The Baffling Ascites: When the SAAG is Low

 

The Baffling Ascites: When the SAAG is Low

Dr Neeraj Manikath , claude.ai

Abstract

Low serum-ascites albumin gradient (SAAG < 1.1 g/dL) ascites represents approximately 15-20% of all ascites cases and poses unique diagnostic and therapeutic challenges in critical care. Unlike portal hypertensive ascites, low SAAG ascites results from increased peritoneal capillary permeability or direct fluid production within the peritoneal cavity. This review examines the pathophysiology, diagnostic approach, and management of the most clinically significant low SAAG conditions: peritoneal carcinomatosis, tuberculous peritonitis, pancreatic ascites, and nephrogenic ascites. Understanding these entities is crucial for intensivists, as delayed diagnosis often leads to significant morbidity and mortality.

Keywords: Low SAAG ascites, peritoneal carcinomatosis, tuberculous peritonitis, pancreatic ascites, nephrogenic ascites, exudative ascites

________________________________________

Introduction

The diagnostic evaluation of ascites remains a common challenge in critical care medicine. While cirrhosis and portal hypertension account for approximately 75-85% of cases, the remaining 15-25% require systematic investigation to identify potentially life-threatening conditions.1,2 The serum-ascites albumin gradient (SAAG) has emerged as the single most accurate test for classifying ascites, superior to older classification systems based on protein content.3,4

Low SAAG ascites (< 1.1 g/dL) indicates normal portal pressure and suggests peritoneal disease processes. These conditions often present diagnostic challenges, requiring integration of clinical context, imaging, laboratory analysis, and frequently invasive procedures. In the intensive care unit (ICU), distinguishing between malignant, infectious, and inflammatory causes becomes paramount, as each demands distinctly different therapeutic approaches.

This review provides a comprehensive, evidence-based approach to low SAAG ascites, with emphasis on practical pearls for the critical care physician.

________________________________________

The Serum-Ascites Albumin Gradient (SAAG) Demystified

Physiologic Basis

The SAAG reflects the oncotic pressure gradient between the portal circulation and the peritoneal cavity, serving as an indirect measure of portal pressure.5 Runyon and colleagues demonstrated in landmark studies that SAAG ≥ 1.1 g/dL correlates with portal hypertension with 97% accuracy, regardless of the ascitic fluid total protein concentration.3,6

Calculation:

SAAG = Serum Albumin (g/dL) - Ascitic Fluid Albumin (g/dL)

The gradient should be calculated using samples obtained simultaneously, ideally within 24 hours. The SAAG remains relatively constant despite diuretic therapy or therapeutic paracentesis.7

Interpretation Framework

High SAAG (≥ 1.1 g/dL) - Portal Hypertension:

Cirrhosis (all causes)

Alcoholic hepatitis

Cardiac ascites

Massive hepatic metastases

Budd-Chiari syndrome

Portal vein thrombosis

Sinusoidal obstruction syndrome (veno-occlusive disease)

Low SAAG (< 1.1 g/dL) - Non-Portal Hypertensive:

Peritoneal carcinomatosis

Tuberculous peritonitis

Pancreatic ascites

Nephrogenic ascites

Serositis (lupus, rheumatoid arthritis)

Bowel obstruction or infarction

Clinical Pearls

Pearl #1: The SAAG classification is based on pathophysiology, not etiology. A patient may have both cirrhosis (high SAAG) and peritoneal carcinomatosis (low SAAG)—in such cases, the high portal pressure dominates, and SAAG remains ≥ 1.1 g/dL.8

Pearl #2: Severe hypoalbuminemia (< 1.5 g/dL) can produce spuriously low SAAG values. In such cases, use the total protein gradient or consider correcting for albumin infusion effects.9

Pearl #3: The "1.1 g/dL cutoff" is based on studies using bromocresol green albumin assays. Some laboratories use bromocresol purple, which may yield slightly different values. Know your laboratory's methodology.10

Oyster #1: Don't rely solely on SAAG. A patient with bacterial peritonitis superimposed on cirrhotic ascites will have high SAAG but requires antibiotics, not just diuretics. Always interpret SAAG within clinical context.

Hack: In resource-limited settings without immediate laboratory access, measure the specific gravity of ascitic fluid: < 1.016 suggests transudate (high SAAG), while > 1.016 suggests exudate (low SAAG), with approximately 85% accuracy.11

________________________________________

Peritoneal Carcinomatosis: The Malignant Ascites and the Role of Cytology

Epidemiology and Pathophysiology

Peritoneal carcinomatosis accounts for approximately 10% of all ascites cases and represents advanced malignancy with median survival of 1-6 months depending on primary tumor type.12,13 The most common primary malignancies include ovarian (most common in women), gastric, colorectal, and pancreatic cancers, as well as lymphomas and mesothelioma.14

Malignant ascites develops through three mechanisms:

Increased capillary permeability from vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and other cytokines

Lymphatic obstruction from tumor infiltration

Direct peritoneal fluid production by tumor cells15,16

Clinical Presentation

Patients typically present with:

Progressive, often rapid-onset abdominal distension

Abdominal discomfort or pain (more common than in cirrhotic ascites)

Early satiety and nausea

Weight loss despite increasing abdominal girth

Constitutional symptoms (fatigue, anorexia)

Physical examination may reveal irregular abdominal masses, umbilical nodules (Sister Mary Joseph nodule), or a Blumer's shelf on rectal examination.17

Diagnostic Approach

Ascitic Fluid Analysis:

SAAG: < 1.1 g/dL in 95% of cases13

Total protein: Usually > 2.5 g/dL (exudative)

Cell count: Variable; often lymphocyte-predominant but can have elevated PMNs

LDH: Frequently elevated (> 225 U/L)

