顽固性腹水患者应用TIPS、隧道式腹膜导管或腹水泵治疗的临床结果比较

IF 5.6 2区 医学 Q1 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Hepatology Communications Pub Date : 2025-01-16 eCollection Date: 2025-02-01 DOI:10.1097/HC9.0000000000000620
Sarah L Schütte, Anja Tiede, Jim B Mauz, Hannah Rieland, Martin Kabelitz, Robin Iker, Nicolas Richter, Bernhard Meyer, Benjamin Heidrich, Heiner Wedemeyer, Benjamin Maasoumy, Tammo L Tergast
{"title":"顽固性腹水患者应用TIPS、隧道式腹膜导管或腹水泵治疗的临床结果比较","authors":"Sarah L Schütte, Anja Tiede, Jim B Mauz, Hannah Rieland, Martin Kabelitz, Robin Iker, Nicolas Richter, Bernhard Meyer, Benjamin Heidrich, Heiner Wedemeyer, Benjamin Maasoumy, Tammo L Tergast","doi":"10.1097/HC9.0000000000000620","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Refractory ascites (RA) remains a serious complication in patients with cirrhosis. Currently, the insertion of a TIPS is considered the standard of care in these patients. To achieve symptom control in those with TIPS contraindications, tunneled peritoneal catheters (PeCa) or ascites pumps were introduced. However, data comparing the available treatment options are scarce. This study aims to compare outcomes among patients with RA treated either with TIPS, PeCa, or ascites pump.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All patients with RA and cirrhosis treated at Hannover Medical School between 2009 and 2023 were evaluated. Endpoints included mortality, acute kidney injury (AKI), hyponatremia, peritonitis, and rehospitalization rate. Propensity score matching was conducted to adjust for group differences.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>First, 31 patients with ascites pump were compared to 62 patients with a PeCa after propensity score matching. There were no differences regarding mortality nor incidences of AKI, hyponatremia, or rehospitalization. However, incidences of peritonitis and explantation were lower in those with ascites pump (HR 0.32, 95% CI: 0.15-0.70, and HR 0.32, 95% CI: 0.14-0.71, respectively). Second, 35 ascites pump patients were matched with 70 individuals with TIPS. No differences regarding mortality or peritonitis incidence were observed. Ascites pump patients showed higher incidences of AKI (HR 4.55, 95% CI: 2.53-8.18) and hyponatremia (HR 4.13, 95% CI: 2.08-8.22). Last, 129 patients with TIPS were compared to 129 with PeCa. Mortality was comparable, while incidences of AKI (HR 5.01, 95% CI: 3.36-7.47), hyponatremia (HR 4.64, 95% CI: 3.03-7.12), and peritonitis (HR 2.19, 95% CI: 1.41-3.41) were higher in those with PeCa.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While ascites pump was associated with lower incidences of device infections and explantations, TIPS was associated with the lowest incidence of clinical complications in patients with RA.</p>","PeriodicalId":12978,"journal":{"name":"Hepatology Communications","volume":"9 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11737501/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of clinical outcomes in patients with refractory ascites treated with either TIPS, tunneled peritoneal catheter, or ascites pump.\",\"authors\":\"Sarah L Schütte, Anja Tiede, Jim B Mauz, Hannah Rieland, Martin Kabelitz, Robin Iker, Nicolas Richter, Bernhard Meyer, Benjamin Heidrich, Heiner Wedemeyer, Benjamin Maasoumy, Tammo L Tergast\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/HC9.0000000000000620\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Refractory ascites (RA) remains a serious complication in patients with cirrhosis. Currently, the insertion of a TIPS is considered the standard of care in these patients. To achieve symptom control in those with TIPS contraindications, tunneled peritoneal catheters (PeCa) or ascites pumps were introduced. However, data comparing the available treatment options are scarce. This study aims to compare outcomes among patients with RA treated either with TIPS, PeCa, or ascites pump.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All patients with RA and cirrhosis treated at Hannover Medical School between 2009 and 2023 were evaluated. Endpoints included mortality, acute kidney injury (AKI), hyponatremia, peritonitis, and rehospitalization rate. Propensity score matching was conducted to adjust for group differences.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>First, 31 patients with ascites pump were compared to 62 patients with a PeCa after propensity score matching. There were no differences regarding mortality nor incidences of AKI, hyponatremia, or rehospitalization. However, incidences of peritonitis and explantation were lower in those with ascites pump (HR 0.32, 95% CI: 0.15-0.70, and HR 0.32, 95% CI: 0.14-0.71, respectively). Second, 35 ascites pump patients were matched with 70 individuals with TIPS. No differences regarding mortality or peritonitis incidence were observed. Ascites pump patients showed higher incidences of AKI (HR 4.55, 95% CI: 2.53-8.18) and hyponatremia (HR 4.13, 95% CI: 2.08-8.22). Last, 129 patients with TIPS were compared to 129 with PeCa. Mortality was comparable, while incidences of AKI (HR 5.01, 95% CI: 3.36-7.47), hyponatremia (HR 4.64, 95% CI: 3.03-7.12), and peritonitis (HR 2.19, 95% CI: 1.41-3.41) were higher in those with PeCa.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While ascites pump was associated with lower incidences of device infections and explantations, TIPS was associated with the lowest incidence of clinical complications in patients with RA.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12978,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hepatology Communications\",\"volume\":\"9 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11737501/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hepatology Communications\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/HC9.0000000000000620\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/2/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hepatology Communications","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/HC9.0000000000000620","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:难治性腹水(RA)仍然是肝硬化患者的一个严重并发症。目前,植入TIPS被认为是这些患者的标准治疗方法。为了控制TIPS禁忌症患者的症状,引入了隧道腹膜导管(PeCa)或腹水泵。然而,比较现有治疗方案的数据很少。本研究旨在比较TIPS、PeCa或腹水泵治疗RA患者的结果。方法:对2009年至2023年在汉诺威医学院治疗的所有RA和肝硬化患者进行评估。终点包括死亡率、急性肾损伤(AKI)、低钠血症、腹膜炎和再住院率。进行倾向得分匹配以调整组间差异。结果:首先,在倾向评分匹配后,将31例装有腹水泵的患者与62例装有PeCa的患者进行比较。两组在死亡率、AKI发生率、低钠血症发生率和再住院率方面均无差异。然而,腹水泵组腹膜炎和外植的发生率较低(HR 0.32, 95% CI: 0.15-0.70, HR 0.32, 95% CI: 0.14-0.71)。其次,35例腹水泵患者与70例TIPS患者配对。在死亡率和腹膜炎发生率方面没有观察到差异。腹水泵患者AKI (HR 4.55, 95% CI: 2.53-8.18)和低钠血症(HR 4.13, 95% CI: 2.08-8.22)的发生率较高。最后,129例TIPS患者与129例PeCa患者进行比较。死亡率相当,但PeCa患者的AKI (HR 5.01, 95% CI: 3.36-7.47)、低钠血症(HR 4.64, 95% CI: 3.03-7.12)和腹膜炎(HR 2.19, 95% CI: 1.41-3.41)发生率更高。结论:虽然腹水泵与器械感染和解释的发生率较低相关,但TIPS与RA患者临床并发症的发生率最低相关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of clinical outcomes in patients with refractory ascites treated with either TIPS, tunneled peritoneal catheter, or ascites pump.

