Premium
Randomised clinical trial: palliative long‐term abdominal drains vs large‐volume paracentesis in refractory ascites due to cirrhosis
Author(s) -
Macken Lucia,
Bremner Stephen,
Gage Heather,
Touray Morro,
Williams Peter,
Crook David,
Mason Louise,
Lambert Debbie,
Evans Catherine J.,
Cooper Max,
Timeyin Jean,
Steer Shani,
Austin Mark,
Parnell Nick,
Thomson Sam J.,
Sheridan David,
Wright Mark,
Isaacs Peter,
Hashim Ahmed,
Verma Sumita
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
alimentary pharmacology and therapeutics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.308
H-Index - 177
eISSN - 1365-2036
pISSN - 0269-2813
DOI - 10.1111/apt.15802
Subject(s) - medicine , paracentesis , ascites , cirrhosis , surgery , palliative care , randomized controlled trial , creatinine , nursing
Summary 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.