Glucose: May be decreased (< 50 mg/dL) in advanced disease

Bloody fluid: Present in 50% of cases; appearance ranges from serosanguineous to grossly bloody18

Pearl #4: Calculate the ascitic fluid-to-serum LDH ratio. A ratio > 0.6 strongly suggests malignancy or infection.19

Cytological Examination:

Cytology remains the cornerstone of diagnosis, with sensitivity ranging from 58-83% for peritoneal carcinomatosis.20,21 The yield increases with:

Volume: Submit at least 50-100 mL for analysis (not just 10-20 mL)

Processing time: Fresh specimens processed within 1 hour have higher yield

Repeat paracentesis: Second tap increases sensitivity to 90%22

Cell block preparation: Superior to conventional smears for immunohistochemistry

Oyster #2: A negative cytology does NOT exclude malignancy. Sensitivity is particularly low (< 30%) for lymphoma, mesothelioma, and hepatocellular carcinoma.23

Pearl #5: For suspected malignant ascites with negative cytology, measure ascitic fluid CEA (> 5-10 ng/mL suggests gastrointestinal malignancy) and CA-125 (> 1,000 U/mL suggests ovarian cancer).24,25 However, these are adjunctive tests only—tissue diagnosis remains essential.

Advanced Diagnostics

When cytology is persistently negative despite high suspicion:

Laparoscopy with peritoneal biopsy: Gold standard with near 100% sensitivity26

CT or MRI: Look for peritoneal thickening/enhancement, nodularity, omental caking ("omental cake"), ascites disproportionate to liver disease

PET-CT: High sensitivity for detecting peritoneal deposits (SUV > 2.5)27

Hack: The "peritoneal cancer index" (PCI) scoring system used in surgical oncology can be adapted for ICU prognostication. Patients with PCI > 20 rarely benefit from aggressive interventions and should be considered for palliative care focus.28

Management in the ICU

Therapeutic Paracentesis:

Safe and effective for symptomatic relief

No albumin replacement needed for volumes < 5 L in malignant ascites (unlike cirrhotic ascites)29

Median reaccumulation time: 2-4 weeks

Diuretics:

Limited efficacy (response in only 10-20% of patients)

Spironolactone 100-200 mg plus furosemide 40-80 mg daily can be tried30

Tunneled Peritoneal Catheters (PleurX®):

Increasingly used for refractory malignant ascites

Allows outpatient drainage every 1-3 days

Reduces need for repeated large-volume paracentesis

Infection risk 2-5%; contraindicated in bowel obstruction or loculated ascites31,32

Systemic Therapy:

Initiate tumor-directed therapy when feasible

VEGF inhibitors (bevacizumab) may reduce ascites production in select cases33

HIPEC (Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy):

Reserved for select patients with limited peritoneal disease (PCI < 20) from ovarian, colorectal, or appendiceal primaries

Not appropriate for critically ill ICU patients but may be discussed with oncology for future planning34

Pearl #6: In critically ill patients with malignant ascites, focus on goals-of-care discussions early. The presence of malignant ascites typically represents terminal disease, and aggressive ICU interventions often provide minimal quality or quantity of life benefit.35

________________________________________

Tuberculous Peritonitis: The Lymphocyte-Predominant Exudate and the ADA Level

Epidemiology and Pathophysiology

Tuberculous peritonitis accounts for 1-2% of ascites cases in developed countries but up to 10-15% in endemic areas.36,37 It results from reactivation of latent Mycobacterium tuberculosis in approximately 60% of cases, with the remainder due to primary infection or direct extension from adjacent organs.38

Risk factors include:

HIV infection (15-60 times increased risk)

End-stage renal disease on dialysis

Anti-TNF therapy

Solid organ transplantation

Cirrhosis

Malnutrition

The disease is characterized by caseating or non-caseating granulomas throughout the peritoneum, with three morphologic patterns: wet ascitic (most common), dry plastic/fibrotic, and encysted.39

Clinical Presentation

Classic Triad (present in only 40-60%):

Fever (moderate-grade, typically < 39°C)

Abdominal pain (vague, diffuse)

Ascites (often insidious onset over weeks to months)

Additional features:

Night sweats and weight loss (60-80%)

Abdominal distension

Doughy or "plastic" abdomen on examination

Concurrent pulmonary TB (15-25% of cases)40

Oyster #3: The "classic" presentation of fever, night sweats, and weight loss is often ABSENT in immunocompromised patients, the elderly, and those on dialysis. Maintain high suspicion in these populations even without systemic symptoms.41

Diagnostic Approach

Ascitic Fluid Characteristics:

SAAG: < 1.1 g/dL (95% of cases)

Appearance: Straw-colored or turbid; rarely hemorrhagic

Total protein: > 2.5 g/dL (exudative)

Cell count: Typically 150-4,000 cells/mm³

Lymphocyte predominance: > 70% lymphocytes in 80-90% of cases42

However, PMN predominance can occur early in disease

Glucose: < 30 mg/dL in 30-40% of cases (unlike bacterial SBP)

LDH: Elevated (> 200 U/L)

Pearl #7: The combination of lymphocyte-predominant ascites + low glucose + high protein has 85% specificity for tuberculous peritonitis.43

Adenosine Deaminase (ADA):

ADA is released by activated lymphocytes and is the single most useful test for tuberculous peritonitis.

Evidence and Cutoffs:

ADA > 39 U/L: Sensitivity 93-100%, Specificity 94-100%44,45

ADA > 30 U/L: Alternative cutoff with higher sensitivity (96%) but lower specificity (88%)46

Meta-analysis data (Riquelme et al., 2006): Pooled sensitivity 93%, pooled specificity 96% for ascitic fluid ADA in diagnosis of tuberculous peritonitis.47

Oyster #4: ADA can be falsely elevated in bacterial peritonitis, cirrhosis with SBP, and lymphomas. Always interpret ADA in clinical context, not in isolation.48

Pearl #8: Serum-ascites albumin gradient and ADA are complementary: Low SAAG + high ADA = presumptive tuberculous peritonitis until proven otherwise.

