Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_1209_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
15.09.2026
Размер:
17 Мб
Скачать
☆
126
9. Brozek JL, Akl EA, Alonso-Coello P, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recom-
mendations in clinical practice guidelines. Part 1 of 3. An overview of the GRADE approach and grading quality of evidence about interventions. Allergy. 2009;64(5):669–77.
10. Vanounou T, Steel JL, Nguyen KT, et al. Comparing the clinical and economic impact of lapa-
roscopic versus open liver resection. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(4):998–1009.
11. Bhojani FD, Fox A, Pitzul K, et al. Clinical and economic comparison of laparoscopic to open
liver resections using a 2-to-1 matched pair analysis: an institutional experience. J Am Coll Surg. 2012;214(2):184–95.
12. Cannon RM, Scoggins CR, Callender GG, Quillo A, McMasters KM, Martin 2nd RC. Financial
comparison of laparoscopic versus open hepatic resection using deviation-based cost model­ing. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(9):2887–92.
13. Laurent A, Cherqui D, Lesurtel M, Brunetti F, Tayar C, Fagniez PL. Laparoscopic liver resec-
tion for subcapsular hepatocellular carcinoma complicating chronic liver disease. Arch Surg. 2003;138(7):763–9; discussion 9.
14. Ker CG, Chen JS, Kuo KK, et al. Liver surgery for hepatocellular carcinoma: laparoscopic
versus open approach. Int J Hepatol. 2011;2011:596792.
15. Kim H, Suh KS, Lee KW, et al. Long-term outcome of laparoscopic versus open liver resection
Endosc. 2014;28(3):950–60.
16. Cheung TT, Poon RT, Yuen WK, et al. Long-term survival analysis of pure laparoscopic versus
open hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: a single-center experience. Ann Surg. 2013;257(3):506–11.
17. Kobayashi T. Long-term survival analysis of pure laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for
hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: a single-center experience. Ann Surg. 2013;257:506–11.
18. Truant S, Bouras AF, Hebbar M, et al. Laparoscopic resection vs. open liver resection for
peripheral hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with chronic liver disease: a case-matched study. Surg Endosc. 2011;25(11):3668–77.
19. Lee KF, Chong CN, Wong J, Cheung YS, Wong J, Lai P. Long-term results of laparoscopic
hepatectomy versus open hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a case-matched analysis. World J Surg. 2011;35(10):2268–74.
20. Hu BS, Chen K, Tan HM, Ding XM, Tan JW. Comparison of laparoscopic vs open liver lobec-
tomy (segmentectomy) for hepatocellular carcinoma. World J Gastroenterol. 2011;17(42):4725–8.
21. Kim HH, Park EK, Seoung JS, et al. Liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: case-
matched analysis of laparoscopic versus open resection. J Kor Surg Soc. 2011;80(6):412–9.
22. Tranchart H, Di Giuro G, Lainas P, et al. Laparoscopic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma:
a matched-pair comparative study. Surg Endosc. 2010;24(5):1170–6.
23. Aldrighetti L, Guzzetti E, Pulitano C, et al. Case-matched analysis of totally laparoscopic
versus open liver resection for HCC: short and middle term results. J Surg Oncol. 2010;102(1):82–6.
24. Belli G, Limongelli P, Fantini C, et al. Laparoscopic and open treatment of hepatocellular
carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis. Br J Surg. 2009;96(9):1041–8.
25. Sarpel U, Hefti MM, Wisnievsky JP, Roayaie S, Schwartz ME, Labow DM. Outcome for
patients treated with laparoscopic versus open resection of hepatocellular carcinoma: case­matched analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16(6):1572–7.
26. Endo Y, Ohta M, Sasaki A, et al. A comparative study of the long-term outcomes after
laparoscopy- assisted and open left lateral hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2009;19(5):e171–4.
27. Lai EC, Tang CN, Ha JP, Li MK. Laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma:
ten-year experience in a single center. Arch Surg. 2009;144(2):143–7; discussion 8.
