Lateral Versus Midline: A Retrospective Review of Paracentesis Site Location and Risk of Hemorrhagic Complication
Authors' conclusion
These data suggest midline paracentesis may reduce the risk of post-procedural hemorrhage among patients undergoing paracentesis.
Study context
- Population
- Patients undergoing ultrasound-guided percutaneous abdominal paracentesis, University of Chicago, January 1, 2011–January 1, 2020procedures with location data
- Participants
- 4,513 patients
- Exposure
- Midline vs lateral percutaneous catheter placement for paracentesis
- Midlinen = 230
- Lateraln = 4,283reference
- Outcome
- Post-paracentesis clinically significant hemorrhage (CT evidence of hemorrhage at procedural site requiring blood transfusion, angiographic intervention, or resulting in death)
- Follow-up
- Within 7 days of paracentesis
Methodological detailsretrospective chart review, ultrasound-guided
- Retrospective chart review
- Ultrasound-guided
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Clinically significant hemorrhage
Midline
0
events
Lateral
60
events
P = 0.03
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
Mean
| Outcome | Midline | Lateral | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| MELD 3.0 score (patients with cirrhosis)Mann-Whitney U test; standardized effect size 0.071 | 25 (SD 8.13) | 22 (SD 8.46) | P ≤ 0.001 |
- MELD 3.0 score (patients with cirrhosis): Lateral n = 2086; Midline n = 118
Patient variables associated with hemorrhage (logistic regression)
- Only serum bilirubin nearly approached significance
- P = 0.07
- No baseline variable had an odds ratio that did not cross 1.0
Original publication
Lateral Versus Midline: A Retrospective Review of Paracentesis Site Location and Risk of Hemorrhagic Complication. Crit Care Med. Published 26 September 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →