Portal hypertension is associated with the most severe complications of cirrhosis, including ascites, hepatic encephalopathy, and bleeding from gastro-esophageal varices. Despite the progress achieved over the last decades, the 6-week mortality associated with variceal bleeding is still in the order of 10–20%. Awareness of the difficulty inherent to the evaluation of diagnostic tools and the design and conduct of good clinical trials for the treatment of portalhypertensionhas led to theorganization, since1986,of a series of consensus meetings. The first one was organized by Andrew Burroughs in Groningen, The Netherlands [1]. After Groningen, other meetings followed, in Baveno in 1990 (Baveno I) [2] and in 1995 (Baveno II) [3,4], in Milan in 1992 [5], in Reston, USA, in 1996 [6], in Stresa in 2000 (Baveno III) [7,8], again in Baveno in 2005 (Baveno IV) [9,10], and in Atlanta in 2007 [11]. The aims of these meetings were to develop definitions of key events in portal hypertension and variceal bleeding, to review the existing evidence on the natural history, the diagnosis and the therapeutic modalities of portal hypertension, and to issue evidence-based recommendations for the conduct of clinical trials and the management of patients. All these meetings were successful and produced consensus statements on some important points, although some issues remained unsettled. To continue the work of the previous meetings, a Baveno V workshop was held on May 21–22, 2010. The workshop was attended by many of the experts responsible for most of the major achievements of the last years in this field. Many of them had attended the previous meetings as well. The main fields of discussion of the Baveno V workshop were the same as in Baveno I–IV, i.e. the definitions of key events concerning the bleeding episode and the therapeutic options in patients with portal hypertension. For each of these topics, a series of consensus statements were discussed and agreed upon. As in Baveno IV, whenever applicable, the level of existing evidence was evaluated and the recommendations were ranked according to the Oxford System [12] (i.e.: level of evidence from 1 = highest