4.5 Article

Indwelling Peritoneal Catheter for Ascites Management in a UK District General Hospital: A Cohort Study

期刊

HEALTHCARE
卷 9, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/healthcare9101254

关键词

ascites; malignant ascites; indwelling peritoneal catheter

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study established a local IPeC service for malignant-related ascites, finding it to be acceptable to patients and associated with manageable complication rates. Most patients were female, with an average age of around 66.6 years, and the main complications were leakage, peritonitis, and skin infection.
Background: There is no national or local guidance for management of malignancy-related ascites (MRA). Modalities can include large volume paracentesis (LVP) and indwelling peritoneal catheter (IPeC) insertion. Objectives: We set up a local IPeC service and performed a retrospective review with local ethical (Caldicott) approval. We hypothesized that an IPeC service would reduce inpatient stay related to MRA management, would be acceptable to patients, and have minimal complications. Methods: Notes of all patients requiring IPeC insertion were reviewed. Descriptive statistical methodology was applied with continuous data presented as mean (standard deviation (SD); range) and categorical variables as frequencies or percentages. Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale (IPOS) scores were collected for IPeC patients. Results: Thirty-four patients were identified. They were predominantly female, with a mean age of 66.6 years and a wide range of cancer diagnoses. Twenty-nine were inserted as day case procedures, and 31 had preceding paracenteses (mean 2). Main complications were leakage (6(17%)), peritonitis (2(5.8%)), and skin infection (1(3%)). IPOS scores showed consistent improvement in symptoms. Conclusions: An IPeC service for malignant-related ascites is acceptable to patients and is associated with manageable complication rates. We present the development of our service and hope for widespread application.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据