Radiologically Placed Peritoneovenous Shunt is an Acceptable Treatment Alternative for Refractory Ascites Due to End-Stage Liver Disease

PURPOSE To compare patients treated with large-volume paracentesis (LVP), transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), and peritoneovenous shunt (PVS) for ascites. MATERIALS AND METHODS A retrospective study of 192 patients treated with LVP (94), TIPS (75), or PVS (23) was performed. Records were reviewed for patient characteristics and outcomes. The patients' age differed (LVP, 59.5 years; TIPS, 58.8 years; and PVS, 65.6 years; P = .003). Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis was the most common etiology in the PVS cohort (11/23, 47%), and hepatitis C in the TIPS (27/75, 36%), and LVP cohorts (43/94, 46%) (P = .032). The model for end-stage liver disease score was significantly different (LVP, 14; TIPS, 13; and PVS, 8; P = .035). Hepatocellular carcinoma was higher in the PVS cohort (6/23 patients, 25%) than in the TIPS (4/75, 5%), and LVP (12/94, 12%) cohorts (P = .03). RESULTS Emergency department visits and hospital readmissions were the highest in the LVP cohort (40%, ≥2 readmissions, P < .001). Patients required fewer LVPs after TIPS (1.5 to 0.14, P < .001) or PVS (2.1 to 0.5, P = .019). In an unadjusted Cox model, patients in the TIPS cohort were found to have a 58% reduction in the risk of death compared with patients in the LVP cohort (P = .003). Transplant-free survival (PVS, 44 days; TIPS, 155 days; and LVP, 213 days) differed (log rank = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS The survival in the PVS and TIPS cohorts was similar, with less healthcare utilization than the LVP cohort. PVS is a satisfactory alternative to LVP.