Development and predictive validity of the cirrhosis-associated ascites symptom scale: A cohort study of 103 patients

Tunneled Peritoneal Catheter for Refractory Ascites in Cirrhosis: A Randomized Case-Series

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Refractory ascites markedly worsens prognosis in cirrhosis. Large volume paracentesis (LVP) is standard treatment, but complications are common. In a randomized controlled case-series, we assessed a permanent tunneled peritoneal catheter versus LVP in patients with cirrhosis and ascites.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Random allocation was computer-generated, and concealment used opaque envelopes. Patients were included from January 2017 to December 2018. Inclusion criteria were cirrhosis and recurrent ascites and expected survival of more than 3 months.

RESULTS

Thirteen patients were enrolled (PleurX =6 versus LVP = 7). Seven were female, ranging in age from 51 to 80 years. No procedure-related complications occurred. Two patients died due to variceal bleeding (PleurX-group) and sepsis (LVP-group). One patient was withdrawn due to hyponatremia (PleurX-group). Two patients were withdrawn due to bacterial peritonitis and infection of unknown origin (control-group). In the PleurX-group, all patients colonized the catheter, two developed bacterial peritonitis. The most common bacterial colonization was Staph. Epidermidis (n = 4).

CONCLUSIONS

In selected patients, the PleurX catheter mobilizes ascites and may be an alternative to LVP. The risk of infection should be considered in each case. The impact of colonization and risk of infections needs further investigation. The present trial does not allow for statistical conclusions.

A survey of practice in management of malignancy-related ascites in Japan

Although ascites is a distressing complication observed commonly in the course of advanced cancer, there is no effective treatment established for malignancy-related ascites. We conducted a nationwide survey of cancer physicians in Japan who treat malignancy-related ascites in order to determine what kind of therapeutic approach is thought to be significant and what kind of diuretic prescriptions are thought to be standard for malignancy-related ascites. From 2017 to 2018, we sent a one-page memo to oncologists in Japan asking them to participate in a questionnaire-style survey that they could complete online. The significance of each of the nine representative interventions was measured on a 5-stage Likert scale. At the same time, participants were asked about what type and dosage of diuretics they thought to be standard as a treatment for malignancy-related ascites. Ultimately, 187 oncologists responded to our invitation. The interventions that were particularly significant were reducing hydration volume, paracentesis, and symptom management with analgesics. The respondents indicated that the importance of diuretics was significantly lower than that of these three interventions. Furthermore, 86.2% of the respondents in Japan regarded the use of loop diuretics ± aldosterone antagonists as the standard of diuretic therapy for malignancy-related ascites, and the most common regimen was 20 mg of oral furosemide ± 25 mg of spironolactone daily at the start, and 30-40 mg ± 50 mg daily at the time of initial escalation. Although our study revealed that the attitude of oncologists in Japan toward therapeutic options for malignancy-related ascites was nearly consistent with that of previous reports from other countries, it was newly found that they seemed to commonly be concerned with preventing overhydration of terminally ill cancer patients and that analgesics were also thought to be a significant form of intervention.