Background: Refractory ascites (RA) remains a serious complication in patients with cirrhosis. Currently, the insertion of a TIPS is considered the standard of care in these patients. To achieve symptom control in those with TIPS contraindications, tunneled peritoneal catheters (PeCa) or ascites pumps were introduced. However, data comparing the available treatment options are scarce. This study aims to compare outcomes among patients with RA treated either with TIPS, PeCa, or ascites pump.

Methods: All patients with RA and cirrhosis treated at Hannover Medical School between 2009 and 2023 were evaluated. Endpoints included mortality, acute kidney injury (AKI), hyponatremia, peritonitis, and rehospitalization rate. Propensity score matching was conducted to adjust for group differences.

Results: First, 31 patients with ascites pump were compared to 62 patients with a PeCa after propensity score matching. There were no differences regarding mortality nor incidences of AKI, hyponatremia, or rehospitalization. However, incidences of peritonitis and explantation were lower in those with ascites pump (HR 0.32, 95% CI: 0.15-0.70, and HR 0.32, 95% CI: 0.14-0.71, respectively). Second, 35 ascites pump patients were matched with 70 individuals with TIPS. No differences regarding mortality or peritonitis incidence were observed. Ascites pump patients showed higher incidences of AKI (HR 4.55, 95% CI: 2.53-8.18) and hyponatremia (HR 4.13, 95% CI: 2.08-8.22). Last, 129 patients with TIPS were compared to 129 with PeCa. Mortality was comparable, while incidences of AKI (HR 5.01, 95% CI: 3.36-7.47), hyponatremia (HR 4.64, 95% CI: 3.03-7.12), and peritonitis (HR 2.19, 95% CI: 1.41-3.41) were higher in those with PeCa.

Conclusions: While ascites pump was associated with lower incidences of device infections and explantations, TIPS was associated with the lowest incidence of clinical complications in patients with RA.

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
Hepatology Communications
Hepatology Communications GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
2.00%
发文量
248
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Hepatology Communications is a peer-reviewed, online-only, open access journal for fast dissemination of high quality basic, translational, and clinical research in hepatology. Hepatology Communications maintains high standard and rigorous peer review. Because of its open access nature, authors retain the copyright to their works, all articles are immediately available and free to read and share, and it is fully compliant with funder and institutional mandates. The journal is committed to fast publication and author satisfaction. ​
×
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