Abstract
Purpose of Review
Despite refractory ascites (RA) due to cirrhosis having a median transplant-free survival of 6–12 months, palliative care (PC) input remains uncertain. We aimed to review the existing literature on clinical outcomes in cirrhosis-related RA and report the findings of a single-centre retrospective cohort study with a special focus on linkage to PC in this cohort of patients.
Recent Findings
Our study and subsequent literature review confirm the high mortality associated with cirrhosis-related RA (19–55% 1-year mortality) with only a minority of patients receiving curative options (3–23%). Despite this, in our study only a minority of patients (33%) were referred to PC. None of the studies identified in the scoping review makes any references to palliative care use.
Summary
Our own data and a literature review confirm that, despite high mortality, only a minority with RA due to cirrhosis are referred for specialist PC input and often too late in their disease trajectory. Future research should focus on patient-centred outcomes in this cohort of patients where optimising quality-of-life and facilitating advanced care planning should be a priority.
Keywords: Recurrent ascites, Advanced chronic liver disease, Long-term abdominal drains, Quality of life, Liver transplantation, Large-volume paracentesis
Introduction
Liver-related deaths in England have increased by more than 250% since 1971, and now constitute the fourth commonest cause of premature death [1]. Ascites is the most common complication of cirrhosis (with approximately 40% of patients developing it within 5 years) and the most frequent cause for hospitalisation [2, 3]. Refractory ascites (RA), defined by intolerance or unresponsiveness to diuretics [4, 5], is a useful prognostic indicator as median transplant-free survival is about 6 months [6–9]. Although liver transplant can be curative, demand for organs continues to outstrip supply [10, 11]. The transplant process involves major surgery and life-long immunosuppression, meaning many patients with significant comorbidities or frailty are not potential candidates [12]. Similarly transjugular intra-hepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPS) can be associated with improved survival but carries procedural risks and possible complications including worsening hepatic encephalopathy [13, 14•]. As a result, a significant proportion of patients with RA are reliant on symptomatic relief through repeated hospitalisation for large-volume paracentesis (LVP) [14•, 15]. Alternative management options include automated low-flow ascites pump (alfa pump) and palliative long-term abdominal drains (LTADs), with potential benefits to patient care [16, 17•].
Ascites (including RA) is associated with a high symptom burden and poor health-related quality of life (HRQoL) [18–21]. Although RA secondary to cirrhosis is being recognised as a potential trigger for palliative care (PC) involvement, there remains paucity of published data with researchers focused primarily on clinical outcomes and the impact of therapeutic interventions on survival [22]. For example, a recent systematic review included 77 studies assessing TIPS in patients with RA even though the majority of these patients will not receive one [14•]. There is a need to shift the focus of research in this group of patients living with this serious life-limiting illness. The aim of this manuscript therefore was to conduct a scoping review assessing outcomes in RA with emphasis on linkage to PC and provision of advanced care planning (ACP). We then conducted a retrospective cohort study in our own centre with a specific focus on PC provision.
Scoping Review Methodology
Eligible studies were defined as any non-interventional, cohort study or case series that reported on clinical outcomes of patients with RA secondary to cirrhosis. Studies had to have a clear definition of RA and report the outcomes of this cohort of patients separately. Authors of studies that included patients with RA but did not report on their outcomes were contacted for the raw data. Studies were identified by conducting a PubMed literature search using the following terms: (refractory ascit*) AND (cirrho*) AND (outcomes OR mortality OR survival).
Scoping Review Results
Six hundred seventy-four titles were reviewed of which 12 studies met our inclusion criteria. Of these 12 studies, one was excluded as the manuscript was in French and four as the authors did not provide the raw data for the cohort with RA. Seven studies were therefore included in the final analysis and data extracted are summarised in Table 1.
