Clinical Profile and Complications of Paracentesis in Refractory Ascites Patients With Cirrhosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Large volume paracentesis is found to be safer and more effective for the treatment of tense ascites compared with larger-than-usual doses of diuretics according to studies. The objectives of the study was to evaluate patients with refractory ascites regarding clinical profile, technique of paracentesis, complications, amount of ascites drained, prognosis and co-morbid conditions associated with it. METHODS: Retrospective study was performed including patients between January 2011 and December 2013 with data pooled from total of five hospitals. A total of 4,389 paracenteses were performed on the 1,218 patients with a mean volume of 4,900 ± 2,795 mL ascitic fluid drained. Blind technique, ultrasound-guided technique of paracentesis and pig tail catheter drainage were evaluated. Diabetes mellitus data from available patients and data regarding co-morbidities were analyzed. Coagulation abnormalities in patients were studied. RESULTS: Study group age ranged from 34 to 79 years, and alcohol is the main cause of cirrhosis. Dyslipidemia was observed in 1,080 patients (88.66%). At the time of inclusion in the study, 40% of the patients had ≥ 2 other cirrhosis-related complications and 20% of the study population had ≥ 3 complications. Early complications occurred in 27.5% (337) of patients and late complications constituted 16.83% (205 patients). CONCLUSIONS: Even with abnormal coagulation, paracentesis is a safe procedure. But significant co-morbidities should be addressed with care in cirrhosis patients. Ultrasound guidance during the procedure whenever required should be encouraged.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".