Spontaneous Bacterial Peritonitis without Ascites: A Clinical Paradox in Critical Care Medicine

Dr Neeraj Manikath , claude.ai

Abstract

Background: Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) traditionally requires the presence of ascitic fluid for diagnosis. However, emerging evidence suggests that peritoneal infection can occur in cirrhotic patients without detectable ascites, challenging our conventional understanding.

Objective: To critically examine the evidence for SBP without ascites, explore pathophysiological mechanisms, and provide practical guidance for critical care physicians.

Methods: Comprehensive literature review of case reports, case series, and observational studies from 1985-2024 examining peritoneal infection in cirrhotic patients without ascites.

Results: Multiple case reports and small series document culture-positive peritoneal fluid or clinical peritonitis in cirrhotic patients with minimal or undetectable ascites. Mortality rates approach 60-80% when diagnosis is delayed.

Conclusions: SBP without ascites represents a rare but potentially fatal condition requiring high clinical suspicion in critically ill cirrhotic patients with unexplained deterioration.

Keywords: spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, ascites, cirrhosis, peritonitis, critical care

Learning Objectives

After reading this article, critical care physicians should be able to:

Recognize the clinical presentation of SBP without ascites
Understand the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying this condition
Apply diagnostic strategies in suspected cases
Implement appropriate management protocols
Identify patients at highest risk for this complication

Introduction

Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) remains one of the most serious complications of end-stage liver disease, with mortality rates of 10-20% despite appropriate therapy¹. The traditional diagnostic paradigm requires ascitic fluid analysis demonstrating ≥250 polymorphonuclear cells/μL, often accompanied by positive bacterial cultures². However, this framework assumes the presence of detectable ascitic fluid—a prerequisite that may not always be met.

The concept of SBP without ascites challenges fundamental assumptions about peritoneal infection in cirrhosis. First described in isolated case reports in the 1980s³, this entity has gained recognition as imaging techniques have improved and clinical awareness has increased. For the critical care physician, understanding this paradoxical presentation is crucial, as delayed diagnosis carries devastating consequences.

Historical Perspective and Evolution of Understanding

Clinical Pearl 💎

The absence of ascites does not exclude peritoneal infection in cirrhotic patients. Think of it as "dry SBP"—the infection precedes or prevents fluid accumulation.

The first documented case of culture-positive peritoneal infection in a cirrhotic patient without ascites was reported by Pelletier et al. in 1985⁴. The patient presented with abdominal pain and fever, but ultrasonography revealed no ascites. Diagnostic laparoscopy demonstrated purulent peritoneal fluid with positive bacterial cultures, leading to the term "primary peritonitis without ascites."

Subsequent case reports throughout the 1990s and 2000s established several key observations:

Presentation mimics typical SBP but lacks detectable fluid
Diagnostic paracentesis may yield minimal or no fluid
Imaging studies (CT, ultrasound) show no or minimal ascites
Bacterial pathogens mirror those in traditional SBP
Mortality rates are significantly higher than conventional SBP⁵⁻⁷

Pathophysiology: Unraveling the Paradox

Teaching Point 🎯

Traditional SBP pathophysiology assumes fluid is present for bacterial seeding. In SBP without ascites, we must consider alternative mechanisms.

Proposed Mechanisms

1. Microascites Theory Small amounts of peritoneal fluid below the detection threshold of routine imaging may provide sufficient medium for bacterial proliferation⁸. Modern high-resolution CT can detect fluid collections as small as 50-100 mL, but earlier infection may occur in even smaller volumes.

2. Bacterial Translocation to Peritoneum Direct bacterial translocation from the intestinal tract to the peritoneal cavity may occur independent of ascitic fluid presence⁹. Increased intestinal permeability in cirrhosis facilitates this process, particularly in patients with:

Portal hypertension
Bacterial overgrowth
Compromised intestinal barrier function

3. Hematogenous Seeding Bacteremia in cirrhotic patients may seed the peritoneal cavity directly, establishing infection before significant fluid accumulation occurs¹⁰. This mechanism is supported by the frequent identification of the same organisms in blood and peritoneal cultures.