Table 1. Results of scoping review showing studies assessing outcomes in refractory ascites.
| Study/country/publication year | Type of study and outcome | Sample size and RA definition | Demographics, baseline characteristics | Clinical outcomes | Data on palliative care | Other comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Refractory hepatic hydrothorax (HHT) is an independent predictor of mortality when compared to refractory ascites (RA) Osman et al.. 2022 [23] USA |
|
47 ‘Ascites that is either resistant/intractable to diuretics/low sodium diet, early recurrence of ascites. or has diuretic-induced complications’ HCC not excluded |
|
|
No |
|
| Outcomes and mortality of grade 1 ascites and recurrent ascites in patients with cirrhosis Tonon et al.. 2021 [45] Italy |
Post hoc analysis of prospective cohort taking part in an outpatient management programme for over 14 years | 56 International Ascites Club 1996 definition HCC excluded |
|
|
No |
|
| Frailty in nonalcoholic fatty liver cirrhosis: a comparison with alcoholic cirrhosis. risk patterns, and impact on prognosis Skladany et al.. 2021 [26] Slovakia |
A cirrhosis registry investigating impact of frailty on clinical outcomes in NAFLD and ALD—a subset had RA | 112 Definition of RA NA HCC not excluded |
|
|
No |
|
| Quality of life measures predict mortality in patients with cirrhosis and severe ascites Macdonald et al.. 2019 [24] Multinational randomised control trial |
|
241 Patients having 2 LVPs in the last 3 months on a sodium-restricted diet and having dose-limiting diuretic side effects HCC exceeding Milan criteria excluded |
|
|
No |
|
| Severe hyponatremia is a better predictor of mortality than MELDNa in patients with cirrhosis and refractory ascites (RA) Serste et al.. 2012 [25] France |
|
174 Patients had to have at least 2 LVPs in 1 month. Minimum follow-up 3 months unless death. RA definition based on the IAC criteria HCC not excluded |
|
|
No | Hyponatraemia (< 125) as the cause of RA and frequency of LVPs were independent predictors of morality (HR 2.11 p 0.001 and 1.42 p <0.0001) |
| Clinical characteristics and outcome of patients with cirrhosis and refractory ascites (RA) Moreau et ah. 2004 [8] France |
|
75 Based on modified IAC definition HCC not specified as an exclusion criteria |
|
|
No |
|
| Survival and prognostic factors and cirrhotic patients with ascites: a study of 134 outpatients Salerno et ah. 1993 [6] Italy |
|
24 RA defined as progressively accumulating ascites (judged by body weight) and stable urinary sodium < 10 mmol/L despite diuretics at highest tolerated dose |
|
|
No |
|
RA refractory ascites, HCC hepatocellular carcinoma, SBP spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, TIPS transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt, LVP large-volume paracentesis, IAC International Ascites Club criteria, HRQoL health-related quality of life, NAFLD non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, ALD alcohol-related liver disease, KM Kaplan–Meier
Only four studies were published in the last 5 years. Six studies used the International Ascites Club (IAC) definition for RA in their inclusion criteria, but the methodology in establishing true resistance or intolerance was variable (as expected with the retrospective nature of the studies). One was published before the IAC definitions were established in 1993. The number of patients with RA varied between 24 and 241. One-year mortality was reported in six studies and ranged between 19.2 and 55%. Rates of transplant (1.7–23.2%) were reported in six studies and TIPS (1.0–4.3%) in two.
None of the studies looking at patients with RA mentioned or acknowledged the importance of PC.
Retrospective Cohort Study
Patients and Methods
Our retrospective cohort study was conducted in a secondary care 1100-bedded hospital in southeast of England. All patients coded as having a diagnosis of ascites from 1st of June 2012 to 30th June 2019 were identified by the clinical coding department and electronic hospital records. Initial records (discharge and clinic letters) were screened by MRE and in case of any uncertainty advice was sought from SV.
Inclusion Criteria
RA as defined by IAC criteria [5]. Patients had to have a documented diagnosis of RA made by a gastroenterologist, or three or more LVPs during the study period as a proxy for diuretic intractable ascites.
Exclusion Criteria
Non-cirrhosis cause of ascites and/or if aetiology of cirrhosis uncertain
Incomplete medical records
Ascites occurring after liver transplantation
Baseline clinical and demographic data were extracted from electronic discharge summaries and clinic letters at the time of RA onset and entered onto an anonymised database. These included the aetiology of liver disease, age, sex, use of diuretics, biochemical data, liver prognostic scores, ascitic fluid protein, past medical history including spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) and antibiotic prophylaxis. Comorbidities were categorised as follows: gastrointestinal disease (e.g. inflammatory bowel disease, pancreatitis), cardiovascular (e.g. hypertension, cerebral vascular accidents and heart failure), respiratory (e.g. chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma or obstructive sleep apnoea), psychiatric (depression, anxiety, PTSD, psychosis), renal, neurological, non-HCC malignancy, diabetes, non-diabetic endocrinology (e.g. hypothyroidism, osteoporosis), infectious diseases and a category of ‘other’.
