The Effects of Alfapump on Ascites Control and Quality of Life in Patients With Cirrhosis and Recurrent or Refractory Ascites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The alfapump system has been shown to be a possible alternative to repeat therapeutic paracentesis (TP) in selected patients with refractory ascites (RA). The objective of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of alfapump on ascites control and quality of life in these patients. METHODS: Patients with cirrhosis and RA requiring ≥2 TPs 30 days prior were enrolled and followed for 24 months postimplant. Primary efficacy end point assessed at 6 months was reduction in paracentesis requirement; safety end point was device-related adverse events resulting in intervention, explant, or death. RESULTS: Forty patients with RA (mean Model of End-stage Liver Disease-Sodium: 15 ± 4) received an alfapump. TP requirement was decreased from 3.2 ± 1.5 sessions per month preimplant to 0.2 ± 0.6 sessions per month at 6 months postimplant ( P < 0.001), with 77% of patients having ≥50% reduction. Six pumps (15%) were explanted within 6 months due to device-related adverse events, 3 (7.5%) due to pump site skin erosion, and 3 (7.5%) due to bladder discomfort. Twenty-four renal events occurred in the 0-6 month postimplant period; 16 cases were readily reversible stage 1 acute kidney injury. Ascites-related symptoms assessed with an Ascites Q score improved from 51.0 ± 19.3 preimplant to 32.2 ± 21.9 at 6 months postimplant ( P < 0.001). Physical but not mental components of Short Form 36 improved ( P < 0.001). The 5 deaths within 6 months postimplant were not directly related to the device or alfapump therapy. DISCUSSION: The alfapump system effectively controlled ascites, which improved quality of life. It may be considered as an alternative to repeat TP in select patients with RA. Complication rates were similar to those expected in patients with RA.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".