Shriver AR, Rudnick SR, Intagliata NM, Wang AM, Caldwell SH, Northup PG

Language: English
References: 12
Page: 279-284
PDF size: 138.66 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction. The aim of this study is to investigate large volume therapeutic paracentesis using either a z-tract or axial (coxial) technique in a randomized controlled trial. Materials and methods. In this randomized, single blind study, patients with cirrhosis undergoing outpatient therapeutic paracentesis were randomized to the z-tract or the modified angular (coaxial) needle insertion technique. Subject and procedure characteristics were compared between the groups with ascites leakage as quantified by need for dressing changes with standardized sized gauze pads as a primary endpoint and subject procedural discomfort, operator preference, and procedure complications as secondary endpoints. Results. 72 paracenteses were performed during the study period: 34 to the z-tract and 38 to the coaxial insertion technique. Following exclusions, a total of 61 paracenteses were analyzed: 30 using the z-tract technique and 31 using the coaxial technique. There were equal rates of post-procedural leakage of ascites between groups (13% in both groups, p = 1.00). Using the visual analog scale (0 - 100), there was a statistically significant increase in the subject reported pain score with the z-tract compared with the coaxial method [26.4 (95% CI 18.7 - 34.1) vs. 17.2 (95% CI 10.6 - 23.8), p = 0.04]. Mean physician rated procedure difficulty (1 - 5) was significantly higher for the z-tract vs. the coaxial technique [2.1 (95% CI 1.6 - 2.6) vs. 1.5 (95% CI 1.2 - 1.8), p = 0.04]. Conclusion. When compared to the z-tract technique, the coaxial insertion technique is superior during large volume paracentesis in cirrhosis patients.

REFERENCES

1. Gines P, Quintero E, Arroyo V, Teres J, Bruguera M, Rimola A, Caballeria J, et al., Compensated cirrhosis: natural history and prognostic factors. Hepatology 1987; 7: 122-8.

2. Moore WJ. Abdominal paracentesis; a new method. Med Press 1949; 222: 117-27.

3. Lerner BH. Abdominal paracentesis: a casualty of reductionist medical therapeutics. Bull Hist Med 1993; 67: 439-62.

4. Gines P, Arroyo V, Quintero E, Planas R, Bory F, Cabrera J, Rimola A, et al. Comparison of paracentesis and diuretics in the treatment of cirrhotics with tense ascites. Results of a randomized study. Gastroenterology 1987; 93: 234-41.

5. EASL clinical practice guidelines on the management of ascites, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, and hepatorenal syndrome in cirrhosis. J Hepatol 53: 397-417.

6. Runyon BA. Management of adult patients with ascites due to cirrhosis: an update. Hepatology 2009; 49: p. 2087-107.

7. Thomsen TW, Shaffer RW, White B, and Setnik GS. Videos in clinical medicine. Paracentesis. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: p. e21.

8. De Gottardi A, Thevenot T, Spahr L, Morard I, Bresson-Hadni S, Torres F, Giostra E, et al., Risk of complications after abdominal paracentesis in cirrhotic patients: a prospective study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009; 7: 906-9.

9. Hawker GA, Mian S, Kendzerska T, French M. Measures of adult pain: Visual Analog Scale for Pain (VAS Pain), Numeric Rating Scale for Pain (NRS Pain), McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), Chronic Pain Grade Scale (CPGS), Short Form-36 Bodily Pain Scale (SF-36 BPS), and Measure of Intermittent and Constant Osteoarthritis Pain (ICOAP). Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2011; 63(Suppl. 11): S240-S252.

10. Mallory A, Schaefer JW. Complications of diagnostic paracentesis in patients with liver disease. JAMA 1978; 239: 628-30.

11. Shaheen NJ, Grimm IS. Comparison of the Caldwell needle/ cannula with Angiocath needle in large volume paracentesis. Am J Gastroenterol 1996; 91: 1731-3.

12. Kamath PS, Wiesner RH, Malinchoc M, Kremers W, Therneau TM, Kosberg CL, D’Amico G, et al. A model to predict survival in patients with end-stage liver disease. Hepatology 2001; 33: 464-70.