Study outcomes included referrals to PC and presence of documented end-of-life discussions. Clinical outcomes included number being referred to and receiving TIPS/transplant, number of LVPs and predictors of mortality. Time between RA diagnosis and referral to PC and the time between PC referral and death were also looked at.
Follow-up data was collected until 31st of March 2020 after which patients were censored. This date was chosen to avoid any potential impact that COVID-19 pandemic might have had on clinical outcomes.
Statistical Analysis
Data are summarised using counts, means ± standard deviations, medians (interquartile ranges [IQR]) or percentages. Potential predictors of mortality were defined a priori. These included age, gender, CPS, MELD-Na and UKELD scores; diuretic use, SBP incidence, comorbidity, TIPS/transplant or LTAD insertion. Variables associated with mortality on univariate analysis were included in a multivariable logistic regression analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata 17.
Ethical Approval
As this study was an anonymised retrospective audit, formal ethical approval/informed consent was not deemed necessary by our Research and Development Department.
Results
Of the 1536 patients initially identified as having ascites, 869 were excluded due having a non-cirrhotic cause or incomplete medical records. Of those with ascites due to cirrhosis (n = 667, 43%), n = 88 (13%) meet our criteria for RA and were included in the final analysis. Baseline demographic data of the cohort is summarised in Table 2.
Table 2. Baseline demographic and clinical data in study cohort.
| Age | 59 ± 13 years |
|---|---|
| Gender (% Male) | 69.3% |
| Aetiology of cirrhosis * | |
| Alcohol | 71 (81%) |
| Metabolic associated liver disease | 16 (18%) |
| Viral | 8 (9%) |
| Other | 7 (8%) |
| Comorbidity | |
| Cardiovascular | 29 (33.0%) |
| Diabetes | 28 (31.8%) |
| Mental health | 21 (23.9%) |
| Respiratory | 15 (17.1%) |
| Gastroenterological | 12 (13.6%) |
| Non-HCC malignancy | 14 (15.9%) |
| HCC | 3 (3.4%) |
| Other | 27 (30.7%) |
| On diuretics | 60 (68.2%) |
| Previous SBP | 33 (37.5%) |
| Prophylactic antibiotics | 7 (8.0%) |
| Serum bilirubin (μmol/L) | 29 (IQR 30.5) |
| Serum bilirubin > 51 μmol/L | 21 (23.9%) |
| INR | 1.3 (IQR 0.2) |
| INR > 1.2 | 47 (51%) |
| Serum creatinine (μmol/L) | 71.5 (IQR 62.5) |
| Serum creatinine > 106 μmol/L | 24 (27.3%) |
| Serum sodium (mmol/L) | 131.8 (± 5.6) |
| Serum sodium < 128 mmol/L | 18 (20.5%) |
| Serum albumin (g/L) | 32.7 (± 5.2) |
| Serum albumin < 30 g/L | 27 (30.7%) |
| Child-Pugh score | 9 (IQR 8–10) |
| MELD-Na score | 16.6 ± 6.9 |
| UKELD score | 55.7 ± 5.2 |
| Ascitic fluid protein (g/L) | 13 (IQR 9) |
| Ascitic fluid protein < 15 g/L | 51 (58%) |
Note percentages add up to greater than 100% as several patients had multiple aetiologies for cirrhosis
HCC hepatocellular cancer, SBP spontaneous bacterial peritonitis
This was a relatively young and predominantly male cohort with over two thirds being on diuretics and just under 40% having a prior history of SBP. The predominant aetiology of cirrhosis was alcohol-related liver disease (ALD) in just over 80%. The three most common comorbidities were cardiovascular, diabetes mellitus and psychiatric illnesses (Table 2).
At the time of RA diagnosis, median CPS was 9, while mean MELD-Na and UKELD scores were 17 ± 7 and 55.7 ± 5.2, respectively. About a third had hyponatraemia and/or renal impairment.
The median number of LVPs was 5 (IQR 3–8), suggesting high attendance rates to ambulatory care services. Six patients had over 20 LVPs each. Palliative LTADs were inserted in 11 (12.5%) patients.
Referral for Liver Transplant and TIPS
Overall, 31 patients (35%) were referred for liver transplant and six (7%) for TIPS. Eventually only 11 (13%) patients received a transplant, and one patient received a TIPS (1%). Outcomes are summarised in Table 3.
