The British Society of Gastroenterology in collaboration with British Association for the Study of the Liver has prepared this document. The aim of this guideline is to review and summarise the evidence that guides clinical diagnosis and management of ascites in patients with cirrhosis. Substantial advances have been made in this area since the publication of the last guideline in 2007. These guidelines are based on a comprehensive literature search and comprise systematic reviews in the key areas, including the diagnostic tests, diuretic use, therapeutic paracentesis, use of albumin, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent shunt, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis and beta-blockers in patients with ascites. Where recent systematic reviews and meta-analysis are available, these have been updated with additional studies. In addition, the results of prospective and retrospective studies, evidence obtained from expert committee reports and, in some instances, reports from case series have been included. Where possible, judgement has been made on the quality of information used to generate the guidelines and the specific recommendations have been made according to the ‘Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE)’ system. These guidelines are intended to inform practising clinicians, and it is expected that these guidelines will be revised in 3 years’ time.

Summary Background Palliative care remains suboptimal in end‐stage liver disease. Aim To inform a definitive study, we assessed palliative long‐term abdominal drains in end‐stage liver disease to determine recruitment, attrition, safety/potential effectiveness, questionnaires/interview uptake/completion and make a preliminary cost comparison. Methods A 12‐week feasibility nonblinded randomised controlled trial comparing large‐volume paracentesis vs long‐term abdominal drains in refractory ascites due to end‐stage liver disease with fortnightly home visits for clinical/questionnaire‐based assessments. Study success criteria were attrition not >50%, <10% long‐term abdominal drain removal due to complications, the long‐term abdominal drain group to spend <50% ascites‐related study time in hospital vs large‐volume paracentesis group and 80% questionnaire/interview uptake/completion. Results Of 59 eligible patients, 36 (61%) were randomised, 17 to long‐term abdominal drain and 19 to large‐volume paracentesis. Following randomisation, median number (IQR) of hospital ascitic drains (long‐term abdominal drain group vs large‐volume paracentesis group) were 0 (0‐1) vs 4 (3‐7); week 12 serum albumin (g/L) and serum creatinine (μmol/L) were 29 (26.5‐32.5) vs 30 (25‐35) and 104.5 (81‐115.5) vs 127 (63‐158) respectively. Total attrition was 42% (long‐term abdominal drain group 47%, large‐volume paracentesis group 37%). Median (IQR) fortnightly community/hospital/social care ascites‐related costs and percentage study time in hospital were lower in the long‐term abdominal drain group, £329 (253‐580) vs £843 (603‐1060) and 0% (0‐0.74) vs 2.75% (2.35‐3.84) respectively. Self‐limiting cellulitis/leakage occurred in 41% (7/17) in the long‐term abdominal drain group vs 11% (2/19) in the large‐volume paracentesis group; peritonitis incidence was 6% (1/17) vs 11% (2/19) respectively. Questionnaires/interview uptake/completion were ≥80%; interviews indicated that long‐term abdominal drains could transform the care pathway. Conclusions The REDUCe study demonstrates feasibility with preliminary evidence of long‐term abdominal drain acceptability/effectiveness/safety and reduction in health resource utilisation. Trial registration: ISRCTN30697116, date assigned: 07/10/2015.

No abstract