28. Cai XJ, Yang J, Yu H, et al. Clinical study of laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for malig-
nant liver tumors. Surg Endosc. 2008;22(11):2350–6.
A. Gleisner and D.A. Geller
127
29. Kaneko H, Takagi S, Otsuka Y, et al. Laparoscopic liver resection of hepatocellular carcinoma.
Am J Surg. 2005;189(2):190–4.
30. Shimada M, Hashizume M, Maehara S, et al. Laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatocellular
carcinoma. Surg Endosc. 2001;15(6):541–4.
31. Montalti R, Berardi G, Laurent S, et al. Laparoscopic liver resection compared to open
approach in patients with colorectal liver metastases improves further resectability: oncologi­cal outcomes of a case-control matched-pairs analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014;40(5):536–44.
32. Iwahashi S, Shimada M, Utsunomiya T, et al. Laparoscopic hepatic resection for metastatic
liver tumor of colorectal cancer: comparative analysis of short- and long-term results. Surg Endosc. 2014;28(1):80–4.
33. Guerron AD, Aliyev S, Agcaoglu O, et al. Laparoscopic versus open resection of colorectal
liver metastasis. Surg Endosc. 2013;27(4):1138–43.
34. Qiu J, Chen S, Pankaj P, Wu H. Laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatic colorectal metastases –
a retrospective comparative cohort analysis and literature review. PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e60153.
35. Cannon RM, Scoggins CR, Callender GG, McMasters KM, Martin 2nd RC. Laparoscopic
versus open resection of hepatic colorectal metastases. Surgery. 2012;152(4):567–73; discus­sion 73–4.
36. Cheung TT, Poon RT, Yuen WK, et al. Outcome of laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for
colorectal liver metastases. ANZ J Surg. 2013;83(11):847–52.
37. Topal B, Tiek J, Fieuws S, et al. Minimally invasive liver surgery for metastases from colorec-
tal cancer: oncologic outcome and prognostic factors. Surg Endosc. 2012;26(8):2288–98.
38. Hu MG, Ou-yang CG, Zhao GD, Xu DB, Liu R. Outcomes of open versus laparoscopic pro-
cedure for synchronous radical resection of liver metastatic colorectal cancer: a comparative study. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2012;22(4):364–9.
39. Abu Hilal M, Underwood T, Zuccaro M, Primrose J, Pearce N. Short- and medium-term results
of totally laparoscopic resection for colorectal liver metastases. Br J Surg. 2010;97(6):927–33.
40. Castaing D, Vibert E, Ricca L, Azoulay D, Adam R, Gayet B. Oncologic results of laparo-
scopic versus open hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases in two specialized centers. Ann Surg. 2009;250(5):849–55.
10 When Is Laparoscopic Liver Resection Preferred Over Open Resection?
129© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 J.M. Millis, J.B. Matthews (eds.), Diffi cult Decisions in Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Diffi cult Decisions in Surgery: An Evidence-Based Approach, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-27365-5_11
Chapter 11
Clinical Management of Pyogenic Liver Abscesses
Trevor W. Reichman and W. Grayson Terral
Abstract Pyogenic liver abscesses are rare but if handled inappropriately can be
life-threatening. Early experiences with the management of these liver abscesses yielded high morbidity and mortality. However, over the last three decades, treat­ment has moved away from surgery as the front-line therapy and has evolved to include less invasive interventional radiologic procedures. This change in paradigm has been accompanied by shorter length of hospital stay and decreased morbidity and mortality. Despite these fi ndings in the general population, patients that develop pyogenic liver abscesses following a liver transplant have a much higher morbidity and mortality, with some ultimately requiring retransplantation. When managed appropriately and in many cases with a multi-modality approach, patients with pyo­genic liver abscesses can achieve excellent clinical outcomes.
Keywords Liver abscess • Pyogenic • Percutaneous aspiration • Percutaneous drainage • Hepatectomy of liver abscess