Table 3. Outcomes in study cohort.
| Referred for liver transplant | 31 (35%) |
|---|---|
| Underwent liver transplant | 11 (13.6%) |
| Reason why not referred | |
| Comorbidity | 17 (19.3%) |
| Alcohol/substance misuse/psychosocial issues | 19 (21.6%) |
| Frailty | 8 (9.1%) |
| Not specified | 8 (9.1%) |
| Recompensated | 3 (3.4%) |
| Unspecified MDT decision | 2 (2.3%) |
| Referred for TIPS | 6 (7%) |
| Underwent TIPS | 1 (1%) |
| Reasons why not referred | |
| Substance misuse/psychosocial issues | 11 (12.5%) |
| Serious comorbidity | 12 (13.6%) |
| Hepatic encephalopathy | 13 (14.8%) |
| Frailty | 10 (11.4%) |
| Unspecified MDT decision | 1 (1.1%) |
| Not specified | 20 (22.7%) |
| Recompensating/improvement of refractory ascites | 6 (6.8%) |
| Referred for transplant/listed | 8 (9.1%) |
| Advanced liver disease | 1 (1.1%) |
| Median number of large-volume paracentesis | 5 (IQR 3–8) |
MDT multi-disciplinary team, LTAD long-term ascitic drain, TIPS transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt
Palliative Care Input
Although 56% (n = 49) of patients had documented end of life care discussions, only 33% (n = 29) were referred to palliative care. The median time from RA diagnosis to PC referral was 15 weeks (IQR 4–32), time from PC referral to death being 9 weeks (IQR 4–16) (Table 4). Independent predictors of referral to PC were LTAD insertion (OR 11.0, CI 2.11–57.0, p < 0.01) and age (OR 1.57/10 years, CI 1.04–2.38, p = 0.03). There was a trend for PC referral to be a predictor of death outside hospital, though this failed to reach statistical significance (OR 2.83, CI 0.89–9.04–0.89, p = 0.078).
Table 4. Palliative care input.
| Documented end of life discussion | 50 (56%) |
|---|---|
| Referred to palliative care | 29 (33%) |
| Weeks between diagnosis and referral to palliative care | 15 (IQR 4–32) |
| LTAD inserted | 11 |
| Received prophylactic antibiotics after LTAD | 8 |
LTAD long-term abdominal drain
Mortality
Over a median follow-up of 298 days (IQR 115–125), the overall mortality was 61%, 1-year mortality being 51%. Compared to those receiving standard of care (LVP), receiving transplant/TIPS was associated with a significantly higher 1-year survival (43% vs. 83%, p = 0.013). Compared to those receiving standard of care (LVP), receiving LTAD was not associated with a 1-year survival benefit (43% vs. 36%, p = 0.985). Kaplan–Meier survival curves for each group are shown in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1. Kaplan–Meier survival in patients with refractory ascites who underwent liver transplant/TIPS, long-term abdominal drains or standard of care (large-volume paracentesis).
Univariate and multivariate analysis was performed to assess predictors of mortality (Supplementary—Table 4) Independent predictors of mortality were protective effects of undergoing transplant/TIPS (OR 0.15, CI 0.04–0.64, p = 0.01) and having a psychiatric comorbidity (OR 0.32, CI 0.11–0.97, p = 0.044).
Discussion
Our retrospective cohort study and scoping review confirm the poor prognosis associated with refractory ascites secondary to cirrhosis. Our 1-year transplant free survival was 43%, with only a minority receiving curative options. Our mortality rates were higher than some of the studies identified in our scoping review [23, 24] but consistent with those that used more stringent criteria to diagnose RA (IAC) [5, 8, 25, 26].
Despite the high mortality associated with RA, none of the studies identified in the scoping review assessed PC input in this cohort. It is disappointing to note that even in our retrospective study, only a third were referred to PC services, most dying within 2 months of the referral. Our data is consistent with earlier studies that PC delivery in advanced cirrhosis is often too little, too late [27–29].
PC is specialised medical care for people living with a serious illness. It focuses on relieving symptoms and stress of the illness, thus improving HRQoL for patients and their families [30]. PC can mistakenly be considered synonymous with end-of life-care. Additional misconception amongst clinicians is that PC necessitates the end of active treatment. However, the modern PC model involves holistic care delivered to patients with a serious illness at any point in their clinical trajectory, including alongside curative treatments [31]. While the precise optimal timing of PC referrals remains controversial, early PC in advanced cancer does appear to improve quality of life and symptom burden [32, 33] and enables acceptable goals and advance care planning to be established. This might be beneficial in patients with RA who have a significantly reduced life expectancy [34].
