Gokturk Huseyin Savas, Demir Mehmet, Ozturk Nevin Akcaer, Unler Gulhan Kanat, Kulaksizoglu Sevsen, Kozanoglu Ilknur, Serin Ender, Yilmaz Ugur
Department of Gastroenterology, Baskent University Faculty of Medicine, Adana, Turkey.
Can J Gastroenterol. 2010 Apr;24(4):255-9. doi: 10.1155/2010/896786.
Ascites is defined as the pathological accumulation of fluid in the peritoneal cavity. It is the most common complication of cirrhosis, which is also the most common cause of ascites. Viscosity is a measure of the resistance of a fluid to deform under shear stress. Plasma viscosity is influenced by the concentration of plasma proteins and lipoproteins, with the major contribution from fibrinogen. To our knowledge, the viscosity of ascitic fluid has not yet been studied.
To evaluate the role of ascitic fluid viscosity in discriminating between ascites due to portal hypertension-related and nonportal hypertension-related causes, and to compare results with the serum-ascites albumin gradient (SAAG).
The present study involved 142 patients with ascites presenting with diverse medical problems. Serum total protein, albumin, glucose, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels and complete blood count were obtained for all subjects. Paracentesis was performed routinely on admission and all ascitic fluid samples were evaluated by manual cell count with differential, ascitic fluid culture and biochemistry (total protein, albumin, glucose and LDH). Cultures of ascitic fluid were performed at bedside in all patients using blood culture bottles. Ascitic fluid viscosity was measured in a commercially available cone and plate viscometer.
Of the 142 patients studied, 34 (24%) had an SAAG of 11 gL or less, whereas 108 (76%) had an SAAG of greater than 11 gL. Sex and mean age did not differ significantly between the two groups (P>0.05). Serum total protein, albumin, glucose, LDH levels, leukocyte count, ascitic fluid glucose levels and ascitic fluid leukocyte counts were similar in both groups, with no statistically significant relationship detected (P>0.05). However, the mean (+/-SD) ascitic fluid total protein (0.0172+/-0.1104 gL versus 0.043+/-0.011 gL), albumin (0.0104+/-0.0064 gL versus 0.0276+/-0.0069 gL) and LDH (102.76+/-80.95 UL versus 885.71+/-199.93 UL) were found to be higher in patients with an SAAG of 11 gL or less than in those with an SAAG of greater than 11 gL (P<0.001). The mean ascitic fluid viscosities were 0.86+/-0.12 centipoise (cP) and 1.22+/-0.25 cP in patients with an SAAG greater than 11 gL and an SAAG of 11 gL or less, respectively (P<0.001). Although ascitic fluid infection was detected in 35 patients (24.6%) (19 patients with spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, seven patients with culture-negative neutrocytic ascites, three patients with monobacterial non-neutrocytic bacterascites and six patients with secondary bacterial peritonitis), no significant effect on ascitic fluid viscosity was detected. Multiple linear regression analysis revealed that ascitic fluid total protein, albumin and LDH levels were independent predictors of ascitic fluid viscosity (P<0.001). The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of ascitic fluid viscosity for the discrimination between ascites due to portal hypertension-related and nonportal hypertension-related causes according to the SAAG were determined by receiver operating characteristic analysis. Regarding the cut-off value of 1.03 cP, ascitic fluid viscosity measurement had a high sensitivity, specificity (98% and 80%, respectively), and positive and negative predictive value (79% and 94%, respectively) for the etiological discrimination of ascites.
The measurement of ascitic fluid viscosity correlates significantly with SAAG values. In view of its simplicity, low cost, small sample volume requirement and allowance for measurement in previously frozen samples, measurement of ascites viscosity could be useful for the accurate and rapid classification of ascites.
腹水被定义为腹腔内液体的病理性积聚。它是肝硬化最常见的并发症,而肝硬化也是腹水最常见的病因。粘度是衡量流体在剪切应力下变形阻力的指标。血浆粘度受血浆蛋白和脂蛋白浓度的影响,其中纤维蛋白原起主要作用。据我们所知,尚未对腹水的粘度进行研究。
评估腹水粘度在鉴别门静脉高压相关和非门静脉高压相关原因所致腹水方面的作用,并将结果与血清腹水白蛋白梯度(SAAG)进行比较。
本研究纳入了142例因各种医疗问题出现腹水的患者。获取了所有受试者的血清总蛋白、白蛋白、葡萄糖、乳酸脱氢酶(LDH)水平及全血细胞计数。入院时常规进行腹腔穿刺,所有腹水样本均通过手工细胞计数及分类、腹水培养和生化检查(总蛋白、白蛋白、葡萄糖和LDH)进行评估。所有患者均在床边使用血培养瓶进行腹水培养。使用市售的锥板粘度计测量腹水粘度。
在研究的142例患者中,34例(24%)的SAAG为11 g/L或更低,而108例(76%)的SAAG大于11 g/L。两组间性别和平均年龄无显著差异(P>0.05)。两组的血清总蛋白、白蛋白、葡萄糖、LDH水平、白细胞计数、腹水葡萄糖水平和腹水白细胞计数相似,未检测到统计学上的显著关系(P>0.05)。然而,SAAG为11 g/L或更低的患者腹水总蛋白(0.0172±0.1104 g/L对0.043±0.011 g/L)、白蛋白(0.0104±0.0064 g/L对0.0276±0.0069 g/L)和LDH(102.76±80.95 U/L对885.71±199.93 U/L)均值高于SAAG大于11 g/L的患者(P<0.001)。SAAG大于11 g/L和SAAG为11 g/L或更低的患者腹水平均粘度分别为0.86±0.12厘泊(cP)和1.22±0.25 cP(P<0.001)。尽管在35例患者(24.6%)中检测到腹水感染(19例自发性细菌性腹膜炎、7例培养阴性的中性粒细胞性腹水、3例单一细菌非中性粒细胞性菌腹水和6例继发性细菌性腹膜炎),但未检测到对腹水粘度有显著影响。多元线性回归分析显示,腹水总蛋白、白蛋白和LDH水平是腹水粘度的独立预测因素(P<0.001)。通过受试者工作特征分析确定了根据SAAG鉴别门静脉高压相关和非门静脉高压相关原因所致腹水时腹水粘度的敏感性、特异性以及阳性和阴性预测值。对于临界值1.03 cP,腹水粘度测量在腹水病因鉴别方面具有较高的敏感性、特异性(分别为98%和80%)以及阳性和阴性预测值(分别为79%和94%)。
腹水粘度测量与SAAG值显著相关。鉴于其操作简单、成本低、所需样本量小且允许对先前冷冻的样本进行测量,腹水粘度测量可能有助于腹水的准确快速分类。