Palliative long-term abdominal drains versus repeated drainage in individuals with untreatable ascites due to advanced cirrhosis: study protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial

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.

Cost Comparison of Treatment Alternatives for Pleural Effusion and Ascites from a Payer Perspective: Are There Cost Savings from Indwelling Catheters?

Background: The presence of pleural effusions and ascites in patients is often considered a marker of illness severity and a poor prognostic indicator. This study aims to compare inpatient and outpatient costs of alternative invasive treatments for ascites and pleural effusions. Methods: The retrospective single-institution study included inpatient cases treated for pleural effusion (J90 and J91) or ascites (R18) at the University Hospital Cologne (UHC) in Germany between January 01, 2020, and December 31, 2021. Costs for punctures and indwelling catheter systems (ICSs) as well as pleurodesis were analyzed in different comparator treatment pathways. Real-world data from the UHC tertiary care center were based on diagnosis-related group fees from 2020 to 2021. A simulation of outpatient expenses was carried out to compare inpatient and outpatient costs for each pathway from a payer perspective. Results: A total of 4323 cases (3396 pleural effusions and 1302 ascites) were analyzed. For ascites, inpatient implantation with home care drainage was found to be the most expensive option, with total costs of €1,918.58 per procedure, whereas outpatient puncture was the least expensive option at €60.02. For pleural effusions, the most expensive treatment pathway was pleurodesis at €8,867.84 compared with the least costly option of outpatient puncture resulting in total costs per procedure of €70.03. A break-even analysis showed that outpatient puncture remains the most inexpensive treatment option, and the ICS comprises a cost-saving potential. Longevity of several months with the use of ICSs results in both enhanced quality of life for patients and increased cost savings.

Palliative Long-Term Abdominal Drains Versus Large Volume Paracentesis in Refractory Ascites Due to Cirrhosis (REDUCe Study): Qualitative Outcomes

CONTEXT

Palliative care remains suboptimal in end-stage liver disease (ESLD).

OBJECTIVES

We report qualitative outcomes from the REDUCe study. We aimed to explore and contrast experiences/perceptions/care pathways of patients with refractory ascites due to ESLD randomized to either palliative long-term abdominal drains (LTADs) (allow home drainage) vs. large volume paracentesis (LVP) (hospital drainage).

METHODS

Concurrent embedded qualitative study in a 12-week feasibility randomized controlled trial. Telephone interviews were conducted, data being recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using applied thematic analysis, considered in terms of a pathway approach toward accessing health care. Quantitative outcomes were collected (integrated palliative outcome scale, short-form liver disease quality of life, EQ-5D-5 L, Zarit Burden Interview-12).

RESULTS

Fourteen patients (six allocated LTAD and eight LVP) and eight nurses participated in the qualitative study. The patient journey in the LVP group could be hindered by challenges along the entire care pathway, from recognizing the need for drainage to a lengthy wait in hospital for drainage and/or to be discharged. These issues also impacted upon caregivers. In contrast, LTADs appeared to transform this care pathway at all levels across the patient's journey by removing the need for hospital drainage. Additional benefits included personalized care, improved symptom control of ascites, being at home, and regular support from community nurses. Nurses also viewed the LTAD favorably, though expressed the need for additional support should this become standard of care.

CONCLUSION

Patients and nurses expressed acceptability of palliative LTAD in ESLD and preference for this approach in enabling care at home. Proceeding to a definitive trial is feasible.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN30697116, date assigned: 07/10/2015.

Randomised clinical trial: palliative long-term abdominal drains vs large-volume paracentesis in refractory ascites due to cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Palliative care remains suboptimal in end-stage liver disease.

AIM

To inform a definitive study, we assessed palliative long-term abdominal drains in end-stage liver disease to determine recruitment, attrition, safety/potential effectiveness, questionnaires/interview uptake/completion and make a preliminary cost comparison.

METHODS

A 12-week feasibility nonblinded randomised controlled trial comparing large-volume paracentesis vs long-term abdominal drains in refractory ascites due to end-stage liver disease with fortnightly home visits for clinical/questionnaire-based assessments. Study success criteria were attrition not >50%, <10% long-term abdominal drain removal due to complications, the long-term abdominal drain group to spend <50% ascites-related study time in hospital vs large-volume paracentesis group and 80% questionnaire/interview uptake/completion.

RESULTS

Of 59 eligible patients, 36 (61%) were randomised, 17 to long-term abdominal drain and 19 to large-volume paracentesis. Following randomisation, median number (IQR) of hospital ascitic drains (long-term abdominal drain group vs large-volume paracentesis group) were 0 (0-1) vs 4 (3-7); week 12 serum albumin (g/L) and serum creatinine (μmol/L) were 29 (26.5-32.5) vs 30 (25-35) and 104.5 (81-115.5) vs 127 (63-158) respectively. Total attrition was 42% (long-term abdominal drain group 47%, large-volume paracentesis group 37%). Median (IQR) fortnightly community/hospital/social care ascites-related costs and percentage study time in hospital were lower in the long-term abdominal drain group, £329 (253-580) vs £843 (603-1060) and 0% (0-0.74) vs 2.75% (2.35-3.84) respectively. Self-limiting cellulitis/leakage occurred in 41% (7/17) in the long-term abdominal drain group vs 11% (2/19) in the large-volume paracentesis group; peritonitis incidence was 6% (1/17) vs 11% (2/19) respectively. Questionnaires/interview uptake/completion were ≥80%; interviews indicated that long-term abdominal drains could transform the care pathway.

CONCLUSIONS

The REDUCe study demonstrates feasibility with preliminary evidence of long-term abdominal drain acceptability/effectiveness/safety and reduction in health resource utilisation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN30697116, date assigned: 07/10/2015.