Approaching challenging end-of-life care discussions in the context of a fluctuating disease trajectory in patients with ACLD can reduce physicians’ confidence in referring to PC [35, 36]. There may also be a perception that PC equates with excluding patients from receiving a liver transplant [37]. Additionally, physicians may have limited awareness of the poor prognosis of RA [29]. Indeed, as our retrospective study has demonstrated, traditional prognostic scores such as CPS, MELD-Na and UKELD were not predictors of mortality in patients with RA. Finally, potential barrier to PC provision in RA is the paucity of evidence-based palliative interventions in advanced chronic liver disease (ACLD).
Encouragingly, there is now increasing recognition of the need for evidence-based palliative interventions in ACLD, supported by national and international guidance [38, 39•]. This has led to randomised controlled trials (RCT) such as the PAL-LIVER study [40] and the advance care planning video study [41]. An earlier feasibility RCT showed preliminary evidence of safety and efficacy of palliative LTADs in RA due to cirrhosis [17•], leading to an ongoing national multicentre RCT (REDUCe 2 Study) assessing this intervention in RA [42]. Additionally, ‘gatekeeping’ needs to be addressed [43] as well as improving communication skills. There also needs to be increased emphasis on PC both at undergraduate and post graduate level. Finally, bringing together multidisciplinary colleagues (British Association for Study of Liver Disease End of Life Specialist Interest Group) [44] can only be a step in the right direction.
Our study does have limitations. Given its retrospective nature, no patient-reported outcomes are available to assess the impact of the PC intervention. There would have also been potential under reporting of both RA development as well as the PC intervention itself. Additionally, some of the results might not reflect true causation, for example, the presence of a psychiatric comorbidity was a significant protector of mortality in our cohort. But this could be the result of a lead-time bias, with improved recognition and documentation of these conditions in more recent years. It is also important to note that the study period overlapped with REDUCE trial [17•] at our centre—a feasibility study looking at the use of LTADs in RA. The study protocol mandated that patients get referred to PC which could have skewed our results and explains the strong association between LTAD insertion and PC referral. Additionally, a higher proportion may have received PC compared to other centres and our results might not be representative. Finally, as source of data was electronic letters rather than actual medical records, this may have resulted in some patients being inadvertently excluded. However, electronic records often do document information that clinicians find most important about patient care and is reflective of what community care teams have access to.
Conclusions
RA is associated with high mortality with only a minority being eligible for curative options. There needs to be a multifaceted approach to improve the end-of-life experience of patients and their caregivers with advanced cirrhosis including those with RA. Our findings suggest patients with RA are denied timely access to PC services. More research into the optimal strategy and timing of interventions is needed to improve the holistic care needs of this cohort of patients.
Supplementary Material
Acknowledgements
This work has been previously presented at the British Association for Study of Liver meeting (Sept 2003) and the American Association for Study of Liver Disease meeting (Nov 2023), and published as conference proceedings, citations as below:
English M, Jordache E, Haddadin Y, Verma S. Despite a minority being eligible for curative options, linkage to palliative care remains suboptimal in cirrhosis-related refractory ascites. Gut. 2023;72(Suppl 3):P62
English M, Jordache E, Haddadin Y, Verma S. Despite a minority being eligible for curative options, linkage to palliative care remains suboptimal in cirrhosis-related refractory ascites. Hepatol. 2023; 78(Suppl 1):S1333
Declarations
Author Contributions YH carried out the scoping review. MRE screened the list of potential patients eligible for the study and confirmed this with SV. JE and MRE collected data from clinic letters and hospital records. YH and MRE carried out statistical analysis of the data. All authors contributed to the writing and reviewing of the manuscript.
Conflict of Interest Jordache Ellis and Marcus English report no conflicts of interest. Yazan Haddadin is funded by the National Institute for Health and care Research (NIHR) (HTA 133899). Grant recipient is Sumita Verma. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. Sumita Verma has received research grants, speaker and consultancy fees from Gilead Sciences and speaker fees from Dr Falk. Rocket Medial and Becton Dickinson have provided/providing LTADs free of cost for the REDUCe and REDUCe 2 studies, for which Sumita Verma is the chief investigator.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent This article does not contain any animal studies.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Contributor Information
Marcus Rex English, Email: marucs.english@nhs.net.
