation drugs, as well as the relief of hepatic venous outflow obstructions in order to preclude hepatocellular necrosis. Unfortunately, most patients with BCS caused by BD have inferior vena cava thrombosis, resulting in an unsuitable pressure gradient existing between the portal vein and the inferior vena cava, thus rendering a porto-caval shunt operation technically impossible. Another difficulty with managing these patients is that they usually have long-segment thrombosis, as well as thrombosis of other vascular structures (
4). Therefore, medical treatment was approached to our patients.
Our study has several limitations. The most significant are the retrospective design and the small sample size, which make it impossible for us to generalize our results for clinical practice. Another limitation is the absence of a disease control group.
To conclude, as a result of the involvement of prominent vascular settlement sites in BD, BCS may develop. Although there are no exact data in the literature about vascular involvement sites as prognostic indicators in BCS patients with BD, it has been demonstrated that portal venous thrombosis is prominent in general in BCS patient groups. Despite limited patient numbers, our data seems to support recent findings. In addition, the risk of cirrhosis and/or HCC development emerge during long-term follow-up investigations. Thus, the occurrence of cirrhosis and HCC must be taken into consideration as measures of surveillance, in addition to the presence of portal venous thrombosis. Furthermore, patients must be followed up at regular intervals via physical examinations, laboratory tests, and imaging procedures.