用于治疗终末期肝病难治性腹水的姑息性长期腹腔引流管与大容量腹腔旁路引流管的比较

IF 2.5 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Senamjit Kaur, Rodrigo V. Motta, Bryony Chapman, Victoria Wharton, Jane D Collier, Francesca Saffioti
{"title":"用于治疗终末期肝病难治性腹水的姑息性长期腹腔引流管与大容量腹腔旁路引流管的比较","authors":"Senamjit Kaur, Rodrigo V. Motta, Bryony Chapman, Victoria Wharton, Jane D Collier, Francesca Saffioti","doi":"10.4254/wjh.v16.i3.428","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND 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. AIM To compare the effectiveness and safety of palliative LTAD and LVP in refractory ascites secondary to end-stage chronic liver disease. METHODS 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 U 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. RESULTS 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 (P = 0.012), while the incidence of peritonitis did not differ between the two groups (P = 0.46). The incidence of acute kidney injury (P = 0.014) and ascites/drain-related hospital admissions (P = 0.004) were significantly higher in the LVP group. The overall survival was similar in the two groups (log-rank P = 0.26), but the endpoint-free survival was significantly shorter in the LVP group (P = 0.003, P < 0.001, P = 0.018 for first ascites/drain-related admission, acute kidney injury and drain-related complications, respectively). CONCLUSION 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.","PeriodicalId":23687,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Hepatology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Palliative long-term abdominal drains vs large volume paracenteses for the management of refractory ascites in end-stage liver disease\",\"authors\":\"Senamjit Kaur, Rodrigo V. Motta, Bryony Chapman, Victoria Wharton, Jane D Collier, Francesca Saffioti\",\"doi\":\"10.4254/wjh.v16.i3.428\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BACKGROUND 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. AIM To compare the effectiveness and safety of palliative LTAD and LVP in refractory ascites secondary to end-stage chronic liver disease. METHODS 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 U 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. RESULTS 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 (P = 0.012), while the incidence of peritonitis did not differ between the two groups (P = 0.46). The incidence of acute kidney injury (P = 0.014) and ascites/drain-related hospital admissions (P = 0.004) were significantly higher in the LVP group. The overall survival was similar in the two groups (log-rank P = 0.26), but the endpoint-free survival was significantly shorter in the LVP group (P = 0.003, P < 0.001, P = 0.018 for first ascites/drain-related admission, acute kidney injury and drain-related complications, respectively). CONCLUSION 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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":23687,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World Journal of Hepatology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World Journal of Hepatology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4254/wjh.v16.i3.428\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Hepatology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4254/wjh.v16.i3.428","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景 长期腹腔引流术(LTAD)是社区中治疗恶性腹水的一种经济有效的姑息措施,但在患有终末期慢性肝病和难治性腹水的患者中使用这种方法并非常规做法。目前正在对这种情况下使用 LTAD 的安全性和成本效益进行研究,并取得了初步的积极成果。我们假设,在肝硬化和难治性腹水患者中,姑息性 LTAD 与重复姑息性大容积腹腔穿刺术(LVP)一样有效和安全,并能提高患者的生活质量。目的 比较姑息性 LTAD 和 LVP 对继发于终末期慢性肝病的难治性腹水的有效性和安全性。方法 进行一项回顾性观察性队列研究,比较姑息性 LTAD 和常规姑息性 LVP 作为难治性腹水治疗方法的有效性和安全性,研究对象为 2018 年至 2022 年期间在我们英国三级中心随访的连续性终末期慢性肝病患者。费雪精确检验和曼-惠特尼U检验分别用于比较定性和定量变量。根据引流管类型生成卡普兰-梅耶生存估计值,对时间相关结果进行分层。结果 30 名患者共使用了 35 个留置腹腔引流管,19 名患者接受了常规 LVP。两组患者的基线特征相似。LTAD患者更常使用预防性抗生素(P = 0.012),而腹膜炎的发生率在两组之间没有差异(P = 0.46)。LVP组急性肾损伤(P = 0.014)和腹水/引流相关住院(P = 0.004)的发生率明显更高。两组的总生存期相似(对数秩 P = 0.26),但 LVP 组的无终点生存期明显较短(首次腹水/引流相关入院、急性肾损伤和引流相关并发症的无终点生存期分别为 P = 0.003、P < 0.001、P = 0.018)。结论 与 LVP 相比,使用 LTAD 治疗姑息性终末期肝病患者的难治性腹水是有效、安全的,并可减少入院人数和医疗资源的使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Palliative long-term abdominal drains vs large volume paracenteses for the management of refractory ascites in end-stage liver disease
BACKGROUND 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. AIM To compare the effectiveness and safety of palliative LTAD and LVP in refractory ascites secondary to end-stage chronic liver disease. METHODS 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 U 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. RESULTS 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 (P = 0.012), while the incidence of peritonitis did not differ between the two groups (P = 0.46). The incidence of acute kidney injury (P = 0.014) and ascites/drain-related hospital admissions (P = 0.004) were significantly higher in the LVP group. The overall survival was similar in the two groups (log-rank P = 0.26), but the endpoint-free survival was significantly shorter in the LVP group (P = 0.003, P < 0.001, P = 0.018 for first ascites/drain-related admission, acute kidney injury and drain-related complications, respectively). CONCLUSION 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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
World Journal of Hepatology
World Journal of Hepatology GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
4.20%
发文量
172
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信