腹腔置管治疗顽固性腹水对血浆RAAS的影响

目的 探讨中心静脉导管腹腔置入术治疗顽固性腹水对肾素-血管紧张素Ⅱ-醛固酮系统(RAAS)的影响.方法 21例肝硬化顽固性腹水患者,经皮穿刺导丝引导法置入中心静脉导管,通过该导管隔日大量引流一次腹水,同时联合内科综合治疗,检测腹水引流前后肾素、血管紧张素Ⅱ和醛固酮水平及体重、腹围、尿量和肾功能.结果 所有患者感腹胀、纳差、呼吸困难症状均完全缓解或者部分缓解;置管治疗能迅速减少腹围,显效33.3%,总有效率达71.4%;治疗后腹围及体重显著低于治疗前,而肾功能有所恢复;并且血浆肾素、血管紧张素Ⅱ和醛固酮水平显著减低(P＜0.05);引流不畅3例(占14.3%),穿刺点腹水渗漏2例(占9.5%),无其他严重并发症.结论 中心静脉导管腹腔置入术联合内科综合治疗是肝硬化顽固性腹水的有效治疗方法,能迅速消除腹水,抑制RAAS系统活性,并发症少,安全可靠.     

乙型肝炎肝硬化伴难治性腹水患者腹腔置管引流50例临床观察

我们从2002年5月至2009年5月对50例难治性腹水患者采用深静脉导管腹腔间断或持续引流,较50例一般治疗对照组效果显著,现小结报道如下. 1 资料与方法 1.1 临床资料 本院2002年5月-2009年5月在临床上应用腹腔置管引流术处理乙型肝炎肝硬化晚期伴难治性腹水患者,纳入病例共100例,采用随机分组,治疗组(引流治疗组)与对照组(一般治疗组)各50例.难治性腹水的诊断符合<内科学>第7版中肝硬化一章(第14章)所规定的诊断标准[1].     

腹腔置管持续引流腹水治疗肝肾综合征13例报告

目的观察腹腔置管持续引流腹水对终末期肝硬化患者并发肝肾综合征的治疗效果。方法13例终末期肝硬化并发肝肾综合征患者在常规抗感染、利尿、补充血容量、营养、支持等综合治疗基础上,采用腹腔置管持续引流腹水,观察置管前后患者临床表现、肝功能、肾功能、电解质和尿量的变化,5例患者连续3天检测腹水TNF-α浓度。结果治疗组13例病人在术后72小时尿量明显增加、食欲改善,肾功能好转,其中3例患者尿量虽有增加,但病情无明显改善,放弃治疗,5例患者腹水TNF-α浓度均明显下降。结论腹腔置管持续引流腹水治疗终末期肝硬化并发肝肾综合征患者有暂时的治疗效果。     

单腔锁穿管引流法治疗肝硬化顽固性腹水的疗效观察

探讨肝硬化顽固性腹水的治疗方法。在支持利尿治疗的基础上,治疗组44例肝硬化顽固性腹水患者采用单腔锁穿管引流腹水法,对照组42例采用反复大量放腹水法。治疗组显效率77.27%,总有效率97.77%;对照组显效率57.14%,总有效率90.48%,治疗组与对照组比较腹水控制显效率(P<0.05)显著提高,疗程(P<0.05)明显缩短,继发循环功能紊乱(P<0.001)、低纳血症(P<0.05)明显减少。单腔锁穿管引流治疗肝硬化顽固性腹水的方法简便、安全,疗效满意,值得在临床上推广应用。     

肝癌顽固性血性腹水超滤浓缩回输腹腔的临床研究

目的:评价腹水超滤浓缩回输腹腔术对改善肝硬化伴肝癌顽固性血性腹水的近期疗效和安全性.方法:选择39例乙型肝炎肝硬化伴肝癌顽固性腹水患者,其中21例血性腹水患者作为治疗组,其余为对照组进行腹腔穿刺使腹水或血性腹水经过体外超滤浓缩再回输入腹腔,1天后比较治疗前后的临床症状并观察血液生化指标的变化.结果:经过腹水超滤浓缩回输腹腔后两组患者的近期临床症状、腹围、尿量均显著改善,与治疗前比较患者心率、血压(收缩压/舒张压)、血红细胞、血红蛋白、血浆白蛋白、血清肌酐和电解质均无明显变化,无任何不良事件发生.结论:腹水超滤浓缩回输腹腔术治疗顽固性肝癌血性腹水安全,近期效果可靠,有利于提高晚期肝癌患者的生存质量.     

