Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 11696279

Ascites.

Abstract

Ascites is the most common presentation of decompensated cirrhosis, and its development heralds a poor prognosis, with a 50% 2-year survival rate. Effective first-line therapy for ascites includes sodium restriction (2 g/d), use of diuretics, and large-volume paracentesis (LVP). Ideally, a combination of a loop-acting diuretic (eg, furosemide) and a distal-acting diuretic (eg, spironolactone) is used. LVP has the advantage of producing immediate relief from ascites and its associated symptoms. When 5 L or more ascitic fluid is removed, albumin (6 to 8 g per liter of fluid removed) should be administered intravenously to minimize hemodynamic and renal dysfunction. The development of refractory ascites is particularly ominous, and 50% of such patients die within 6 months of its development. Liver transplantation is the only effective therapy for patients with refractory ascites associated with cirrhosis; unfortunately, this therapy is not available for many of those with refractory ascites. Other therapies that are available include LVP, peritoneovenous shunts, and transjugular intrahepatic portasystemic shunts (TIPS). LVP alleviates ascites rapidly, but ascites recurs universally, requiring repeated hospitalizations and paracenteses and decreasing patient quality of life. Peritoneovenous shunts rarely are used due to their high complication rate and tendency to become occluded. Recently, the use of TIPS has been shown to be an effective therapy for patients with refractory ascites. It is most effective when liver function is relatively well preserved. On the other hand, TIPS may hasten death in those with advanced liver failure. TIPS has not been shown to have a clear-cut beneficial effect on survival in patients with refractory ascites. Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis is the most common complication of ascites and is associated with a worsening hyperdynamic circulation and a mortality rate of approximately 20%. Following an episode of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, the 1-year mortality rate approaches 70%. Patients at risk should be considered for prophylaxis with an orally administered quinolone (eg, norfloxacin). Alternatives include trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. Active spontaneous bacterial peritonitis should be treated with an intravenously administered third-generation cephalosporins (eg, cefotaxime) in most circumstances.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Nelson Garcia, Arun J. Sanyal. 2001. Ascites.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11938-001-0018-2

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