Kaur Senamjit, Motta Rodrigo V, Chapman Bryony, Wharton Victoria, Collier Jane D, Saffioti Francesca
Oxford Liver Unit, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford OX3 9DU, United Kingdom.
Oxford Liver Unit and Translational Gastroenterology Unit, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 9DU, United Kingdom.
World J Hepatol. 2024 Mar 27;16(3):428-438. doi: 10.4254/wjh.v16.i3.428.
Long-term abdominal drains (LTAD) are a cost-effective palliative measure to manage malignant ascites in the community, but their use in patients with end-stage chronic liver disease and refractory ascites is not routine practice. The safety and cost-effectiveness of LTAD are currently being studied in this setting, with preliminary positive results. We hypothesised that palliative LTAD are as effective and safe as repeat palliative large volume paracentesis (LVP) in patients with cirrhosis and refractory ascites and may offer advantages in patients' quality of life.
To compare the effectiveness and safety of palliative LTAD and LVP in refractory ascites secondary to end-stage chronic liver disease.
A retrospective, observational cohort study comparing the effectiveness and safety outcomes of palliative LTAD and regular palliative LVP as a treatment for refractory ascites in consecutive patients with end-stage chronic liver disease followed-up at our United Kingdom tertiary centre between 2018 and 2022 was conducted. Fisher's exact tests and the Mann-Whitney test were used to compare qualitative and quantitative variables, respectively. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were generated to stratify time-related outcomes according to the type of drain.
Thirty patients had a total of 35 indwelling abdominal drains and nineteen patients underwent regular LVP. The baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. Prophylactic antibiotics were more frequently prescribed in patients with LTAD ( = 0.012), while the incidence of peritonitis did not differ between the two groups ( = 0.46). The incidence of acute kidney injury ( = 0.014) and ascites/drain-related hospital admissions ( = 0.004) were significantly higher in the LVP group. The overall survival was similar in the two groups (log-rank = 0.26), but the endpoint-free survival was significantly shorter in the LVP group ( = 0.003, < 0.001, = 0.018 for first ascites/drain-related admission, acute kidney injury and drain-related complications, respectively).
The use of LTAD in the management of refractory ascites in palliated end-stage liver disease is effective, safe, and may reduce hospital admissions and utilisation of healthcare resources compared to LVP.
长期腹腔引流管(LTAD)是社区中管理恶性腹水的一种具有成本效益的姑息性措施,但在终末期慢性肝病和顽固性腹水患者中并不常规使用。目前正在对此种情况下LTAD的安全性和成本效益进行研究,初步结果呈阳性。我们假设,对于肝硬化和顽固性腹水患者,姑息性LTAD与重复姑息性大量腹腔穿刺放液(LVP)一样有效且安全,并且可能在患者生活质量方面具有优势。
比较姑息性LTAD和LVP在终末期慢性肝病继发顽固性腹水中的有效性和安全性。
进行了一项回顾性观察队列研究,比较了2018年至2022年期间在我们英国三级中心接受随访的连续性终末期慢性肝病患者中,姑息性LTAD和常规姑息性LVP作为顽固性腹水治疗方法的有效性和安全性结果。分别使用Fisher精确检验和Mann-Whitney检验来比较定性和定量变量。生成Kaplan-Meier生存估计值,以根据引流管类型对与时间相关的结果进行分层。
30例患者共留置了35根腹腔引流管,19例患者接受了常规LVP。两组的基线特征相似。LTAD患者预防性使用抗生素更为频繁(P = 0.012),而两组之间腹膜炎的发生率无差异(P = 0.46)。LVP组急性肾损伤的发生率(P = 0.014)和腹水/引流管相关住院率(P = 0.004)显著更高。两组的总生存率相似(对数秩检验P = 0.26),但LVP组无终点生存期显著更短(对于首次腹水/引流管相关入院、急性肾损伤和引流管相关并发症,P分别为0.003、<0.001、0.018)。
在姑息性终末期肝病顽固性腹水的管理中,使用LTAD是有效且安全的,与LVP相比,可能减少住院次数和医疗资源的利用。