Jordache Ellis, Email: j.ellis1@uni.bsms.ac.uk.
Sumita Verma, Email: s.verma@bsms.ac.uk.
Yazan Haddadin, Email: yazan.haddadin@nhs.net.
References
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as:
• Of importance
- 1.Public Health England. The 2nd atlas of variation in risk factors and healthcare for liver disease in England. [Accessed 26 Mar 2024];Public Health England. 2017 (1996):12–30. Available from: https://fingertips.phe.org.uk/profile/atlas-of-variation. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Ginés P, Quintero E, Arroyo V, Terés J, Bruguera M, Rimola A, et al. Compensated cirrhosis: natural history and prognostic factors. Hepatology. 1987;7(1):122–8. doi: 10.1002/hep.1840070124. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Lucena IM, Andrade RJ, Tognoni G, Hidalgo R, de la Cuesta F, Disease the SCSG on TM in L Multicenter hospital study on prescribing patterns for prophylaxis and treatment of complications of cirrhosis. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2002;58(6):435–40. doi: 10.1007/s00228-002-0474-1. [Internet] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Moore KP, Wong F, Gines P, Bernardi M, Ochs A, Salerno F, et al. The management of ascites in cirrhosis: report on the consensus conference of The International Ascites Club. Hepatology. 2003;38(1):258–66. doi: 10.1053/jhep.2003.50315. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Arroyo V, Ginès P, Gerbes AL, Dudley FJ, Gentilini P, Laffi G, et al. Definition and diagnostic criteria of refractory ascites and hepatorenal syndrome in cirrhosis. Hepatology. 1996;23(1):164–76. doi: 10.1002/hep.510230122. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Salerno F, Borroni G, Moser P, Badalamenti S, Cassarà L, Maggi A, et al. Survival and prognostic factors of cirrhotic patients with ascites: a study of 134 outpatients. [Accessed 26 Mar 2024];Am J Gastroenterol. 1993 88(4):514–9. [Internet] Available from: http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/8470631. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Macken L, Hashim A, Potts J, Verma S. PWE-069 Care of patients with end stage liver disease and refractory ascites remains suboptimal: need for earlier input from palliative care. Gut. 2017;1:66. [Google Scholar]
- 8.Moreau R, Delègue P, Pessione F, Hillaire S, Durand F, Lebrec D, et al. Clinical characteristics and outcome of patients with cirrhosis and refractory ascites. Liver Int. 2004 Oct 1;24(5):457–64. doi: 10.1111/j.1478-3231.2004.0991.x. [Internet] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Medici V, Rossaro L, Wegelin JA, Kamboj A, Nakai J, Fisher K, et al. The utility of the model for end-stage liver disease score: a reliable guide for liver transplant candidacy and, for select patients, simultaneous hospice referral. Liver Transplant. 2008 Aug 1;14(8):1100–6. doi: 10.1002/lt.21398. [Internet] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Lewis A, Koukoura A, Tsianos G-I, Gargavanis AA, Nielsen AA, Vassiliadis E. Organ donation in the US and Europe: the supply vs demand imbalance. [Accessed 26 Mar 2024];Transplant Rev. 2021 35(2):100585. doi: 10.1016/j.trre.2020.100585. [Internet] Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955470X20300586. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.NHS Blood and Transplant. Annual report on liver transplantation: report for 2021/2022. 2022. [Accessed 27 Mar 2024]. [Internet] Available from: https://nhsbtdbe.blob.core.windows.net/umbraco-assets-corp/27814/nhsbt-liver-transplant-report-2122-final.pdf.
