Outpatient therapeutic paracentesis for malignant ascites: A short report reviewing local practice that supports procedural safety

Tunneled Peritoneal Catheter vs Repeated Paracenteses for Recurrent Ascites: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the cost-effectiveness of tunneled peritoneal catheter (TPC) versus serial large-volume paracenteses (LVP) for patients with recurrent ascites.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective, single-institution analysis of 100 consecutive patients undergoing LVP and eventual TPC placement (2015-2018) was performed with extraction of procedural complications and hospital admissions. LVPs were associated with 17 adverse events (AEs) while only 9 AEs occurred after TPC placement. While undergoing routine LVP, the patients had 30 hospitalizations monthly (177 days in total) and 10 hospitalizations monthly (51 days) after TPC placement. A cost-effectiveness analysis with Markov modeling was performed comparing TPC and LVP. Costs were based on Medicare reimbursement rates. Statistical analyses include base case calculation, Monte Carlo simulations, and deterministic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

TPC placement was the dominant strategy with a comparable health benefit of 0.08060 quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) (LVP: 0.08057 QALY) at a lower cost of $4151 (LVP: $8401). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed TPC was superior in 97.49% of simulations. Deterministic sensitivity analysis demonstrated the superiority of TPC compared to LVP if the TPC complication rate was < 9.47% per week and the complication rate for LVP was > 1.32% per procedure. TPC was more cost-effective when its procedural cost was < $5427 (base case: 1174.5), and remained as such when the cost of LVP was varied as much as $10,000 (base case: $316.48).

CONCLUSION

In this study, TPC was more cost-effective than LVP in patients with recurrent ascites due to the reduced risk of infection, emergency department visits, and length of hospitalization stays.

Management of drainage for malignant ascites in gynaecological cancer

BACKGROUND

Ascites is the accumulation of fluid within the abdominal cavity. Most women with advanced ovarian cancer and some women with advanced endometrial cancer need repeated drainage for ascites. Guidelines to advise those involved in the drainage of ascites are usually produced locally and are generally not evidence-based. Managing drains that improve the efficacy and quality of the procedure is key in making recommendations that could improve the quality of life (QoL) for women at this critical period of their lives.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and adverse events of different interventions for the management of malignant ascites drainage in the palliative care of women with gynaecological cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase to 4 November 2019. We checked clinical trial registries, grey literature, reports of conferences, citation lists of included studies, and key textbooks for potentially relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of women with malignant ascites with gynaecological cancer. If studies also included women with non-gynaecological cancer, we planned to extract data specifically for women with gynaecological cancers or request the data from trial authors. If this was not possible, we planned to include the study only if at least 50% of participants were diagnosed with gynaecological cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, evaluated the quality of the included studies, compared results, and assessed the certainty of the evidence using Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

In the original 2010 review, we identified no relevant studies. This updated review included one RCT involving 245 participants that compared abdominal paracentesis and intraperitoneal infusion of catumaxomab versus abdominal paracentesis alone. The study was at high risk of bias in almost all domains. The data were not suitable for analysis. The median time to the first deterioration of QoL ranged from 19 to 26 days in participants receiving paracentesis alone compared to 47 to 49 days among participants receiving paracentesis with catumaxomab infusion (very low-certainty evidence). Adverse events were only reported among participants receiving catumaxomab infusion. The most common severe adverse events were abdominal pain and lymphopenia (157 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There were no data on the improvement of symptoms, satisfaction of participants and caregivers, and cost-effectiveness.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, there is insufficient evidence to recommend the most appropriate management of drainage for malignant ascites among women with gynaecological cancer, as there was only very low-certainty evidence from one small RCT at overall high risk of bias.