腹水超滤浓缩回输腹腔术对肝硬化顽固性大量腹水并发Ⅱ型肝肾综合征的疗效探讨

[目的]探讨腹水超滤浓缩回输腹腔术对肝硬化顽固性大量腹水患者并发Ⅱ型肝肾综合征的疗效。[方法]将66例肝硬化顽固性大量腹水同时并发Ⅱ型肝肾综合征的患者随机分为治疗组(34例)和对照组(32例);治疗组采用腹水超滤浓缩回输腹腔术治疗,对照组采用腹腔穿刺放液治疗。[结果]2组治疗后,在改善24h尿量、降低血清尿素氮、降低血清K+方面均较治疗前有效,但治疗组明显优于对照组(P0.05);2组不良反应发生率比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。[结论]合理应用腹水超滤浓缩回输腹腔术是一种治疗肝硬化顽固性大量腹水并发Ⅱ肝肾综合征的有效措施,可迅速改善患者肾脏功能,明显增加尿量,缓解氮质血症,解除高钾血症。     

干细胞移植治疗肝硬化顽固性腹水的疗效观察

目的观察干细胞移植治疗肝硬化顽固性腹水的疗效。方法 39例肝硬化顽固性腹水患者分为对照组16例,行常规治疗;治疗组23例,在常规治疗基础上行干细胞移植。比较两组患者移植前与移植后临床症状、腹水持续正常时间、肝肾功能及健康状况量化评分变化。结果两组在治疗后3个月腹水均有一定程度缓解,治疗组干细胞移植患者腹水增长速度放缓;治疗组白蛋白合成及肾功能的好转均优于对照组（P〈0.05）,胆碱酯酶和凝血酶原活动度变化不明显（P〉0.05）;根据KPS评分,两组健康状况均较治疗前好转（P〈0.05）,治疗组健康状况好转优于对照组（P〈0.05）。结论干细胞移植治疗肝硬化顽固性腹水有较好近期疗效,其价格低廉、技术风险小,可进一步推广使用。     

腹水的治疗

约80%的腹水为肝源性，出现腹水是肝硬化病史的转折点。代偿性肝硬化患者10年内约半数发生腹水，腹水患者约50%在2年内死亡，常规药物治疗无效者，6个月内死亡率达50%，难治性腹水患者1年存活率仅为25%。在发达国家，考虑肝移植术需等候12～18个月，往往丧失治疗机会。我国肝移植术的开展正方兴未艾，越来越多的终末期肝硬化和顽固性腹水患者已开始接受肝移植术，并已取得较好的近期疗效。     

腹水引流并静脉输注白蛋白或血浆治疗肝硬化顽固性腹水36例

肝硬化并顽固性腹水患者采用腹水引流并静输白蛋白(血浆)是一种疗效迅速安全实惠的治疗方法。本文就我院近3年来确诊为肝硬化顽固性腹水患者36例。经上述治疗后取得了满意疗效，现报告如下。     