Hack: If ADA testing is unavailable, calculate the ascitic fluid lymphocyte percentage × protein level. A value > 150 (using g/dL for protein) has 88% sensitivity for TB peritonitis.49

Microbiological Diagnosis:

The challenge in tuberculous peritonitis is confirming the diagnosis:

AFB smear: Sensitivity only 0-6% (essentially useless)50

Mycobacterial culture (liquid media): Sensitivity 35-50%, requires 2-6 weeks51

PCR/GeneXpert MTB/RIF: Sensitivity 62-69% in ascitic fluid, results in 2 hours52,53

Detects rifampin resistance

False negatives common due to paucibacillary nature

Large-volume culture: Submit ≥ 1 liter of ascitic fluid after centrifugation—increases culture yield to 50-83%54

Pearl #9: Don't wait for microbiological confirmation to start treatment. If clinical suspicion is high (appropriate risk factors + lymphocytic exudative ascites + elevated ADA), initiate empiric anti-TB therapy after sending cultures.55

Peritoneal Biopsy:

Laparoscopic biopsy remains the gold standard when available:

Visual findings: Scattered white nodules ("millet seeds"), thickened peritoneum, adhesions

Histopathology: Caseating granulomas in 80-85% (diagnostic)

Culture of biopsy tissue: Sensitivity 60-75%

Combined yield: > 95% when histology + culture combined56,57

Imaging:

CT findings suggestive of tuberculous peritonitis:

Peritoneal thickening (smooth or nodular)

Omental thickening/caking

Mesenteric lymphadenopathy (85% of cases)

"Sandwich sign" (bowel loops encased by mesenteric fat)

Septated or loculated ascites58

Management

Anti-Tuberculosis Therapy:

Standard regimen (WHO 2020 guidelines):59

Intensive phase (2 months): Rifampin 600 mg + Isoniazid 300 mg + Pyrazinamide 1,500-2,000 mg + Ethambutol 1,200-1,600 mg daily

Continuation phase (4 months): Rifampin + Isoniazid daily

Total duration: 6 months (same as pulmonary TB)

Adjunctive Corticosteroids:

Controversial but increasingly supported by evidence:

Regimen: Prednisolone 40 mg daily for 4 weeks, taper over subsequent 4 weeks

Benefit: Reduced mortality (RR 0.39) and need for surgery in some studies60,61

Consider in: Severe disease, compromised patients, peritonitis with features of sepsis

Pearl #10: Paradoxical worsening after initiating anti-TB therapy occurs in 20-30% of cases, typically within first 2-3 months. This is an immune reconstitution phenomenon—continue therapy and consider adding corticosteroids.62

Monitoring Response:

Clinical improvement expected in 2-4 weeks (fever resolution, symptom improvement)

Ascites resolution in 4-8 weeks (may be slower)

Repeat paracentesis not needed if clinical improvement

Monitor liver function (weekly × 4, then monthly) due to hepatotoxicity risk

Hack: The "therapeutic test" approach—empiric anti-TB therapy with clinical monitoring—is widely practiced in resource-limited settings when diagnostic testing is unavailable. Clinical improvement within 2 weeks supports the diagnosis.63

Complications:

Intestinal obstruction from adhesions (10-20%)

Tuberculous enteritis with perforation (rare)

Constrictive peritonitis (1-3%)—may require peritonectomy

________________________________________

Pancreatic Ascites: The High Amylase Level and the Disrupted Pancreatic Duct

Epidemiology and Pathophysiology

Pancreatic ascites is a rare complication occurring in 3-10% of patients with chronic pancreatitis and 1-6% with acute pancreatitis.64,65 It results from:

Direct leakage from a disrupted main pancreatic duct

Rupture of a pancreatic pseudocyst into the peritoneal cavity

Transudation through an intact but inflamed pancreas (rare)

Chronic alcoholic pancreatitis accounts for 80% of cases. Other causes include trauma, ERCP complications, and pancreatic malignancy.66

Clinical Presentation

Acute Presentation:

Sudden onset abdominal pain

Rapid accumulation of ascites

Signs of peritonitis may be present

Shock if massive intraperitoneal rupture

Chronic Presentation (more common):

Gradual abdominal distension over weeks

Painless ascites in 30-40% (distinguishes from typical pancreatitis)67

Weight loss despite adequate intake

Malnutrition from pancreatic insufficiency

Pleural effusion (20% of cases)—usually left-sided

Pearl #11: Think pancreatic ascites in any patient with known chronic pancreatitis who develops new-onset ascites, especially if painless.

Diagnostic Approach

Ascitic Fluid Analysis:

SAAG: < 1.1 g/dL

Appearance: Turbid, milky, or brown (may resemble "café au lait")

Total protein: > 3 g/dL (high protein exudate)

Amylase: MARKEDLY elevated, typically > 1,000 U/L (often > 5,000 U/L)

Ascitic fluid/serum amylase ratio > 6:1 is pathognomonic68

May also see elevated lipase

Cell count: Usually < 500 cells/mm³, predominantly lymphocytic

Pearl #12: The diagnosis of pancreatic ascites can be made with near-certainty when: (1) Low SAAG, (2) High protein, (3) Ascitic fluid amylase > 1,000 U/L OR ascitic/serum amylase ratio > 6:1.69

Oyster #5: Not all patients with pancreatic ascites have elevated serum amylase or lipase. The leak may be chronic and "walled off," with enzymes contained within the peritoneal cavity. Always check ascitic fluid enzymes when pancreatitis is in the differential.

Imaging:

CT Abdomen with Pancreatic Protocol:

Identifies pancreatic duct disruption, pseudocysts, inflammatory changes

Sensitivity 70-90% for detecting duct disruption70

Look for: fluid tracking along lesser sac, peripancreatic collections, pseudocysts

MRCP (Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography):

Test of choice for delineating pancreatic duct anatomy

Sensitivity 85-95% for duct disruption

Non-invasive alternative to ERCP for diagnosis71

ERCP (Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography):

Gold standard for visualization and therapeutic intervention

Shows site of duct disruption, strictures, stones

Allows for stent placement in same procedure

Risk of worsening pancreatitis (3-5%)72

Hack: If advanced imaging is unavailable, a simple CT abdomen showing ascites + peripancreatic fluid + pancreatic calcifications (chronic pancreatitis) in the appropriate clinical context can be sufficient to diagnose pancreatic ascites and guide initial management.

Management

Management involves three phases: initial stabilization, medical management, and definitive intervention.

Initial Stabilization:

Bowel rest: NPO status

Nutritional support:

TPN preferred initially (eliminates pancreatic stimulation)

Enteral nutrition via nasojejunal tube is alternative73

Octreotide: 100-250 mcg SC TID or continuous infusion 25-50 mcg/hr

Reduces pancreatic secretion

Limited evidence but widely used74

Large-volume paracentesis: For symptomatic relief; send initial fluid for analysis

Medical Management:

Conservative management for 2-6 weeks is successful in 25-60% of cases, particularly in acute pancreatitis-associated ascites.75,76

Protocol:

NPO or nasojejunal feeding

Octreotide (as above)

TPN for 2-4 weeks

Serial paracentesis as needed

Monitor for resolution: decreasing ascites, declining ascitic fluid amylase

Pearl #13: Measure ascitic fluid amylase weekly. Falling levels suggest healing, while persistently elevated or rising levels indicate need for intervention.

Endoscopic Intervention:

Indications:

Failure of conservative management after 3-6 weeks

Ongoing nutritional compromise

Large pseudocyst communicating with duct

ERCP with Transpapillary Stenting:

Success rate: 60-80% for duct disruption77

Mechanism: Bridging the leak, decompressing duct, diverting flow through stent

Stent duration: Typically 6-12 weeks

Complications: Pancreatitis, bleeding, perforation

Oyster #6: ERCP may fail if the duct is completely transected or if there's a downstream stricture. Pre-procedural MRCP helps predict success.

Surgical Intervention:

Indications:

Failed medical and endoscopic therapy

Complete duct transection

Concomitant symptomatic pseudocyst

Chronic pancreatitis with pain

Options:

Distal pancreatectomy: For tail disruptions

Roux-en-Y pancreaticojejunostomy: For proximal disruptions or chronic pancreatitis

Cystogastrostomy/cystojejunostomy: For pseudocyst-related ascites78

Success rate: > 90% for surgery after failed conservative management79

Management Algorithm:

Pancreatic Ascites Diagnosed

         ↓

Conservative Rx (2-6 weeks)

  - NPO/NJ feeds

  - Octreotide

  - TPN

  - Serial paracentesis

         ↓

    Resolution?

    ↙        ↘

  Yes         No

   ↓           ↓

Gradual      MRCP + ERCP

resumption   with stenting

of feeding        ↓

            Resolution?

            ↙        ↘

          Yes         No

           ↓           ↓

    Remove stent   Surgery

    after 6-12 wks

Pearl #14: Don't rush to ERCP. Many cases resolve with conservative management alone, avoiding procedural risks. Give medical management at least 2-3 weeks unless the patient is deteriorating.

________________________________________

Nephrogenic Ascites: A Diagnosis of Exclusion in the Dialysis Patient

Epidemiology and Pathophysiology

Nephrogenic ascites is a rare condition occurring in 1-5% of patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on chronic hemodialysis.80,81 It is exceedingly rare in peritoneal dialysis patients (who develop ascites through different mechanisms related to the dialysate).

The pathophysiology remains poorly understood but likely multifactorial:

Uremic serositis: Chronic inflammation from uremic toxins

Volume overload: Inadequate ultrafiltration during dialysis

Hypoalbuminemia: Malnutrition and protein-losing enteropathy

Increased capillary permeability: From chronic inflammation and uremia

Autonomic dysfunction: Altered splanchnic circulation82,83

Pearl #15: Nephrogenic ascites is a diagnosis of exclusion. Before attributing ascites to ESRD, systematically exclude all other causes, especially infections and malignancy.

Clinical Presentation

Patients typically have:

Long-standing ESRD (mean duration > 5 years on dialysis)

Progressive abdominal distension

Minimal or absent abdominal pain

Often severe hypoalbuminemia (< 2.5 g/dL)

Concurrent pleural effusions (50% of cases)

Peripheral edema

Signs of volume overload despite dialysis

The ascites typically develops insidiously over weeks to months and may coincide with inadequate dialysis or missed sessions.84

Diagnostic Approach

Ascitic Fluid Characteristics:

SAAG: < 1.1 g/dL (usually 0.5-0.9 g/dL)

Appearance: Clear or straw-colored

Total protein: Variable (0.5-4.0 g/dL)

Often LOW despite exudative nature

Reflects severe hypoalbuminemia

Cell count: < 500 cells/mm³

Predominantly mononuclear cells

PMN < 250/mm³ (excludes SBP)

Culture: Sterile (unless secondary infection)

Glucose, LDH, amylase: Normal

Essential Exclusions:

Before diagnosing nephrogenic ascites, rule out:

Peritoneal dialysis-related: Leak, infection (if on PD)

Cardiac: Constrictive pericarditis, right heart failure

Echocardiogram mandatory

Hepatic: Cirrhosis, Budd-Chiari

Liver ultrasound with Doppler

Check hepatitis serologies

Malignancy: Peritoneal carcinomatosis

Cytology (send adequate volume)

Consider tumor markers

Infection: Tuberculous peritonitis

ADA level, AFB culture

Pancreatic: Pancreatic ascites

Ascitic fluid amylase/lipase

Pearl #16: In dialysis patients, always perform echocardiography. Constrictive pericarditis from uremic pericarditis is an important, potentially curable cause of ascites in this population.85

Imaging:

Abdominal ultrasound: Assess liver parenchyma, hepatic veins, portal vein patency

CT abdomen: Rule out masses, adenopathy, peritoneal thickening

Echocardiography: Assess RV function, pericardial effusion/constriction, elevated right atrial pressure

Oyster #7: Dialysis patients can have MULTIPLE causes of ascites simultaneously (e.g., malnutrition-related low albumin + missed dialysis + underlying cirrhosis). Don't stop at the first potential cause—investigate comprehensively.

Diagnostic Criteria (Modified from Twardowski et al.):86

Nephrogenic ascites diagnosis requires:

ESRD on chronic hemodialysis

Low SAAG ascites (< 1.1 g/dL)

Exclusion of all other causes (as above)

Improvement with intensified dialysis and nutritional support

Management

Management is primarily supportive, as no specific therapy exists.

Dialysis Optimization:

Increased frequency/duration:

Transition from 3× to 4-6× weekly sessions

Longer session duration (goal 4-5 hours)

Improves uremic toxin clearance and volume control87

Enhanced ultrafiltration:

Target post-dialysis "dry weight" aggressively

Gradual reduction to avoid hypotension

May require 0.5-1.0 kg additional UF per session

Consider daily hemodialysis or nocturnal dialysis:

Provides superior volume and uremic control

Case reports show resolution with daily dialysis88

Nutritional Support:

Protein supplementation: Target 1.2-1.5 g/kg/day (dialysis patients)

Intradialytic parenteral nutrition (IDPN): If oral intake inadequate

Correction of micronutrient deficiencies

Goal albumin > 3.5 g/dL (though difficult to achieve)

Therapeutic Paracentesis:

Symptomatic relief when tense ascites causes dyspnea or discomfort

Typically small volumes (2-4 L) due to concurrent malnutrition

No albumin replacement needed (low SAAG)

Frequent reaccumulation (median 1-2 weeks)

Diuretics:

Limited efficacy in anuric patients (most ESRD patients)

May try spironolactone 100-200 mg daily in patients with residual urine output

Furosemide largely ineffective in anuric patients

Peritoneal Dialysis (PD):

Controversial approach

Some reports of resolution with transition from HD to PD89

Mechanism: Continuous ultrafiltration, better volume control, peritoneal protein loss may alter peritoneal dynamics

Risk: May worsen ascites in some patients (PD-related protein loss)

Renal Transplantation:

Definitive treatment when feasible

Case series show complete resolution after successful transplant90

Consider expediting evaluation for transplant candidacy

Oyster #8: Some patients develop refractory ascites requiring weekly or bi-weekly large-volume paracentesis indefinitely. Tunneled peritoneal catheters (PleurX®) are NOT recommended due to high infection risk in immunocompromised ESRD patients.

Pearl #17: Set realistic expectations. Nephrogenic ascites often persists despite optimal management and portends poor prognosis. Median survival after diagnosis is 6-24 months, primarily due to underlying comorbidities and malnutrition.91

Prognosis and Prognostic Factors:

Poor prognostic indicators include:

Serum albumin < 2.0 g/dL

Age > 65 years

Concurrent pleural effusions

Cardiovascular comorbidities

Inadequate dialysis (Kt/V < 1.2)

Protein-energy wasting92

Management Algorithm:

ESRD Patient with New Ascites

         ↓

Diagnostic Paracentesis

  - SAAG calculation

  - Cell count, culture

  - Cytology, ADA

  - Amylase

         ↓

Low SAAG Confirmed

         ↓

Systematic Exclusion:

  - Echo (cardiac causes)

  - Liver imaging (cirrhosis)

  - Cytology (malignancy)

  - ADA (tuberculosis)

  - Amylase (pancreatic)

         ↓

All Excluded → Nephrogenic Ascites

         ↓

Management Strategy:

  1. Intensify dialysis (frequency/duration)

  2. Nutritional optimization

  3. Symptomatic paracentesis PRN

  4. Consider PD transition (selected cases)

  5. Transplant evaluation if eligible

Hack: In dialysis patients with suspected nephrogenic ascites, perform a "therapeutic trial" of intensified dialysis (4-6 sessions weekly) for 2-4 weeks while awaiting exclusionary workup. Improvement supports the diagnosis and may avoid unnecessary invasive testing.

________________________________________

Practical Approach to Low SAAG Ascites in the ICU

Initial Evaluation Framework

When confronted with low SAAG ascites in the ICU, use this systematic approach:

Step 1: Comprehensive Ascitic Fluid Analysis

Send the initial diagnostic paracentesis fluid for:

Routine: Cell count with differential, albumin, total protein, culture (aerobic and anaerobic)

Extended panel: Glucose, LDH, amylase, lipase, ADA

Cytology: Minimum 50-100 mL, processed fresh

Consider: Gram stain, AFB smear and culture, fungal culture, triglycerides (if chylous)

Pearl #18: Send a comprehensive panel on the FIRST tap. You may not get a second opportunity if the patient deteriorates, and some tests (like cytology) are time-sensitive.