Introduction

Pyogenic liver abscess es are relatively uncommon occurrences, with an incidence ranging from 1.1 to 2.3 cases per 100,000 based on the most recent population- based studies [ 1 , 2 ]. Although liver abscesses are uncommon, if left untreated, risk signifi - cant morbidity and mortality . Liver abscesses were fi rst described by Ochsner and Debakey in 1938, and surgical drainage was the primary treatment recommendation [ 3 ]. Despite intervention, overall mortality was 77 %. Since then, therapy has evolved with the advent of improved diagnostic imaging, antibiotics, and percutaneous inter­vention and this has improved the mortality in more recent studies to between 6 % and 14 % [ 4 – 6 ]. In the past 30 years, the advent and wide spread acceptance of
T. W. Reichman (*) • W. G. Terral Multi-Organ Transplant Institute, Department of Surgery , Ochsner Medical Center , 1514 Jefferson Highway , New Orleans , LA 70121 , USA e-mail:
treichman@ochsner.org
130
percutaneous aspiration and percutaneous drainage along with antibiotic regimens has supplanted surgical intervention as the primary treatment modality.
As the etiology of pyogenic liver abscess has evolved, the appropriate treatment modality has evolved as well. Appropriate patient selection based on etiology, nutri­tional status, abscess characteristics, and institutional interventional options should be considered. This chapter addresses the indications for surgical intervention, per­cutaneous aspiration or drainage, and antibiotics therapy alone.

Search Strategy

A literature search of English language publications from 1980 to 2014 was used to identity published data on pyogenic liver abscess using the PICO outline (Table 11.1 ). Databases searched were PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, and Cochrane Reviews. Terms used in the search were “pyogenic liver abscess, etiology”, “pyogenic liver abscess, treatment”, “pyogenic liver abscess AND percutaneous drainage or percutaneous aspiration ”, “pyogenic abscess, antibiotics”, “pyogenic liver abscess risk”, “pyo­genic liver abscess AND surgery versus drainage”.

Etiology of Liver Abscesses

In review of the etiology by Johannsen et al. and Rahimian et al. abscesses can be classifi ed by the presumed route: biliary, portal venous, hepatic artery, direct exten­sion, and traumatic [ 7 , 8 ]. Biliary causes include suppurative cholangitis , the most common identifi able cause, Caroli’s disease, and Ascaris lumbricoides invasion in the developing world. According to Seeto and Rockey’s review, 52 of 142 identifi ­able causes (37 %) were attributed to biliary disease [ 9 ]. Eleven of the 52 had malig- nant lesions, 31 had cholelithiasis or choledocholithiasis , 8 had strictures, and 2 with biliary cirrhosis . Appendicitis, historically the most common identifi able cause, along with diverticulits, pancreatitis, infl ammatory bowel disease, and abdominal surgery all represent common portal venous causes of abscesses. Again, Seeto and Rockey’s review identifi ed 16 of 142 patients with a portal venous system etiology as the cause for their liver abscess : 5 from diverticulitis, 4 from appendici­tis, 3 with perforation of the small bowel, 2 patients with IBD, and 2 with other intra-abdominal infections [ 9 ]. Any systemic bacterial infection can lead to liver abscess, but as found at autopsy, these abscesses are typically micro-abscesses and
Table 11.1 PICO table for assessment of treatment of pyogenic liver abscess es
P (Patients) I (Intervention) C (Comparator) O (Outcomes) Patients with pyogenic
liver abscess
Surgical drainage
Percutaneous drainage or aspiration, antibiotics alone
Mortality, morbidity, resolution of abscess
T.W. Reichman and W.G. Terral
131
are not identifi able by imaging. Direct extension includes cholecystitis, perinephric abscesses, and subdiaphragmatic abscesses. Traumatic causes include penetrating trauma but also include ingestion of foreign objects, blunt trauma with resultant infected hepatic hematoma, tumor necrosis, and sickle cell disease. Lastly, crypto­genic liver abscesses have become the most common fi nding and predominated in reviews from both Rahimian et al. and Rockey and Seeto with cryptogenic causes as 48 % and 40 % respectively [ 8 , 9 ].

