Article Text

Download PDFPDF
859 Symptomatic malignant ascites drainage with a patient-controlled vascular catheter – interim analysis of safety and patients’ reported outcomes
  1. Maciej Stukan1,2,
  2. Marcin Jedryka3,
  3. Andrej Cokan4,
  4. Jaroslav Klát5,
  5. Munachiso Ndukwe Iheme6,
  6. Marcin Kryszpin3,
  7. Renata Poblocka7,
  8. Eva Timošek4,
  9. Martina Romanová5,
  10. Klára Kolarová6,
  11. Radoslaw Madry8 and
  12. David Cibula9
  1. 1Pomeranian Hospitals, Gdynia Oncology Center, Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Gdynia, Poland
  2. 2Medical University of Gdansk, Division of Oncological Propedeutics, Gdansk, Poland
  3. 3Lower Silesian Oncology, Pulmonology and Hematology Cente, Department of Oncological Gynecology, Wroclaw, Poland
  4. 4UMC Maribor, Department for gynaecological and breast oncology, Maribor, Slovenia
  5. 5University Hospital Ostrava, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, CEEGOG, Ostrava, Czech Republic
  6. 6UH Hradec Králové, Hradec Králové, Czech Republic
  7. 7Renata Poblocka, Gdynia, Poland
  8. 8Oncology Clinic, H.Swiecicki’s Hospital, Medical University of Poznan, Poznan, Poland
  9. 9First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic


Introduction/Background Malignant ascites (MA) and repeated paracentesis can impair patient’s quality of life (QOL). The aim was to evaluate changes is patients’ QOL and safety of MA drainage with a patient-controlled central vascular catheter (CVC) inserted into abdominal cavity.

Methodology This is an interim analysis of a prospective, multicentre trial ongoing within Central and Eastern European Gynaecologic Oncology Group (CEEGOG). CVC (14-Ga) was inserted into abdominal cavity of patients with symptomatic MA and drainage was controlled by patients at home. Rate and quality of complications were classified according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events Version 5.0. QOL was evaluated before and 10–14 days after/during drainage with standardized QLQ-C15-PAL, SGA and FACIT-TS-G questionnaires. Wilcoxon and Chi-squared tests were used.

Results Among 113 recruited patients (2015–2022) 8 adverse events were detected in 7 patients (6.2%), including one serious (death at 9th day after catheter insertion, classified as not related to the intervention). Other complications were: local infection (n=2) (resolved after oral antibiotics), catheter obstruction (n=2), catheter self-removal (n=2) (re-insertion performed) and nausea (n=1). When comparing the assessment before and after/during drainage, we found significantly better global quality of life (mean 31.8 vs 47.8, p<0.001), improvement in physical (52.6 vs 64.4, p<0.001) and emotional functioning (50.7 vs 65.4, p<0.001); symptoms were significantly less intense: fatigue (66.7 vs 50.9, p<0.001), nausea and vomiting (37.8 vs 21.4, p<0.001), pain (53.9 vs 34.1, p<0.001), dyspnoea (48.5 vs 22.3, p<0.001), insomnia (49.1 vs 34.3, p<0.001), appetite loss (56.3 vs 40.3, p<0.001), constipation (31.0 vs 25.2, p=0.007), and more patients had no pain on eating (71.3% vs 82.9%, p=0.04). Most (78%) were satisfied, 83% would recommend the procedure to others, 90% would choose intervention again.

Conclusion MA drainage via patient-controlled CVC inserted into abdominal cavity is safe and improves patients’ QOL.

Disclosures None.

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.