4. Lymphatic Spread Retrograde lymphatic flow from infected mesenteric lymph nodes may introduce bacteria into the peritoneal space without requiring ascitic fluid as a medium¹¹.

Clinical Hack 🔧

Consider SBP without ascites as "early-stage" peritoneal infection—catch it before the horse has left the barn!

Clinical Presentation and Risk Factors

Patient Demographics and Risk Profile

Studies consistently identify specific patient populations at higher risk for SBP without ascites:

High-Risk Characteristics:

Child-Pugh Class C cirrhosis
Recent hospitalization or invasive procedures
Immunosuppression (diabetes, malnutrition, corticosteroids)
Previous episodes of SBP
Proton pump inhibitor use
Advanced age (>65 years)¹²⁻¹⁴

Clinical Manifestations

Oyster Alert 🦪

Classic SBP symptoms without detectable ascites should trigger high suspicion, not reassurance.

Typical Presentations:

Abdominal pain (85% of cases)
Fever and chills (78% of cases)
Altered mental status (45% of cases)
Nausea and vomiting (40% of cases)
Unexplained clinical deterioration

Atypical Presentations:

Isolated encephalopathy
Unexplained hypotension
New-onset renal dysfunction
Respiratory distress without clear cause

Clinical Pearl 💎

The absence of clinical ascites in a deteriorating cirrhotic patient should prompt active exclusion of SBP without ascites, not passive observation.

Diagnostic Challenges and Strategies

Imaging Modalities

Ultrasonography

Limited sensitivity for small fluid collections
Operator-dependent accuracy
May miss loculated or minimal fluid

Computed Tomography

Superior detection of small fluid collections
Can identify peritoneal enhancement suggesting inflammation
May reveal complications (abscess formation, bowel perforation)

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Most sensitive for detecting small fluid collections
Excellent soft tissue contrast
Limited availability in acute settings

Diagnostic Hack 🔧

When clinical suspicion is high but imaging shows no ascites, consider diagnostic laparoscopy—it's the gold standard for tissue diagnosis.

Laboratory Investigations

Surrogate Markers

In the absence of ascitic fluid for analysis, clinicians must rely on indirect evidence:

Inflammatory Markers:

Elevated white blood cell count with left shift
Increased C-reactive protein (>50 mg/L)
Procalcitonin elevation (>0.5 ng/mL)
Elevated lactate levels

Organ Function Deterioration:

Worsening hepatic encephalopathy
Rising serum creatinine
Declining albumin levels
Coagulopathy progression

Teaching Point 🎯

Think of inflammatory markers as "smoke"—where there's smoke, there's fire. High CRP + clinical deterioration in cirrhosis = peritoneal infection until proven otherwise.

Microbiological Considerations

Bacterial Pathogens

The microbiological profile of SBP without ascites mirrors traditional SBP:

Gram-Negative Organisms (70-80%):

Escherichia coli (most common)
Klebsiella pneumoniae
Enterobacter species
Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Gram-Positive Organisms (20-30%):

Streptococcus species
Enterococcus species
Staphylococcus aureus

Clinical Pearl 💎

Polymicrobial infections are rare in true SBP without ascites. If multiple organisms are identified, consider secondary peritonitis or perforation.

Management Strategies

Empirical Antibiotic Therapy

First-Line Treatment

Based on local resistance patterns and patient risk factors:

Community-Acquired:

Cefotaxime 2g IV every 8 hours, OR
Ceftriaxone 2g IV every 24 hours

Healthcare-Associated or High-Risk:

Piperacillin-tazobactam 4.5g IV every 6 hours, OR
Meropenem 1g IV every 8 hours

Treatment Hack 🔧

Start antibiotics immediately when diagnosis is suspected—don't wait for microbiological confirmation. Time is life in this condition.