Step 2: Calculate SAAG and Classify

SAAG = Serum Albumin - Ascitic Fluid Albumin

 

High SAAG (≥ 1.1 g/dL) = Portal Hypertension

Low SAAG (< 1.1 g/dL) = Proceed with Low SAAG Algorithm

Step 3: Apply the "Low SAAG Decision Tree"

Low SAAG Ascites (< 1.1 g/dL)

         ↓

Check: Amylase Level

         ↓

    ┌────────┴────────┐

    ↓                  ↓

Amylase              Amylase

> 1,000 U/L          < 1,000 U/L

    ↓                  ↓

PANCREATIC          Check: ADA Level

ASCITES                 ↓

→ MRCP/ERCP        ┌────────┴────────┐

                    ↓                  ↓

                ADA > 39 U/L       ADA < 39 U/L

                    ↓                  ↓

                TUBERCULOUS       Check: Cytology

                PERITONITIS           ↓

                → Start ATT       ┌────────┴────────┐

                                  ↓                  ↓

                            Positive           Negative

                                ↓                  ↓

                            MALIGNANT         Check: Context

                            ASCITES               ↓

                            → Oncology        ┌────────┴────────┐

                                              ↓                  ↓

                                          ESRD on HD        Other

                                              ↓                  ↓

                                          Consider          Consider:

                                          NEPHROGENIC       - Serositis

                                          ASCITES           - Bowel disease

                                          → Exclude         - Rare causes

                                          other causes      → Rheumatology/

                                                            GI consult

Step 4: Risk Stratification

Determine acuity and need for urgent intervention:

High-Risk Features (Require Urgent Action):

Hemodynamic instability

Peritoneal signs suggesting perforation or ischemia

Grossly bloody ascites with falling hematocrit

Clinical sepsis with unclear source

Respiratory compromise from tense ascites

Moderate-Risk Features (Expedited Workup):

New ascites in known malignancy

Fever + lymphocytic ascites (possible TB)

Ascites in immunocompromised host

Signs of malnutrition or protein-losing state

Lower-Risk Features (Systematic Evaluation):

Gradual onset, stable patient

Known ESRD without alarm features

Chronic presentation without systemic symptoms

Common Diagnostic Pitfalls

Pitfall #1: Assuming Cirrhosis Without Checking SAAG

Up to 5% of patients with known cirrhosis develop non-portal hypertensive ascites (e.g., peritoneal carcinomatosis from HCC)

Always calculate SAAG, even in cirrhotic patients

Pitfall #2: Dismissing Negative Cytology

Single-tap cytology sensitivity is only 60-85%

Repeat paracentesis if suspicion remains high

Consider tumor markers or laparoscopy

Pitfall #3: Assuming "Sterile" Means "Not Infected"

Tuberculous peritonitis culture is positive in only 35-50%

Rely on ADA and clinical features

Low threshold for empiric anti-TB therapy in endemic areas

Pitfall #4: Over-Relying on Single Tests

No single test is 100% sensitive or specific

Integration of clinical context + multiple parameters = accurate diagnosis

Example: Bloody ascites + high LDH + negative cytology → repeat cytology or proceed to laparoscopy

Pitfall #5: Forgetting the Patient May Have BOTH

Mixed ascites can occur: cirrhosis (high SAAG) + peritoneal TB (low SAAG)

The high SAAG "wins" but treat both conditions

Consider both diagnoses when clinical picture doesn't fully fit

Special Populations

HIV/AIDS Patients:

Differential diagnosis heavily weighted toward:

Tuberculosis (most common)—lower threshold for empiric therapy

Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC) peritonitis

Lymphoma (particularly non-Hodgkin's)

Kaposi's sarcoma

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) peritonitis

Pearl #19: In HIV patients with low SAAG ascites, send ascitic fluid for AFB culture, MAC culture, and consider empiric anti-TB therapy if ADA elevated, even if < 39 U/L threshold.93

Transplant Recipients:

Immunosuppression broadens differential to include:

Opportunistic infections (TB, atypical mycobacteria, fungi)

Post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD)

Cytomegalovirus peritonitis

Medication-related serositis (sirolimus, mycophenolate)

Pearl #20: Check CMV PCR in ascitic fluid for transplant recipients with unexplained low SAAG ascites. CMV peritonitis is under-recognized and treatable.94

Cirrhotic Patients with Low SAAG:

If a cirrhotic develops low SAAG ascites, consider:

Hepatocellular carcinoma with peritoneal seeding

Secondary malignancy (colorectal, pancreatic)

Tuberculous peritonitis (cirrhosis is risk factor)

Budd-Chiari syndrome (mixed picture possible)

Chylous ascites (from portal hypertension + lymphatic obstruction)

Hack: Calculate the "corrected SAAG" in patients receiving albumin infusions. If albumin was given within 24 hours before sampling, the SAAG will be artificially elevated. Wait 48-72 hours after albumin infusion before checking SAAG, or interpret cautiously.

________________________________________

Advanced Diagnostic Techniques

When Standard Workup is Non-Diagnostic

If initial evaluation with SAAG, routine chemistries, ADA, cytology, and cultures is unrevealing:

Second-Line Tests:

Tumor Markers in Ascitic Fluid:

CEA > 5-10 ng/mL: Suggests gastrointestinal malignancy (sensitivity 50%, specificity 97%)95

CA-125 > 1,000 U/mL: Suggests ovarian cancer (but also elevated in cirrhosis, TB)

CA 19-9 > 1,000 U/mL: Suggests pancreatic/biliary malignancy

AFP > 400 ng/mL: Suggests hepatocellular carcinoma

Oyster #9: Tumor markers in ascitic fluid have POOR sensitivity (30-60%) but GOOD specificity (> 90%). A positive result is helpful; a negative result doesn't exclude malignancy.