Predicting Prognosis

Several attempts have been made to try to stratify patients into risk categories in attempt to identify patients that might have a higher risk of mortality and/or a more complicated clinical course. Theoretically, stratifying patients should help to iden­tify individuals that warrant more aggressive clinical management of their abscess up front rather then taking a more conservative approach. Chen et al. studied 298 patients with pyogenic liver abscess es with an overall mortality rate of 10 % [ 10 ]. The authors demonstrated by multivariate analysis that the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II score), SAPS II score, the presence of a gas-forming abscess, or an anaerobic infection was associated with higher mortal­ity. These fi ndings were further substantiated in a study by Hsieh et al. which found that a more aggressive approach in patients with APACHE II scores greater than 15 were associated with better clinical outcomes [ 11 ].
In addition to mortality , Alvarez Pérez et al. examined 133 patients in an attempt to identify risk factors associated with a complicated clinical course from a pyo­genic abscess [ 12 ]. They found by multivariate analysis that patients that present with shock, a hemoglobin <10 g/dl, an elevated PT (>17) and/or polymicrobial infections were more likely to have a complicated clinical course. In this study, the overall rate of patients with a complicated clinical course was 36 %. In addition, the authors also identifi ed factors that were associated with patient mortality. Pyogenic abscesses associated with a biliary origin, multiple abscesses, a low hemoglobin (<10 g/dl), or an elevated BUN (>28 mg/dL) were associated with death by multi­variate analysis. In addition, the presence of shock was the highest predictor of mortality by multivariate analysis with an odds ratio of 22.66. An additional study by Ruiz-Hernández et al. also reported similar fi ndings in that patients that develop sepsis and/or are in septic shock are at high risk of mortality [ 13 ].

