Conference Coverage

Midodrine may be comparable to albumin for PICD prevention in ACLF


 

FROM THE LIVER MEETING

Complications and costs

PICD developed in four patients assigned to the albumin group and five patients assigned to the midodrine group; however, this difference was not significant. Fluid overload occurred in only one patient, in the albumin group.

No cases of hypertension or urinary retention arose in either group.

Grade I/II hepatic encephalopathy occurred 2-3 days after paracentesis in three patients on albumin and in two patients on midodrine.

Acute kidney injury was seen in three patients on albumin and in one patient on midodrine.

At 28 days after paracentesis, three patients in the albumin group had died, all from sepsis and multiorgan failure, while four patients in the midodrine group had died, three from sepsis and multiorgan failure and one from an upper gastrointestinal bleed.

Two patients in the albumin group and one patient in the midodrine group underwent liver transplant 1 month after paracentesis.

A cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the mean cost of albumin infusions was about sixfold higher than that of oral midodrine.

More data needed

Session moderator Shiv K. Sarin, MD, from the Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences in New Delhi, India, who was not involved in the study, commented that while midodrine is a good drug and generally safe, he would wait to use it in patients who needed modest-volume paracentesis until more data are published.

Dr. Sarin also emphasized that albumin is “mandatory” for protecting patients who require large-volume paracentesis, and that it would be “unethical” not to use it in that clinical situation.

The study was internally supported. Dr. Sharma and Dr. Sarin have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Pages

Next Article: