Suppr超能文献

Alfapump® 系统与大量腹腔穿刺放液治疗难治性腹水的比较:一项多中心随机对照研究。

Alfapump® system vs. large volume paracentesis for refractory ascites: A multicenter randomized controlled study.

机构信息

Service d'hépato-gastroentérologie, CHU Toulouse, Toulouse, France.

UCL Institute of Hepatology, Royal Free Hospital, University College London, London, United Kingdom.

出版信息

J Hepatol. 2017 Nov;67(5):940-949. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2017.06.010. Epub 2017 Jun 21.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Patients with refractory ascites (RA) require repeated large volume paracenteses (LVP), which involves frequent hospital visits and is associated with a poor quality-of-life. This study assessed safety and efficacy of an automated, low-flow pump (alfapump® [AP]) compared with LVP standard of care [SoC].

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial, in seven centers, with six month patient observation was conducted. Primary outcome was time to first LVP. Secondary outcomes included paracentesis requirement, safety, health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL), and survival. Nutrition, hemodynamics, and renal injury biomarkers were assessed in a sub-study at three months.

RESULTS

Sixty patients were randomized and 58 were analyzed (27 AP, 31 SoC, mean age 61.9years, mean MELD 11.7). Eighteen patients were included in the sub-study. Compared with SoC, median time to first LVP was not reached after six months in the AP group, meaning a significant reduction in LVP requirement for the AP patients (AP, median not reached; SoC, 15.0days (HR 0.13; 95%CI 13.0-22.0; p<0.001), and AP patients also showed significantly improved Chronic Liver Disease Questionnaire (CLDQ) scores compared with SoC patients (p<0.05 between treatment arms). Improvements in nutritional parameters were observed for hand-grip strength (p=0.044) and body mass index (p<0.001) in the sub-study. Compared with SoC, more AP patients reported adverse events (AEs; 96.3% vs. 77.4%, p=0.057) and serious AEs (85.2 vs. 45.2%, p=0.002). AEs consisted predominantly of acute kidney injury in the immediate post-operative period, and re-intervention for pump related issues, and were treatable in most cases. Survival was similar in AP and SoC.

CONCLUSIONS

The AP system is effective for reducing the need for paracentesis and improving quality of life in cirrhotic patients with RA. Although the frequency of SAEs (and by inference hospitalizations) was significantly higher in the AP group, they were generally limited and did not impact survival. Lay summary: The alfapump® moves abdominal fluid into the bladder from where it is then removed by urination. Compared with standard treatment, the alfapump reduces the need for large volume paracentesis (manual fluid removal by needle) in patients with medically untreatable ascites. This can improve life quality for these patients. www.clinicaltrials.gov#NCT01528410.

摘要

背景与目的

难治性腹水(RA)患者需要反复进行大量腹腔穿刺术(LVP),这需要频繁的医院就诊,且生活质量较差。本研究评估了一种自动化、低流量泵(alfapump® [AP])与 LVP 标准治疗(SoC)相比的安全性和疗效。

方法

在七个中心进行了一项随机对照试验,对患者进行了 6 个月的观察。主要结局为首次 LVP 的时间。次要结局包括腹腔穿刺术需求、安全性、与健康相关的生活质量(HRQoL)和生存率。在三个月时的亚研究中评估了营养、血液动力学和肾损伤生物标志物。

结果

共随机分配了 60 名患者,其中 58 名患者进行了分析(AP 组 27 名,SoC 组 31 名,平均年龄 61.9 岁,平均 MELD 11.7)。18 名患者纳入亚研究。与 SoC 相比,AP 组在 6 个月时未达到首次 LVP 的中位时间,这意味着 AP 患者的 LVP 需求显著减少(AP 组中位时间未达到;SoC 组 15.0 天(HR 0.13;95%CI 13.0-22.0;p<0.001),AP 患者的慢性肝病问卷(CLDQ)评分也明显高于 SoC 患者(治疗组之间 p<0.05)。亚研究中观察到握力(p=0.044)和体重指数(p<0.001)的营养参数改善。与 SoC 相比,AP 组更多的患者报告不良事件(AE;96.3% vs. 77.4%,p=0.057)和严重 AE(85.2% vs. 45.2%,p=0.002)。AE 主要为术后即刻急性肾损伤和与泵相关的问题需要再次干预,大多数情况下均可治疗。AP 组和 SoC 组的生存率相似。

结论

AP 系统可有效减少 RA 肝硬化患者的腹腔穿刺术需求,改善生活质量。尽管 AP 组严重不良事件(和推论中的住院率)的频率明显更高,但总体上是有限的,并不影响生存率。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验