Treatment Options

Interventions for pyogenic hepatic abscesses range in degree of invasiveness from antibiotic therapy alone to more aggressive therapies such as hepatic resection . Trials comparing methodologies to manage pyogenic liver abscess es are presented in Table
11.2 .
11 Clinical Management of Pyogenic Liver Abscesses
132
Antibiotic Therapy
Antibiotic therapy is almost universally used in conjunction with other treatment modalities. However, in the absence of positive blood cultures, the disadvantage to treatment of liver abscess es without any intervention is a lack of the ability to iden­tify the offending organism(s) in which antibiotic therapy can be tailored. Current recommendations for antibiotic treatment of pyogenic hepatic abscesses include empiric coverage of Enterobacteriaceae , enterococci, anaerobes, and in certain sit- uations staphylococci and streptococci. Empiric regimens should include a beta­lactam/beta-lactamase inhibitor combination, carbapenem, or second-generation cephalosporin with anaerobic coverage. Metronidazole or clindamycin should be included in the antibiotic regimen to cover Bacteroides fragilis if not covered by the initial antibiotic(s). Systemic antifungal agents should also be initiated if a fungal abscess is suspected. Once cultures and sensitivities are available, the antibiotic regimen should be tailored appropriately. The recommended duration of antibiotic therapy should be 4–6 weeks. However, this may potentially be shortened in patients that have undergone drainage and an uncomplicated clinical course [ 14 ].
Earlier reports demonstrated inferior results in patients treated with antibiotics alone versus an intervention plus antibiotics [ 12 ]. However, in appropriately selected patients, antibiotic therapy alone can be effective in the treatment of certain pyo­genic abscesses. In a series by Hope et al . the authors stratifi ed 107 patients with pyogenic liver abscess es into 3 categories: (1) <3 cm, (2) Unilocular, >3 cm, and (3) Complex, multilocular, >3 cm [ 15 ]. Patients were also stratifi ed into three treatment algorithms that included one of the following treatment arms: (1) Antibiotics alone, (2) Percutaneous drainage plus antibiotics, or (3) Surgery. In this series, antibiotic therapy alone was effective in 100 % of patients with hepatic abscesses <3 cm in
Table 11.2 Trials comparing treatment modalities for pyogenic liver abscess es
First author, year
Study type n Comparison Outcome
Yu, 2004 RCT 64 Percutaneous
aspiration vs. qCD
Equivalent
Zerem, 2007
RCT 60 Percutaneous
aspiration vs. CD
Improved with CD
Rajak, 1998 RCT 50 (11 with PLA) Percutaneous
aspiration vs. CD
Improved with CD
Tan, 2005 RR 80 (PLA >5 cm) CD vs. surgery Improved with Surgery Hsieh, 2008 RR 81 (APACHE II 15) CD vs. surgery Improved with surgery Chou, 1997 RR 483 (single vs.
multiple PLA)
CD vs. surgery Single = CD
Multiple = surgery
Hope, 2008 RR 107 Abx vs. CD vs.
surgery
 3 cm = Abx >3 cm, UL = CD >3 cm, ML = surgery
RCT randomized controlled trial, CD catheter drainage, PLA pyogenic liver abscess , RR retrospec- tive review, APACHE II, Abx antibiotics, UL uniloculated, ML multiloculated
T.W. Reichman and W.G. Terral
133
size. Hsieh et al. also demonstrated successful treatment of <3 cm abscesses with antibiotics alone, even in patient with high APACHE II scores [ 11 ]. Similarly, Rahimian et al . reported successful treatment of approximately 17 % of their patients (14 of 70 patients) treated for pyogenic liver abscess with no treatment failures requiring additional interventions [ 8 ].
Radiologic Intervention
Percutaneous radiologic interventions (e.g. aspiration or placement of an indwelling catheter) are becoming more commonly the modality of choice for patients with pyogenic liver abscesses. Percutaneous interventions serve two purposes: (1) They drain the underlying infection and (2) They provide abscess contents for culture and sensitivity. There have been several studies that have demonstrated similar or decreased mortality rates in patients treated with percutaneous intervention versus open surgical drainage or resection [ 8 , 9 , 12 , 16 ].
The optimal percutaneous approach to abscess drainage (intermittent needle aspiration versus continuous indwelling catheter and drainage) is still debated. Intermittent needle aspiration has the advantage in that it is easier and more cost effective to perform and is also less painful for the patient. The one disadvantage is that it typically requires multiple interventions. In a randomized-controlled trial by Yu et al. the authors compared intermittent needle aspiration to continuous catheter drainage in 64 consecutive patients with a pyogenic liver abscess . There was no statistically signifi cant difference in outcomes from either treatment modality, however, there was a trend toward higher treatment success rate, shorter hospital stay, and lower mortality rate in patients treated with needle aspiration [ 6 ]. However, a similar randomized study by Rajak et al . demonstrated an improved outcome using percutaneous catheters versus needle aspiration. However, this report has been criticized due to the low sample size of confi rmed pyogenic abscesses (n = 11) and the limitation on the number of aspirations allowed (2). A more recent study however appeared to confi rm these fi ndings and again demonstrated improved out­comes with catheter drainage versus intermittent needle aspiration in a randomized controlled trial with no treatment failures occurring in the percutaneous catheter group [ 17 ].