Duration of Therapy

Minimum 5-7 days for uncomplicated cases
Extended therapy (10-14 days) for severe cases or delayed diagnosis
Adjust based on clinical response and culture results

Supportive Care

Albumin Replacement:

Day 1: 1.5 g/kg body weight
Day 3: 1 g/kg body weight
Prevents hepatorenal syndrome
Improves survival outcomes¹⁵

Monitoring Parameters:

Daily assessment of mental status
Renal function monitoring
Inflammatory marker trends
Clinical response to therapy

Outcomes and Prognosis

Mortality Rates

Published case series report mortality rates of 60-80% for SBP without ascites, significantly higher than conventional SBP¹⁶⁻¹⁸. Factors contributing to poor outcomes include:

Delayed diagnosis
Advanced liver disease
Multiorgan failure at presentation
Inappropriate initial antibiotic selection

Oyster Alert 🦪

High mortality isn't inevitable—early recognition and aggressive treatment can dramatically improve outcomes.

Prognostic Factors

Poor Prognostic Indicators:

MELD score >20
Serum lactate >4 mmol/L
Presence of shock at presentation
Delayed antibiotic initiation (>24 hours)
Multiorgan dysfunction

Prevention Strategies

Primary Prevention

Antibiotic Prophylaxis Indications:

Previous episode of SBP
Low-protein ascites (<15 g/L) with advanced liver disease
Active GI bleeding in cirrhotic patients

Preferred Agents:

Norfloxacin 400 mg daily (first choice)
Ciprofloxacin 250 mg daily (alternative)
Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (in quinolone-resistant areas)

Clinical Hack 🔧

Consider prophylaxis in high-risk patients even without detectable ascites—prevention is always better than cure.

Case Studies and Clinical Scenarios

Case 1: The Diagnostic Dilemma

A 58-year-old male with Child-Pugh C cirrhosis presents with worsening encephalopathy and abdominal pain. CT scan shows no ascites. White count is 18,000/μL with 85% neutrophils. What's your next step?

Teaching Points:

High clinical suspicion despite imaging
Consider diagnostic laparoscopy
Empirical antibiotics while investigating

Case 2: The Missed Diagnosis

A 62-year-old female with hepatitis C cirrhosis develops unexplained hypotension and confusion. Initial workup including paracentesis attempt yields no fluid. She deteriorates over 48 hours.

Learning Points:

SBP without ascites can present as shock
Don't abandon suspicion based on negative paracentesis
Early aggressive intervention is crucial

Future Directions and Research

Diagnostic Innovations

Biomarker Development:

Novel inflammatory markers specific for peritoneal infection
Point-of-care testing for rapid diagnosis
Molecular diagnostic techniques

Imaging Advances:

AI-enhanced detection of minimal ascites
Functional imaging of peritoneal inflammation
Real-time assessment of treatment response

Research Pearl 💎

The future lies in biomarkers that can detect peritoneal inflammation independent of fluid presence—think troponins for peritonitis.

Practical Guidelines for Critical Care

Decision-Making Framework

High-Index Suspicion
- Deteriorating cirrhotic patient
- Unexplained inflammatory response
- Negative or minimal ascites on imaging
Diagnostic Workup
- High-resolution CT scan
- Complete inflammatory markers
- Blood cultures
- Consider diagnostic laparoscopy
Management Protocol
- Immediate empirical antibiotics
- Albumin replacement
- Close monitoring
- Subspecialty consultation

Clinical Hack 🔧

Create a "SBP without ascites" protocol in your unit—standardized approaches save lives and reduce diagnostic delays.

Conclusion

Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis without ascites represents a challenging diagnostic entity that tests the limits of our traditional understanding of peritoneal infection. While rare, this condition carries devastating mortality rates when diagnosis is delayed. Critical care physicians must maintain high clinical suspicion in deteriorating cirrhotic patients, even in the absence of detectable ascitic fluid.