腹水超滤浓缩回输腹腔术治疗肝硬化顽固性腹水疗效分析

目的 探讨腹水超滤浓缩回输腹腔术治疗肝硬化顽固性腹水的疗效。方法 将56例肝硬化顽固性腹水患者随机分为2组,均给予保肝、利尿及抗病毒治疗。在此基础上,对治疗组行腹水超滤浓缩回输腹腔术加小剂量人血白蛋白静脉滴注(静滴)(每滤出1000ml腹水,静滴人血白蛋白4g),对对照组行大量放腹水加大剂量人血白蛋白静滴(每抽出1000ml腹水,静滴人血白蛋白8g)。结果 术后第14天,治疗组患者24h尿量、血清ALB水平均高于对照组(P均<0.05),且治疗组总有效率高于对照组(P<0.05)。结论 腹水超滤浓缩回输腹腔术是一种安全有效的治疗肝硬化顽固性腹水的方法。     

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunting versus paracentesis plus albumin for refractory ascites in cirrhosis

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) has been shown to be more effective than repeated paracentesis plus albumin in the control of refractory ascites. However, its effect on survival and healthcare costs is still uncertain. METHODS: Seventy patients with cirrhosis and refractory ascites were randomly assigned to TIPS (35 patients) or repeated paracentesis plus intravenous albumin (35 patients). The primary endpoint was survival without liver transplantation. Secondary endpoints were complications of cirrhosis and costs. RESULTS: Twenty patients treated with TIPS and 18 treated with paracentesis died during the study period, whereas 7 patients in each group underwent liver transplantation (mean follow-up 282 +/- 43 vs. 325 +/- 61 days, respectively). The probability of survival without liver transplantation was 41% at 1 year and 26% at 2 years in the TIPS group, as compared with 35% and 30% in the paracentesis group (P = 0.51). In a multivariate analysis, only baseline blood urea nitrogen levels and Child-Pugh score were independently associated with survival. Recurrence of ascites and development of hepatorenal syndrome were lower in the TIPS group compared with the paracentesis group, whereas the frequency of severe hepatic encephalopathy was greater in the TIPS group. The calculated costs were higher in the TIPS group than in the paracentesis group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with refractory ascites, TIPS lowers the rate of ascites recurrence and the risk of developing hepatorenal syndrome. However, TIPS does not improve survival and is associated with an increased frequency of severe encephalopathy and higher costs compared with repeated paracentesis plus albumin.     

全腹腔穿刺放液对肝硬化门静脉血流动力学的影响

目的　观察全腹腔穿刺放液静脉输注生理盐水对肝硬化难治性腹水及门静脉血流动力学的影响。方法　将 1 996- 0 1～ 2 0 0 2 - 1 2安徽省明光市中医院肝硬化顽固性腹水患者1 42例 ,随机分为两组。A组 87例 ,予保护肝细胞 ,利尿剂及全腹腔穿刺放腹水 ,将腹水一次放尽 ,同时静脉输注生理盐水按放腹水 1L输生理盐水 1 70mL计。B组 5 5例 ,只给保护肝细胞及利尿剂治疗。结果　腹水总有效率A、B两组各为 67 8% ,2 3 6% ,P <0 0 1。门静脉系血管内径缩小 ,血流速度加快 ,血流量减少 ,门静脉压力下降也以A组明显。无不良反应。结论　全腹腔穿刺放液静脉输注生理盐水可降低门静脉压力 ,在治疗肝硬化顽固性腹水中是安全、有效的。     

Randomized controlled study of TIPS versus paracentesis plus albumin in cirrhosis with severe ascites

The transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) has been shown to be effective in the control of refractory or recidivant ascites. However, the effect of TIPS on survival as compared with that of large-volume paracentesis plus albumin is uncertain. A multicenter, prospective, clinical trial was performed in 66 patients with cirrhosis and refractory or recidivant ascites (16 Child-Turcotte-Pugh class B and 50 Child-Turcotte-Pugh class C) randomly assigned to treatment with TIPS (n = 33) or with large-volume paracentesis plus human albumin (n = 33). The primary endpoint was survival without liver transplantation. Secondary endpoints were treatment failure, rehospitalization, and occurrence of complications. Thirteen patients treated with TIPS and 20 patients treated with paracentesis died during the study period, 4 patients in each group underwent liver transplantation. The probability of survival without transplantation was 77% at 1 year and 59% at 2 years in the TIPS group as compared with 52% and 29% in the paracentesis group (P = .021). In a multivariate analysis, treatment with paracentesis and higher MELD score showed to independently predict death. Treatment failure was more frequent in patients assigned to paracentesis, whereas severe episodes of hepatic encephalopathy occurred more frequently in patients assigned to TIPS. The number and duration of rehospitalizations were similar in the two groups. In conclusion, compared to large-volume paracentesis plus albumin, TIPS improves survival without liver transplantation in patients with refractory or recidivant ascites.     