Previously, the effectiveness of catheter-based drainage has been questioned in patients with multiloculated abscesses. However, a recent publication by Liu et al . compared 109 patients with either uniloculated or multiloculated abscesses who were all treated with percutaneous catheter drainage [ 18 ]. Clinical success ranged between 87 and 92 % regardless of whether the patient had single or multiple abscesses or the abscess was uniloculated or multiloculated, indicating potentially all abscesses regardless of their characteristics should have a trial of percutaneous drainage . Overall mortality reported in this series was 3.5 %. However, no compari­son to other modalities was made.
In a series from Memorial Sloan-Kettering, Mezhir et al . examined their series of hepatic abscesses (n = 51) of which 88 % occurred the setting of a history of cancer .
11 Clinical Management of Pyogenic Liver Abscesses
134
Twenty-two percent of the patient had previously underwent local-regional therapy (transarterial chemoembolization or radiofrequency ablation). Percutaneous drain­age was successful in 66 % of patients; 9 % of patients required surgical interven­tion. The presence of yeast and/or communication with the biliary tree was associated with poorer outcomes . Overall mortality was 26 %, however many of these patients (60 %) died of progression of disease [ 19 ].
Surgical Therapy
Prior to the advent of percutaneous radiology-based interventions, surgery was the mainstay of treatment for patients with pyogenic liver abscess es. However, based on review of the current literature, the paradigm has clearly switched from surgical drainage to percutaneous procedures. However, in certain subsets of patients, surgi­cal intervention might still be the most appropriate fi rst line therapy. In patients with large abscesses (>5 cm), there may still be a role for open surgical drainage. Tan et al . compared PD to surgical drainage (SD, 36 patients versus 44 patients, respec- tively) in patients with pyogenic liver abscesses greater then 5 cm in size [ 20 ]. The authors examined time to defervescence of fever, treatment failure, secondary pro­cedures, length of hospital stay, morbidity and mortality . Of these endpoints, patients that had SD had less treatment failures, less secondary procedures performed, and shorter length of stays. There was no statistical difference between morbidity and mortality. Hope et al . also noted a high treatment failure rate in patients with large, multiloculated abscesses (67 %). In comparison, patients treated with surgery up front had no recurrence of their abscess [ 15 ]. In contrast to this, a recent publication from 2009 noted a 87 % clinical success rate in patients treated percutaneous drain­age with an average abscess size of 8.3 cm [ 18 ]. No comparison to other treatment modalities was made in this series.
Patients also who score high on a severity-of-disease classifi cation system may also warrant a more aggressive approach. Hsieh et al . compared the outcomes of patients with an APACHE II score that underwent initial percutaneous drainage versus surgical drainage [ 11 ]. The authors found a higher treatment success rate and a lower mortality rate in patients treated initially treated with surgery . In addition, less antibiotic use and a shorter length of stay were also noted in the group in which surgery was performed upfront.
Additional clinical fi ndings might also warrant a surgical approach. Chou et al. demonstrated a high failure rate in patients that underwent catheter-based therapy in the setting of multiple abscesses [ 21 ]. The presence of fungus in the abscess culture also appears to increase catheter-based treatment failure. On multivariate analysis, yeast in the abscess culture was identifi ed as a risk factor for treatment failure via a percutaneous approach [ 19 ]. Strong et al . also reviewed there experience with patients treated for abscess and concluded that a non-surgical approach should be undertaken for patients with pyogenic liver abscess es. However, for patients that present with an initial intraperitoneal abscess rupture or in cases of hepatobiliary
T.W. Reichman and W.G. Terral
135
pathology causing multiple abscesses above an obstructed duct system, primary surgical treatment of pyogenic liver abscess is likely indicated [ 22 ].
Liver Abscess After Liver Transplantation
Although rare, pyogenic liver abscess es following liver transplant ation can be chal­lenging to manage, with many of these occur in the setting of vascular compromise to the liver graft. Hepatic artery thrombosis is almost always the cause and is often associated with biliary tree necrosis and/or biliary stricture s [ 23 ]. Management of these abscesses can be challenging since with a compromised blood supply, the infection is very diffi cult to clear. In addition, clinicians are often faced managing these patients in the setting of chronic immunosuppression. Tachopoulou et al . reviewed their experience at the Cleveland Clinic from 1990 to 2000 in solid organ transplant patients and identifi ed 12 patients, all liver transplant recipients, with hepatic abscesses [ 24 ]. Thirteen patients underwent aspiration of the abscess from which 30 microbial isolates were obtained. Of these, 15 were gram-positive aerobic bacteria, 9 were gram-negative aerobic bacteria, and 3 were anaerobic. All patients except one were initially treated with percutaneous intervention. The overall mor­tality of the infected patients in this series was 36 %, signifi cantly higher then that reported for non-transplant patients. Five patients required retransplantation. Similarly, Nikeghbalian reviewed their experience and identifi ed 5 patients out of 560 liver transplant recipients with a hepatic abscess. Overall mortality in their series was 40 % [ 25 ].

