Reply: Critical commentary on the study comparing TIPS, tunneled peritoneal catheter, and ascites pump in refractory ascites

We highly appreciate the interest of Dr Hassan in our study.1 Refractory ascites (RA) poses a clinical challenge in the care of patients with decompensated advanced chronic liver disease, especially in times of organ shortage. We agree that in a perfect scenario, a randomized controlled trial would deliver the best scientific evidence to ultimately compare the ascites pump (AP), peritoneal catheter (PeCa), and TIPS. However, the obstacles to conducting such a study are significant. TIPS insertion targets the underlying pathomechanism, and it is therefore to be expected that the TIPS procedure is superior to AP and PeCa, which both are more symptomatic treatment approaches.1–4 It may therefore be questionable to withhold TIPS placement from patients who would be eligible, since it is recommended as a first-line treatment in patients with RA. In fact, only patients with contraindication for TIPS or ascites persistence after TIPS underwent AP or PeCa implantation in our study. Some bias is therefore to be expected, even after propensity score matching. Nonetheless, there is only very limited data that directly compares clinical outcomes between all devices. Hence, reporting of these data is of high interest, even if it is to strengthen TIPS as a first-line treatment option in patients with RA. Furthermore, there was currently no data available comparing PeCa and AP. Especially, AP implantation was limited to very few centers in Europe. As of now, AP implantation is no longer available in Europe, and PeCa implantation is a rather new procedure to treat RA. Still, data comparing both devices are of interest since both offer potential palliative treatment options, which are highly warranted in decompensated advanced chronic liver disease without the option for liver transplantation or TIPS.2–4 However, randomized trials comparing paracentesis with albumin and PeCa are currently being conducted, also raising important quality of live data.4

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Hepatology Communications
Published
2025-05-23
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1097/hc9.0000000000000726
Primary Topic
Liver Disease and Transplantation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Reply: Critical commentary on the study comparing TIPS, tunneled peritoneal catheter, and ascites pump in refractory ascites

Benjamin Maasoumy, Tammo Lambert Tergast, Sarah Lisa Schütte
Hepatology Communications
Liver Disease and Transplantation
article

Reply: Critical commentary on the study comparing TIPS, tunneled peritoneal catheter, and ascites pump in refractory ascites

Benjamin Maasoumy, Tammo Lambert Tergast, Sarah Lisa Schütte
article en

Abstract

We highly appreciate the interest of Dr Hassan in our study.1 Refractory ascites (RA) poses a clinical challenge in the care of patients with decompensated advanced chronic liver disease, especially in times of organ shortage. We agree that in a perfect scenario, a randomized controlled trial would deliver the best scientific evidence to ultimately compare the ascites pump (AP), peritoneal catheter (PeCa), and TIPS. However, the obstacles to conducting such a study are significant. TIPS insertion targets the underlying pathomechanism, and it is therefore to be expected that the TIPS procedure is superior to AP and PeCa, which both are more symptomatic treatment approaches.1–4 It may therefore be questionable to withhold TIPS placement from patients who would be eligible, since it is recommended as a first-line treatment in patients with RA. In fact, only patients with contraindication for TIPS or ascites persistence after TIPS underwent AP or PeCa implantation in our study. Some bias is therefore to be expected, even after propensity score matching. Nonetheless, there is only very limited data that directly compares clinical outcomes between all devices. Hence, reporting of these data is of high interest, even if it is to strengthen TIPS as a first-line treatment option in patients with RA. Furthermore, there was currently no data available comparing PeCa and AP. Especially, AP implantation was limited to very few centers in Europe. As of now, AP implantation is no longer available in Europe, and PeCa implantation is a rather new procedure to treat RA. Still, data comparing both devices are of interest since both offer potential palliative treatment options, which are highly warranted in decompensated advanced chronic liver disease without the option for liver transplantation or TIPS.2–4 However, randomized trials comparing paracentesis with albumin and PeCa are currently being conducted, also raising important quality of live data.4

Hepatology CommunicationsVol. 9(6)
Medizinische Hochschule Hannover (DE), German Center for Infection Research (DE)
Zero hunger
Openalex Percentile: Top 83%
Liver Disease and Transplantation
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.