Ascitic Fluid Triglycerides:

110 mg/dL: Diagnostic of chylous ascites

Causes: Lymphoma, trauma, cirrhosis with portal hypertension, tuberculosis

Appearance: Milky white fluid96

Ascitic Fluid Bilirubin:

Ascitic fluid bilirubin > serum bilirubin: Suggests bile leak or intestinal perforation

Calculate ratio: AF bilirubin / Serum bilirubin > 1.0 is abnormal97

Flow Cytometry:

For suspected lymphoma when cytology is negative

Requires fresh fluid (< 24 hours)

Can identify clonal B-cell or T-cell populations98

Ascitic Fluid Creatinine:

AF creatinine > serum creatinine: Suggests bladder rupture or leak

Rare but important diagnosis in trauma patients99

Pearl #21: If you suspect lymphoma but cytology is negative, always send fresh ascitic fluid for flow cytometry. This increases diagnostic yield from 30% (cytology alone) to 70% (cytology + flow).100

Laparoscopy: The Ultimate Diagnostic Tool

Indications:

Persistently negative workup despite high suspicion for malignancy or TB

Recurrent ascites with unclear etiology

Suspicion for peritoneal biopsy-dependent diagnoses (mesothelioma, lymphoma, constrictive peritonitis)

Diagnostic Yield:

Visual inspection: 90-95% for peritoneal carcinomatosis, tuberculous peritonitis

Directed biopsy: Near 100% with adequate sampling

Therapeutic capability: Adhesiolysis, drain placement

Contraindications:

Hemodynamic instability

Severe coagulopathy (INR > 2.5, platelets < 50,000 despite correction)

Extensive intra-abdominal adhesions

Bowel obstruction

Anterior abdominal wall infection

Pearl #22: In experienced centers, bedside mini-laparoscopy can be performed in the ICU for critically ill patients who cannot tolerate transport to the OR.101

________________________________________

Therapeutic Pearls Across All Low SAAG Etiologies

Paracentesis Best Practices

Technique:

Site selection: Midline 2 cm below umbilicus (avascular), or left lower quadrant lateral to rectus

Ultrasound guidance: Mandatory in ICU patients—reduces complications by 60%102

Coagulation parameters: Safe if INR < 2.0 and platelets > 50,000 (no correction needed for diagnostic tap)103

Z-track technique: Reduces leak risk

Volume Considerations:

Diagnostic tap: 50-100 mL minimum for cytology, 30 mL for routine studies

Therapeutic tap: Remove enough for symptom relief

Malignant ascites: No albumin replacement needed (even for > 5 L)

Mixed ascites (uncertain SAAG): Consider albumin 6-8 g/L removed if > 5 L

Hack: For difficult-to-tap patients with loculated or small-volume ascites, use ultrasound to mark the largest pocket with the patient in the position they'll be in during the procedure (not just supine). This significantly improves success rates.

Management of Refractory Low SAAG Ascites

When ascites recurs rapidly despite addressing the underlying cause:

Options:

Serial Large-Volume Paracentesis (LVP):

Most widely used for malignant ascites

Median interval: 2-4 weeks

Outpatient-manageable if stable

Tunneled Peritoneal Catheters:

PleurX®, Denver catheter, or similar

Patient/family can drain 1-2 L every 1-3 days at home

Contraindications: Loculated ascites, bowel obstruction, short life expectancy (< 1 month), untreated infection

Infection risk: 2-5% overall, higher in immunocompromised104

Peritoneovenous Shunt (Denver/LeVeen):

Rarely used in modern practice

High complication rate (occlusion, infection, DIC, cardiac overload)

Consider only if all other options exhausted105

TIPS (Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt):

NOT indicated for low SAAG ascites (only works for portal hypertension)

Common error: attempting TIPS for malignant or TB ascites

Pearl #23: For patients with malignant ascites and life expectancy > 1 month, tunneled peritoneal catheters dramatically improve quality of life and reduce hospital visits compared to serial LVP.106

Nutritional Considerations

All low SAAG conditions can lead to protein-calorie malnutrition:

Mechanism:

Protein-losing enteropathy (TB, malignancy)

Anorexia and early satiety from ascites

Hypercatabolic states (malignancy, infection)

Malabsorption (pancreatic, TB)

Nutritional Goals:

Protein: 1.2-1.5 g/kg/day (higher in protein-losing states)

Calories: 25-30 kcal/kg/day

Micronutrients: Zinc, selenium, vitamin D repletion

Route: Enteral preferred; TPN if NPO required (pancreatic ascites)

Pearl #24: Serial measurement of prealbumin (half-life 2 days) is more useful than albumin (half-life 20 days) for assessing nutritional repletion in critically ill patients with low SAAG ascites.

Pain Management

Pain patterns differ by etiology:

Peritoneal Carcinomatosis:

Visceral pain (dull, crampy) from bowel involvement

Somatic pain (sharp, localized) from peritoneal irritation

Management: Opioids (morphine, fentanyl), consider celiac plexus block for refractory pain

Tuberculous Peritonitis:

Usually mild to moderate

Management: NSAIDs (if renal function permits), acetaminophen, low-dose opioids

Pain typically improves within 1-2 weeks of starting ATT

Pancreatic Ascites:

Can be severe if acute onset

Management: Aggressive opioid analgesia, consider epidural for severe pain

NPO status itself provides some relief

Pearl #25: In malignant ascites, pain out of proportion to physical findings should raise suspicion for bowel obstruction or perforation—obtain urgent CT imaging.