Personal Experience

As detailed by the authors of several of the quoted manuscripts in this chapter, although now rare in the United States, in our experience, pyogenic abscesses when diagnosed can be challenging to manage, often occurring in older, debilitated patients. A combination approach which includes broad-spectrum antibiotics and percutaneous intervention is typically performed. Although it is ideal to obtain cul­tures prior to the initiation of antibiotic therapy, it is rarely the case as many of these patients present in extremis and empiric antibiotics have already been started prior to any workup being initiated. Once antibiotic therapy has started, percutaneous aspiration plus or minus placement of a pigtail catheter depending on the size of the abscess is almost routinely performed. Patients are typically reimaged 5–7 days fol­lowing catheter placement to assess for adequate drainage; sooner if the patients clinical course is not improving. Repeat interventions are performed including upsizing of catheters as needed to maximize drainage. Antibiotics are eventually tailored once cultures and sensitivities have been obtained. Surgery is rarely indi­cated, and is only reserved for patients that have failed multiple attempts at percuta­neous interventions. In patients with a prior liver transplant , liver abscess es can be
11 Clinical Management of Pyogenic Liver Abscesses
136
challenging. Hepatic arterial thrombosis should always be ruled out, either by CT angiogram or ultrasound . Interrogation of the biliary system either via MRCP or ERCP should also be performed to rule out biliary necrosis and/or biliary strictur­ing. In patients that fail intervention, many will require liver retransplantation espe­cially if biliary or vascular complications are present.

Summary

Excellent outcomes can be obtained from patients with pyogenic liver abscess es when managed appropriately. First-line therapy should include a percutaneous aspi­ration or trans-catheter drainage of the abscess in order to control the infection and obtain a sample for culture and sensitivity. All patients should be treated with broad spectrum antibiotics which can be tailored to the organism once identifi ed for a duration of 4–6 weeks. Surgery should be reserved for patients that fail fi rst line therapy, but can also be warranted in patients with large (>5 cm) abscesses or patients who present with high APACHE II scores, depending on the experience and expertise of the interventional radiology department.

Recommendations

• Percutaneous drainage is fi rst line therapy for the treatment of pyogenic liver
abscess es and surgical drainage or resection should be considered in patients
who fail initial therapy especially in patients with a large, multi-loculated (>5
cm) abscess (evidence quality good – strong recommendation)
• Surgery should be considered for patients with high APACHE II scores (evi-
dence quality poor – weak recommendation).
• Antibiotics alone are suitable fi rst line therapy for abscesses less then 3 cm, how-
ever, aspiration should be considered in order to tailor antibiotics if possible
(evidence quality good – strong recommendation)

References

1. Hansen PS, Schonheyder HC. Pyogenic hepatic abscess. A 10-year population-based retro-
spective study. APMIS. 1998;106(3):396–402.
2. Kaplan GG, Gregson DB, Laupland KB. Population-based study of the epidemiology of and
the risk factors for pyogenic liver abscess. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004;2(11):1032–8.
3. Ochsner A, DeBakey M, Murray S. Pyogenic abscess of the liver. An analysis of 47 cases and
review of the literature. Am J Surg. 1938;40:292–319.
4. Mohsen AH, Green ST, Read RC, McKendrick MW. Liver abscess in adults: ten years experi-
ence in a UK centre. QJM. 2002;95(12):797–802.
T.W. Reichman and W.G. Terral