- 12.Mahmud N. Selection for liver transplantation: indications and evaluation. Curr Hepatol Reports. 2020;19(3):203–12. doi: 10.1007/s11901-020-00527-9. [Internet] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Patidar KR, Sydnor M, Sanyal AJ. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt. Clin Liver Dis. 2014;18(4):853–76. doi: 10.1016/j.cld.2014.07.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Will V, Rodrigues SG, Berzigotti A. Current treatment options of refractory ascites in liver cirrhosis – a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Liver Dis. 2022;54(8):1007–14. doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2021.12.007. [Internet] [• A systematic review comparing mortality rates with non-transplant treatments for refractory ascites due to cirrhosis—highlights the high mortality especially for those who are not eligible for TIPS] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Fagan KJ, Zhao EY, Horsfall LU, Ruffin BJ, Kruger MS, McPhail SM, et al. Burden of decompensated cirrhosis and ascites on hospital services in a tertiary care facility: time for change? Intern Med J. 2014 Sep 1;44(9):865–72. doi: 10.1111/imj.12491. [Internet] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Bureau C, Adebayo D, Chalret de Rieu M, Elkrief L, Valla D, Peck-Radosavljevic M, et al. Alfapump® system vs. large volume paracentesis for refractory ascites: a multicenter randomized controlled study. [Accessed 26 Mar 2024];J Hepatol. 2017 67(5):940–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2017.06.010. [Internet] Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168827817320809. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Macken L, Bremner S, Gage H, Touray M, Williams P, Crook D, et al. Randomised clinical trial: palliative long-term abdominal drains vs large-volume paracentesis in refractory ascites due to cirrhosis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2020 Jul 1;52(1):107–22. doi: 10.1111/apt.15802. [Internet] [• This is the first randomised-controlled trial to assess palliative long-term abdominal drains in patients with refractory ascites due to cirrhosis] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.PLaFond J, Shah NL. Bursting with symptoms: a review of palliation of ascites in cirrhosis. Clin Liver Dis. 2016;8(1):10–2. doi: 10.1002/cld.559. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Younossi Z, Henry L. Overall health-related quality of life in patients with end-stage liver disease. Clin Liver Dis. 2015;6(1):9–14. doi: 10.1002/cld.480. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Day R, Hollywood C, Durrant D, Perkins P. Patient experience of non-malignant ascites and its treatment: a qualitative study. Int J Palliat Nurs. 2015 Aug 2;21(8):372–9. doi: 10.12968/ijpn.2015.21.8.372. [Internet] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Marchesini G, Bianchi G, Amodio P, Salerno F, Merli M, Panella C, et al. Factors associated with poor health-related quality of life of patients with cirrhosis. Gastroenterology. 2001 Jan 1;120(1):170–8. doi: 10.1053/gast.2001.21193. [Internet] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Verma S, Hingwala J, Low JTS, Patel AA, Verma M, Bremner S, et al. Palliative clinical trials in advanced chronic liver disease: challenges and opportunities. [Accessed 26 Mar 2024];J Hepatol. 2023 79(5):1236–53. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2023.06.018. [Internet] Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168827823049413. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Osman KT, Abdelfattah AM, Mahmood SK, Elkhabiry L, Gordon FD, Qamar AA. Refractory hepatic hydrothorax is an independent predictor of mortality when compared to refractory ascites. Dig Dis Sci. 2022;67(10):4929–38. doi: 10.1007/s10620-022-07522-8. [Internet] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Macdonald S, Jepsen P, Alrubaiy L, Watson H, Vilstrup H, Jalan R. Quality of life measures predict mortality in patients with cirrhosis and severe ascites. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2019;49(3):321–30. doi: 10.1111/apt.15084. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Sersté T, Gustot T, Rautou P-E, Francoz C, Njimi H, Durand F, et al. Severe hyponatremia is a better predictor of mortality than MELDNa in patients with cirrhosis and refractory ascites. J Hepatol. 2012 Aug 1;57(2):274–80. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2012.03.018. [Internet] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Skladany L, Molcan P, Vnencakova J, Vrbova P, Kukla M, Laffers L, et al. Filipović B, editor. Frailty in nonalcoholic fatty liver cirrhosis: a comparison with alcoholic cirrhosis, risk patterns, and impact on prognosis. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;2021:5576531. doi: 10.1155/2021/5576531. [Internet] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Holden JH, Shamseddeen H, Johnson AW, Byriel B, Subramoney K, Cheng Y-W, et al. Palliative care and hospice referrals in patients with decompensated cirrhosis: what factors are important? J Palliat Med. 2020 Feb 24;23(8):1066–75. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2019.0501. [Internet] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Poonja Z, Brisebois A, van Zanten SV, Tandon P, Meeberg G, Karvellas CJ. Patients with cirrhosis and denied liver transplants rarely receive adequate palliative care or appropriate management. [Accessed 26 Mar 2024];Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014 12(4):692–8. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2013.08.027. [Internet] Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1542356513012299. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Verma S, Verne J, Ufere NN. Palliative care in advanced liver disease: time for action. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Feb 1;8(2):106–8. doi: 10.1016/S2468-1253(22)00382-X. [Internet] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Center to Advance Palliative Care. About palliative care. [cited 2023 Oct 29; Accessed 26 Mar 2024];CAPCorg. [Internet] Available from: https://www.capc.org/about/palliative-care/ [Google Scholar]