Treatment for ascites in adults with decompensated liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Approximately 20% of people with cirrhosis develop ascites. Several different treatments are available; including, among others, paracentesis plus fluid replacement, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts, aldosterone antagonists, and loop diuretics. However, there is uncertainty surrounding their relative efficacy.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of different treatments for ascites in people with decompensated liver cirrhosis through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the different treatments for ascites according to their safety and efficacy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers until May 2019 to identify randomised clinical trials in people with cirrhosis and ascites.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and ascites. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had previously undergone liver transplantation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and calculated the odds ratio, rate ratio, and hazard ratio (HR) with 95% credible intervals (CrI) based on an available-case analysis, according to National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 49 randomised clinical trials (3521 participants) in the review. Forty-two trials (2870 participants) were included in one or more outcomes in the review. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies, without other features of decompensation, having mainly grade 3 (severe), recurrent, or refractory ascites. The follow-up in the trials ranged from 0.1 to 84 months. All the trials were at high risk of bias, and the overall certainty of evidence was low or very low. Approximately 36.8% of participants who received paracentesis plus fluid replacement (reference group, the current standard treatment) died within 11 months. There was no evidence of differences in mortality, adverse events, or liver transplantation in people receiving different interventions compared to paracentesis plus fluid replacement (very low-certainty evidence). Resolution of ascites at maximal follow-up was higher with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (HR 9.44; 95% CrI 1.93 to 62.68) and adding aldosterone antagonists to paracentesis plus fluid replacement (HR 30.63; 95% CrI 5.06 to 692.98) compared to paracentesis plus fluid replacement (very low-certainty evidence). Aldosterone antagonists plus loop diuretics had a higher rate of other decompensation events such as hepatic encephalopathy, hepatorenal syndrome, and variceal bleeding compared to paracentesis plus fluid replacement (rate ratio 2.04; 95% CrI 1.37 to 3.10) (very low-certainty evidence). None of the trials using paracentesis plus fluid replacement reported health-related quality of life or symptomatic recovery from ascites.

FUNDING

the source of funding for four trials were industries which would benefit from the results of the study; 24 trials received no additional funding or were funded by neutral organisations; and the source of funding for the remaining 21 trials was unclear.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on very low-certainty evidence, there is considerable uncertainty about whether interventions for ascites in people with decompensated liver cirrhosis decrease mortality, adverse events, or liver transplantation compared to paracentesis plus fluid replacement in people with decompensated liver cirrhosis and ascites. Based on very low-certainty evidence, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt and adding aldosterone antagonists to paracentesis plus fluid replacement may increase the resolution of ascites compared to paracentesis plus fluid replacement. Based on very low-certainty evidence, aldosterone antagonists plus loop diuretics may increase the decompensation rate compared to paracentesis plus fluid replacement.

Palliative care in liver disease: what does good look like?

The mortality rate from chronic liver disease in the UK is rising rapidly, and patients with advanced disease have a symptom burden comparable to or higher than that experienced in other life-limiting illnesses. While evidence is limited, there is growing recognition that care of patients with advanced disease needs to improve. Many factors limit widespread provision of good palliative care to these patients, including the unpredictable trajectory of chronic liver disease, the misconception that palliative care and end-of-life care are synonymous, lack of confidence in prescribing and lack of time and resources. Healthcare professionals managing these patients need to develop the skills to ensure effective delivery of core palliative care, with referral to specialist palliative care services reserved for those with complex needs. Core palliative care is best delivered by the hepatology team in parallel with active disease management. This includes ensuring that discussions about disease trajectory and advance care planning occur alongside active management of disease complications. Liver disease is strongly associated with significant social, psychological and financial hardships for patients and their carers; strategies that involve the wider multidisciplinary team at an early stage in the disease trajectory help ensure proactive management of such issues. This review summarises the evidence supporting palliative care for patients with advanced chronic liver disease, presents examples of current best practice and provides pragmatic suggestions for how palliative and disease-modifying care can be run in parallel, such that patients do not miss opportunities for interventions that improve their quality of life.

Permanent indwelling peritoneal catheters for palliation of refractory ascites in end-stage liver disease: A systematic review

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The incidence and mortality from end-stage liver disease is increasing, with a minority eligible for liver transplantation. Ascites is the commonest complication of end-stage liver disease and large volume paracentesis (LVP) the accepted management strategy where refractory to medical treatment. In malignant ascites, permanent indwelling peritoneal catheters (PIPC) are an established palliative intervention. The aims are to describe available data using permanent indwelling peritoneal catheters in refractory ascites due to end-stage liver disease.

METHODS

Using systematic review methodology, databases were searched (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL [The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature], Google Scholar and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception-March 2018), for studies combining ascites and palliative care. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to results.

RESULTS

Following initial and updated searches, 225 studies were identified for full text review, 18 were eligible for final analysis. The studies displayed heterogeneity in design, reported on different indwelling catheters and were overall of low quality. Only one pilot randomised controlled trial was identified, of PIPC versus LVP, recruiting one patient into each arm. Technical insertion success was 100%, with low rates of non-infectious complications (<12%), none life threatening. Rates of bacterial peritonitis were not unacceptably high (12.7%), considering this was an end-stage liver disease population and only a minority utilising long-term prophylactic antibiotics. Only one study attempted quality-of-life assessments; none addressed potential health economic benefits.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite lack of well-designed studies, preliminary data suggests low significant complication rates; however safety and efficacy of permanent indwelling peritoneal catheters in end-stage liver disease remains to be confirmed. Further prospective randomised controlled trials are warranted, potentially translating permanent indwelling peritoneal catheters into improved palliative care in end-stage liver disease.