Furosemide-induced natriuresis as a test to identify cirrhotic patients with refractory ascites

The diagnosis of refractory ascites in cirrhotic patients carries a poor prognosis and liver transplantation should always be considered in this situation. Identification of patients who will not respond to diuretic therapy usually requires several weeks of observation during which a trial of diuretics is instituted using stepwise increases in dosage in order to classify ascites as refractory. In the present study we evaluated the effect of a single dose of 80 mg intravenous furosemide on urinary sodium excretion over 8 hours in cirrhotic patients with ascites responsive to diuretic treatment (group 1; n = 14) and patients with refractory ascites (group 2; n = 15). The test was performed after 3 days without diuretics and patients were on a 80 mEq sodium/day diet. Refractory ascites was defined by the absence of response after 3 months of high doses of diuretics (spironolactone 200 mg/d + furosemide 80 mg/d + metolazone 2.5 mg/d) and the need for repeated paracentesis. The two groups had similar degrees of liver and renal dysfunction as assessed by the Pugh score and creatinine clearance. The effects of furosemide on 8-hour natriuresis was much higher in patients with responsive ascites as compared with patients with refractory ascites (125 +/- 46 vs. 30 +/- 16 mEq; mean +/- SD; P <.0001). A natriuresis lower than 50 mEq/8 hours was observed in all group-2 patients as compared with none from group 1. The present study shows that patients with refractory ascites can be identified quickly and accurately by using this simple furosemide-induced natriuresis test, which could be very useful to select patients for liver transplantation.     

Management of ascites in patients with end-stage liver disease

Ascites is the most common complication in patients with decompensated cirrhosis. Approximately 50% of patients with compensated cirrhosis will develop ascites over a 10-year period. This occurrence is an important milestone in the natural history of end-stage liver disease because only 50% of patients survive 2 to 5 years (depending on the cause of cirrhosis) after its onset. Salt restriction and diuretics are the mainstays of therapy, and these measures are effective in approximately 90% of patients. Large-volume paracentesis or transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt can be used in patients with refractory ascites as either a bridge to transplant or as palliation. Cirrhotic patients with ascites should be carefully monitored for the development of bacterial peritonitis, and those at greatest risk should receive antibiotic prophylaxis. When spontaneous bacterial peritonitis is suspected, prompt diagnostic paracentesis followed by broad-spectrum antibiotics and albumin infusion can be life saving. Orthotopic liver transplantation should be considered in all patients with decompensated liver disease with or without ascites.     

Aszites und hepatorenales Syndrom

Massive ascites and hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) are frequent complications of liver cirrhosis. Thus, effective therapy is of great clinical importance. This review provides an up-to-date account of the current status and details recent advances. Therapeutic paracentesis can be safely performed even in patients with severe coagulopathy. Selected patients with refractory or recurrent ascites are good candidates for portosystemic shunts (TIPS) and may have a survival benefit and improved quality of life from these. Novel pharmaceutical agents mobilizing free water (aquaretics) are currently being tested for their therapeutic potential in patients with ascites. TIPS are seldom considered for the treatment of HRS, for which pharmacological approaches (terlipressin and albumin) have proved their worth. Liver transplantation is the only curative treatment option for refractory ascites and HRS and should be discussed as soon as ascites is diagnosed.     

