The influence of a peritoneovenous shunt for cirrhotic and malignant intractable ascites on renal function

Background Peritoneovenous shunts (PVS) are widely used for palliation of intractable ascites caused by peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) or liver cirrhosis (LC). Some patients who need PVS have renal dysfunction. However, renal dysfunction is considered a relative contraindication. Therefore, it is important to assess renal function before PVS placement. Purpose To evaluate the relationship between PVS and renal function. Material and Methods Between October 2007 and July 2015, 60 patients (PC = 47; LC = 10; others = 3) underwent PVS placement for intractable ascites. Changes in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and other adverse events (AEs) were retrospectively analyzed. Results Changes in eGFR before, one day after, and one week after PVS placement could be evaluated in 46 patients. The median eGFR before, one day after, and one week after was 56.5, 59.1, and 64.7 mL/min/1.73 m2, respectively ( P < 0.05). These values were 61.6, 72, and 67.1 mL/min/1.73 m2, respectively, in PC patients (n = 34; P < 0.05) and 28.5, 27, and 37.2 mL/min/1.73 m2, respectively, in LC patients (n = 10; P < 0.05). In 17 patients with moderate to severe renal dysfunction (eGFR < 45), these values were 23.4, 23.7, and 30.5 mL/min/1.73 m2, respectively. The most frequent AE was PVS catheter obstruction, which occurred in 12 patients (20.7%). Clinical disseminated intravascular coagulation occurred in six patients (10.3%) and caused death in three patients (5.2%). Conclusion PVS placement for intractable ascites is associated with various AEs. However, PVS appeared to promote renal function, especially in patients with renal impairment.

Symptomatic Fluid Drainage: Peritoneovenous Shunt Placement

Ascites causes significant discomfort and has negative impact on patient's quality of life. Medical therapies including dietary restriction and diuretics are successful in only 40 to 44% of patients with malignant ascites and repeated paracentesis only provides temporary symptomatic relief. Therefore, a more permanent solution is necessary. Indwelling catheters or peritoneovenous shunt placement can provide more permanent symptomatic relief and improve patients' quality of life. Unlike indwelling catheters, peritoneovenous shunts do not limit patients' life style and therefore should be offered as first option in patients who are good candidates. Denver shunt (CareFusion-BD Worldwide) is the current available peritoneovenous shunt. In this article, the indications, contraindications, technical aspects of shunt placement, and techniques to prevent postprocedure complications will be discussed.

Refractory Ascites: Treatment and Complications Utilizing Peritoneovenous (Denver) Shunt

Intractable ascites has long been an antagonizing problem for patients and medical providers. It is debilitating and frequently cannot be prevented by standard medical therapy. Ascites is primarily managed with salt restrictions, diuretics, and repeated paracentesis for symptomatic relief. However, 10% of patients become refractory to this first line of treatment. Several surgical methods such as the insertion of peritoneovenous shunts and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts have become popularized treatment modalities for the control of refractory ascites. Nevertheless, controversy resides over what is the best treatment method for the improvement in patients' quality of life and survival rate. We herein explore the different medical and surgical methods available for the control of refractory ascites with a focus on the advantages and complications associated with the usage of Denver peritoneovenous shunts.

Denver Peritoneovenous Shunts for the Management of Malignant Ascites: A Review of the Literature in the Post LeVeen Era

Most case series describing peritoneovenous (PV) shunts for malignant ascites include both LeVeen and Denver shunts. Conclusions based on these studies are no longer clinically relevant since the LeVeen shunt has been discontinued. The purpose of this study was to identify outcomes specific to Denver shunts to establish expected results in the modern era. Case series describing PV shunts for malignant ascites between 1980 and 2008 were identified through a keyword PUBMED search. Whenever possible, results attributable to Denver shunts were abstracted and analyzed. Nineteen series describing 341 patients undergoing 353 Denver PV shunts for malignant ascites were identified. The primary indications for PV shunts were unspecified or cancers of unknown origin (40%), ovarian cancer (16%), and pancreatic cancer (8%). Primary patency averaged 87 ± 57 days. Seventy-four per cent of patients died with functioning shunts. Complications occurred in 38% of patients including occlusion (24%) and disseminated intravascular coagulation (9%). Average survival of all patients was 3.0 ± 1.7 months and shunts provided effective palliation in 75.3%. One and a half per cent of 133 patients who had autopsies were reported to have hematologic dissemination. These results are not statistically different than overall results reported for both shunts combined or LeVeen shunts alone. Studies that report combined outcomes with Denver and LeVeen shunts for malignant ascites are neither negatively, nor positively influenced by one specific shunt. Expectations following PV shunting for malignant ascites do not have to be revised because LeVeen shunts are no longer available.