- 31.Ferrell BR, Twaddle ML, Melnick A, Meier DE. National Consensus Project clinical practice guidelines for quality palliative care guidelines, 4th edition. J Palliat Med. 2018;21(12):1684–9. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2018.0431. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE] End of life care for adults: service delivery NICE guideline. Evidence review: timing of referral to palliative care services. [Accessed 26 Mar 2024];Nice.Org.Uk. 2019 [Internet] Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng142. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Haun MW, Estel S, Rücker G, Friederich HC, Villalobos M, Thomas M, et al. Early palliative care for adults with advanced cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;2017(6) doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011129.pub2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Brisebois A, Ismond KP, Carbonneau M, Kowalczewski J, Tandon P. Advance care planning (ACP) for specialists managing cirrhosis: a focus on patient-centered care. [Accessed 26 Mar 2024];Hepatology. 2018 67(5):2025–40. doi: 10.1002/hep.29731. [Internet] Available from: http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/29251778. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Woodland H, Hudson B, Forbes K, McCune A, Wright M. Palliative care in liver disease: what does good look like? [Accessed 26 Mar 2024];Frontline Gastroenterol. 2020 May 1;11(3):218LP–227. doi: 10.1136/flgastro-2019-101180. [Internet] Available from: http://fg.bmj.com/content/11/3/218.abstract. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Murtagh FEM, Preston M, Higginson I. Patterns of dying: palliative care for non-malignant disease. Clin Med (Northfield Il) 2004;4(1):39–44. doi: 10.7861/clinmedicine.4-1-39. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Wentlandt K, Weiss A, O’Connor E, Kaya E. Palliative and end of life care in solid organ transplantation. Am J Transplant. 2017 Dec 1;17(12):3008–19. doi: 10.1111/ajt.14522. [Internet] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Rogal SS, Hansen L, Patel A, Ufere NN, Verma M, Woodrell CD, et al. AASLD practice guidance: palliative care and symptom-based management in decompensated cirrhosis. Hepatology. 2022;76(3):819–53. doi: 10.1002/hep.32378. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Aithal GP, Palaniyappan N, China L, Härmälä S, MacKen L, Ryan JM, et al. Guidelines on the management of ascites in cirrhosis. Gut. 2021;70(1):9–29. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2020-321790. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Verma M, Kosinski AS, Volk ML, Taddei T, Ramchandran K, Bakitas M, et al. Introducing palliative care within the treatment of end-stage liver disease: the study protocol of a cluster randomized controlled trial. J Palliat Med. 2019 Aug 22;22(S1):S-34-S-43. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2019.0121. [Internet] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Ufere NN, Robinson B, Donlan J, Indriolo T, Bloom J, Scherrer A, et al. Pilot randomized controlled trial of an advance care planning video decision tool for patients with advanced liver disease. [Accessed 26 Mar 2024];Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022 20(10):2287–2295.:e3. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2021.10.027. [Internet] Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S154235652101140X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.ISRCTN26993825. Home versus hospital drainage of fluid from the abdomen (ascites) for patients with advanced cirrhosis. 2022. [cited 2023 Oct 29; Accessed 26 Mar 2024]. [Internet] https://trialsearch.who.int/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=ISRCTN26993825. [DOI]
- 43.Kars MC, van Thiel GJMW, van der Graaf R, Moors M, de Graeff A, van Delden JJM. A systematic review of reasons for gatekeeping in palliative care research. Palliat Med. 2015 Nov 17;30(6):533–48. doi: 10.1177/0269216315616759. [Internet] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.BASL. End of Life Special Interest Group. [Accessed 26 Mar 2024]. Available from https://www.basl.org.uk/index.cfm/content/page/cid/33.
- 45.Tonon M, Piano S, Gambino CG, Romano A, Pilutti C, Incicco S, et al. Outcomes and mortality of grade 1 ascites and recurrent ascites in patients with cirrhosis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;19(2):358–366.:e8. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.03.065. [Internet] Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S15423565203044. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.