Evaluation and management of patients with refractory ascites

Some patients with ascites due to liver cirrhosis become no longer responsive to diuretics. Once other causes of ascites such as portal vein thrombosis, malignancy or infection and non-compliance with medications and low sodium diet have been excluded, the diagnosis of refractory ascites can be made based on strict criteria. Patients with refractory ascites have very poor prognosis and therefore referral for consideration for liver transplantation should be initiated. Search for reversible components of the underlying liver pathology should be undertaken and targeted therapy, when available, should be considered. Currently, serial large volume paracentesis （LVP） and transjugular intrahepatic portasystemic stent-shunt （TIPS） are the two mainstay treatment options for refractory ascites. Other treatment options are available but not widely used either because they carry high morlJidity and mortality （most surgical options） rates, or are new interventions that have shown promise but still need further evaluation. In this comprehensive review, we describe the evaluation and management of patients with refractory ascites from the prospective of the practicing physician.     

Treatment of refractory ascites

Opinion statement In 1996, the International Ascites Club defined “refractory ascites” as ascites that cannot be mobilized by medical therapy or that recurs early after initial mobilization despite continued treatment. Of all patients with ascites, 5% to 10% will become refractory to medical therapy. Management of refractory ascites should attempt to control fluid accumulation, reduce the likelihood of developing complications such as spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) and the hepatorenal syndrome, and improve the patient’s nutritional status and overall well-being. Measures to control ascites accumulation include documenting medication and dietary compliance and eliminating potentially nephrotoxic agents that promote sodium retention. Large volume paracentesis is an effective first step in managing these patients and can be performed routinely in an outpatient setting. When more than 5 L of fluid are removed during a paracentesis, intravenous albumin should be infused to reduce the likelihood of the patient developing postparacentesis circulatory dysfunction. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) placement effectively eliminates ascites; however, there is no convincing evidence that the shunt improves mortality. Furthermore, it is associated with frequent complications of encephalopathy and shunt malfunction. We feel TIPS should be reserved for patients requiring extremely frequent paracentesis, those who develop significant postparacentesis circulatory dysfunction, or those with hepatic hydrothorax. Patients who have evidence of SBP should be treated with antibiotics and intravenous albumin infusion. Patients who have had a previous episode of SBP or an ascitic fluid protein level of less than 1.0 should receive prophylactic antibiotics. Overall, the prognosis for patients with refractory ascites remains grim, and liver transplantation is the only definitive therapy. Appropriate candidates should be identified promptly and referred for transplant evaluation.     

Preservation of nutritional-status in patients with refractory ascites due to hepatic cirrhosis who are undergoing repeated paracentesis

Background and Aim: Refractory ascites in liver‐cirrhosis is associated with a poor prognosis. We performed a prospective study to investigate whether aggressive nutritional‐support could improve outcomes in cirrhotic patients. Methods: Cirrhotic patients undergoing serial large‐volume paracentesis for refractory‐ascites were enrolled and randomized into three groups. Group A received post‐paracentesis intravenous nutritional‐support in addition to a balanced oral diet and a late‐evening protein snack, group B received the same oral nutritional‐protocol as the first group but without parenteral support, and group C (the control group) received a low‐sodium or sodium‐free diet. Clinical, anthropometric and laboratory nutritional parameters and biochemical tests of liver and renal function were reported for 12 months of follow‐up. Results: We enrolled 120 patients, who were randomized into three groups of equal size. Patients on the nutritional‐protocol showed better preservation of clinical, anthropometric and laboratory nutritional parameters that were associated with decreased deterioration of liver function compared with patients on the low‐sodium or sodium‐free diet (group C). Groups A and B had lower morbidity and mortality rates than the control group (C). Mortality rates were significantly better in patients who were treated with parenteral‐nutritional‐support than for the other two groups. In patients who were on the nutritional‐protocol, there was a reduction in the requirement of taps for the treatment of refractory ascites. Conclusions: Post‐paracentesis parenteral‐nutritional‐support with a balanced oral diet and an evening protein snack appears to be the best care protocol for patients with liver‐cirrhosis that has been complicated by refractory‐ascites.