**8. Conclusions**

Problems associated with study design, diagnostic criteria, end-point choice and evaluation, and use of single or several pharmacological agent, make it difficult to evaluate and compare the outcomes of different drug trials in hepatic thrombotic disorders.

Despite the absence of studies against placebo/no treatment to establish absolute efficacy, comparative studies versus a LMWH suggest that danaparoid is effective and safe for the treatment of PVT and not only prevents SOS and TA-TMA but reduces TRM and increases OS after HSCT. It is unclear if the efficacy of danaparoid is improved with the addition of AT or UDCA.

Danaparoid has a high cost of treatment but a cost-efficacy analysis has not been performed. Its safety, particularly the low haemorrhagic risk, may offset some of these costs.

*Danaparoid Sodium: A Review of Its Use in Hepatic Thrombotic Disorders DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.103851*

Given the potentially fatal outcomes of hepatic thrombotic disorders, the ease of administration of danaparoid, its apparent efficacy and safety in patients with a high bleeding risk, danaparoid merits further investigation in the management of hepatic thrombotic disorders. However the dose of danaparoid needs to be optimised.

There remains a great need for sufficiently powered, double-blind, randomised controlled trials, with well defined end-points relevant for clinical practise, to evaluate the short and long-term effects of currently available antithrombotics used in the management of hepatic thrombotic disorders.
