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.

No abstract

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.

Copyright and reuse:Sussex Research Online is a digital repository of the research output of the University.Copyright and all moral rights to the version of the paper presented here belong to the individual author(s) and/or other copyright owners. To the extent reasonable and practicable, the material made available in SRO has been checked for eligibility before being made available.Copies of full text items generally can be reproduced, displayed or performed and given to third parties in any format or medium for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge, provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way. MeSH headings/keywords

BackgroundUK deaths due to chronic liver diseases such as cirrhosis have quadrupled over the last 40 years, making this condition now the third most common cause of premature death. Most patients with advanced cirrhosis (end-stage liver disease [ESLD]) develop ascites. This is often managed with diuretics, but if refractory, then the fluid is drained from the peritoneal cavity every 10–14 days by large volume paracentesis (LVP), a procedure requiring hospital admissions. As the life expectancy of patients with ESLD and refractory ascites (if ineligible for liver transplantation) is on average ≤ 6 months, frequent hospital visits are inappropriate from a palliative perspective. One alternative is long-term abdominal drains (LTADs), used successfully in patients whose ascites is due to malignancy. Although inserted in hospital, these drains allow ascites management outside of a hospital setting. LTADs have not been formally evaluated in patients with refractory ascites due to ESLD.Methods/designDue to uncertainty about appropriate outcome measures and whether patients with ESLD would wish or be able to participate in a study, a feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) was designed. Patients were consulted on trial design. We plan to recruit 48 patients with refractory ascites and randomise them (1:1) to either (1) LTAD or (2) current standard of care (LVP) for 12 weeks. Outcomes of interest include acceptability of the LTAD to patients, carers and healthcare professionals as well as recruitment and retention rates. The Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale, the Short Form Liver Disease Quality of Life questionnaire, the EuroQol 5 dimensions instrument and carer-reported (Zarit Burden Interview) outcomes will also be assessed. Preliminary data on cost-effectiveness will be collected, and patients and healthcare professionals will be interviewed about their experience of the trial with a view to identifying barriers to recruitment.DiscussionLTADs could potentially improve end-of-life care in patients with refractory ascites due to ESLD by improving symptom control, reducing hospital visits and enabling some self-management. Our trial is designed to see if such patients can be recruited, as well as to inform the design of a subsequent definitive trial.Trial registrationISRCTN, ISRCTN30697116. Registered on 7 October 2015.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2779-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.