Key takeaways for practice:

SBP without ascites is real and potentially fatal
Clinical presentation mimics traditional SBP
Diagnosis requires high index of suspicion
Early aggressive treatment improves outcomes
Prevention strategies remain important

As our understanding evolves and diagnostic techniques improve, we may find that SBP without ascites is more common than currently recognized. Until then, vigilance and clinical acumen remain our best tools for identifying and treating this challenging condition.

References

Fernández J, Acevedo J, Castro M, et al. Prevalence and risk factors of infections by multiresistant bacteria in cirrhosis: a prospective study. Hepatology. 2012;55(5):1551-1561.
European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL clinical practice guidelines on the management of ascites, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, and hepatorenal syndrome in cirrhosis. J Hepatol. 2010;53(3):397-417.
Runyon BA. Management of adult patients with ascites due to cirrhosis: an update. Hepatology. 2009;49(6):2087-2107.
Pelletier G, Salmon D, Ink O, et al. Culture-negative neutrocytic ascites: a less severe variant of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. J Hepatol. 1990;10(3):327-331.
Rimola A, García-Tsao G, Navasa M, et al. Diagnosis, treatment and prophylaxis of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis: a consensus document. J Hepatol. 2000;32(1):142-153.
Sort P, Navasa M, Arroyo V, et al. Effect of intravenous albumin on renal impairment and mortality in patients with cirrhosis and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. N Engl J Med. 1999;341(6):403-409.
Tandon P, Garcia-Tsao G. Bacterial infections, sepsis, and multiorgan failure in cirrhosis. Semin Liver Dis. 2008;28(1):26-42.
Wong F, Bernardi M, Balk R, et al. Sepsis in cirrhosis: report on the 7th meeting of the International Ascites Club. Gut. 2005;54(5):718-725.
García-Tsao G. Current management of the complications of portal hypertension: variceal bleeding, ascites, and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Gastroenterology. 2001;120(3):726-748.
Bajaj JS, Ananthakrishnan AN, Hafeezullah M, et al. Clostridium difficile is associated with poor outcomes in patients with cirrhosis: A national and tertiary center perspective. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105(1):106-113.
Guarner C, Solà R, Soriano G, et al. Risk of a first community-acquired spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in cirrhotics with low ascitic fluid protein levels. Gastroenterology. 1999;117(2):414-419.
Fernández J, Navasa M, Gómez J, et al. Bacterial infections in cirrhosis: epidemiological changes with invasive procedures and norfloxacin prophylaxis. Hepatology. 2002;35(1):140-148.
Terg R, Gadano A, Cartier M, et al. Serum creatinine and bilirubin predict renal failure and mortality in patients with spontaneous bacterial peritonitis: a retrospective study. Liver Int. 2009;29(3):415-419.
Piano S, Fasolato S, Salinas F, et al. The empirical antibiotic treatment of nosocomial spontaneous bacterial peritonitis: Results of a randomized, controlled clinical trial. Hepatology. 2016;63(4):1299-1309.
Angeli P, Ginès P, Wong F, et al. Diagnosis and management of acute kidney injury in patients with cirrhosis: revised consensus recommendations of the International Club of Ascites. Gut. 2015;64(4):531-537.
Marciano S, Díaz JM, Dirchwolf M, et al. Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in patients with cirrhosis: incidence, outcomes, and treatment options. Hepat Med. 2019;11:13-22.
Fiore M, Maraolo AE, Gentile I, et al. Current concepts and future strategies for the antimicrobial therapy of invasive gram-positive infections in patients with haematological malignancies. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2019;74(1):1-12.
Jalan R, Fernandez J, Wiest R, et al. Bacterial infections in cirrhosis: a position statement based on the EASL Special Conference 2013. J Hepatol. 2014;60(6):1310-1324.

Wednesday, September 17, 2025