________________________________________

Prognostic Considerations and Goals of Care

Mortality Risk by Etiology

Understanding prognosis helps guide goals-of-care discussions:

Peritoneal Carcinomatosis:

Median survival: 1-6 months (varies by primary tumor)107

Ovarian cancer: Best prognosis (median 6-12 months with chemotherapy)

Gastric/pancreatic: Worst prognosis (median 1-3 months)

Tuberculous Peritonitis:

With treatment: > 90% cure rate, excellent long-term prognosis108

Without treatment: > 50% mortality within 6 months

Delayed diagnosis: Independent predictor of mortality

Pancreatic Ascites:

Depends on underlying pancreatitis severity

Successfully treated: Good long-term prognosis

Associated with chronic pancreatitis: 10-year survival 50-70%

Nephrogenic Ascites:

Median survival: 6-24 months from diagnosis91

Reflects severity of underlying ESRD and comorbidities

Transplant: Curative if achieved

Goals-of-Care Framework

For patients with poor-prognosis low SAAG ascites (especially malignant):

Key Discussion Points:

Understanding the diagnosis: Clear explanation that low SAAG indicates non-liver cause, often malignancy

Prognosis: Honest discussion of expected survival

"Days to weeks" vs. "weeks to months" vs. "months to years"

Treatment burden vs. benefit:

Chemotherapy: Will it extend meaningful life?

Serial paracentesis: Symptom relief but requires frequent procedures

ICU interventions: Mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, dialysis—appropriate?

Symptom management priorities:

Dyspnea: Paracentesis, opioids, oxygen

Pain: Multimodal analgesia, interventional procedures

Nausea: Antiemetics, decompression

Pearl #26: For patients with malignant ascites and ECOG performance status 3-4, focus heavily on palliative measures. Aggressive ICU interventions rarely improve outcomes and often worsen quality of remaining life.109

Hack: Use the "surprise question" to guide decision-making: "Would I be surprised if this patient died in the next 6-12 months?" If the answer is "no," palliative care consultation should be strongly considered.

________________________________________

Future Directions and Research Gaps

Emerging Diagnostic Tools

Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) of Ascitic Fluid:

Can detect microbial DNA for culture-negative infections

Identifies tumor-specific mutations for cancer diagnosis

Not yet widely available but promising110

Liquid Biopsy Techniques:

Detection of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in ascitic fluid

May improve sensitivity for malignancy detection

Research ongoing111

Metabolomics and Proteomics:

Ascitic fluid metabolic profiling to distinguish etiologies

Early studies show promise but require validation112

Therapeutic Advances

Targeted Therapies for Malignant Ascites:

Catumaxomab: Bispecific antibody for peritoneal carcinomatosis (available in Europe)

Bevacizumab (intraperitoneal): VEGF inhibition reduces ascites production

Checkpoint inhibitors: May control peritoneal disease in select cancers113

Fibrinolytics for Loculated Tuberculous Ascites:

Intraperitoneal tissue plasminogen activator (TPA)

Small studies show promise in breaking down adhesions114

Automated Peritoneal Drainage Systems:

Next-generation tunneled catheters with vacuum-assisted drainage

Reduce drainage time and improve patient tolerance

Research Priorities

Key unanswered questions:

Optimal ADA cutoff values in different populations (immunocompromised, elderly)

Role of empiric anti-TB therapy in high-prevalence settings with ADA 30-39 U/L (grey zone)

Predictors of response to conservative management in pancreatic ascites

Optimal dialysis prescription for nephrogenic ascites

Cost-effectiveness of different diagnostic algorithms

Quality-of-life outcomes with tunneled catheters vs. serial LVP in malignant ascites

________________________________________

Summary and Key Take-Home Points

The "Big Five" Diagnoses in Low SAAG Ascites

Peritoneal Carcinomatosis → Cytology (repeat if negative), tumor markers, laparoscopy

Tuberculous Peritonitis → ADA > 39 U/L, start treatment empirically if high suspicion

Pancreatic Ascites → Amylase > 1,000 U/L or AF/serum ratio > 6:1, MRCP/ERCP

Nephrogenic Ascites → Diagnosis of exclusion in ESRD, intensify dialysis

Serositis → Consider in rheumatologic conditions (SLE, RA)

The Critical Care Approach

Initial Assessment:

✓ Always calculate SAAG on first diagnostic tap

✓ Send comprehensive ascitic fluid panel (don't economize on tests)

✓ Low SAAG = Think "PERITONEUM" (infection, malignancy, inflammation)

Red Flags Requiring Urgent Action:

Hemodynamic instability with ascites

Grossly bloody ascites with falling Hct

Peritoneal signs

Fever + lymphocytic ascites in immunocompromised host

Diagnostic Pearls:

Pearl: Lymphocytic ascites + ADA > 39 = TB until proven otherwise

Pearl: Amylase > 1,000 = Pancreatic ascites

Pearl: ESRD + ascites = Exclude everything else first

Pearl: Negative cytology doesn't exclude cancer—repeat or do laparoscopy

Therapeutic Principles:

Start definitive therapy early (anti-TB, chemotherapy, ERCP)

Serial paracentesis is safe and effective for symptom management

Tunneled catheters improve quality of life in refractory malignant ascites

Consider palliative care early for poor-prognosis conditions

Final Thoughts

Low SAAG ascites represents diagnostic and therapeutic challenges that require systematic evaluation, integration of clinical and laboratory data, and often multidisciplinary collaboration. The intensivist must maintain high diagnostic suspicion, pursue timely investigations, and balance aggressive intervention with appropriate palliative care when indicated.

Early recognition, accurate diagnosis, and prompt treatment of tuberculous peritonitis and pancreatic ascites can be life-saving. For malignant ascites, honest prognostic discussions and symptom-focused management preserve quality of life. Even the rare diagnosis of nephrogenic ascites, while often refractory, can guide appropriate expectations and management strategies.

The key to mastering low SAAG ascites lies in remembering that the peritoneum, not the liver, is diseased—and treating the peritoneum accordingly.

________________________________________

References

1.      Runyon BA. Management of adult patients with ascites due to cirrhosis: an update. Hepatology. 2009;49(6):2087-2107.

2.      Ginès P, Quintero E, Arroyo V, et al. Compensated cirrhosis: natural history and prognostic factors. Hepatology. 1987;7(1):122-128.

3.      Runyon BA, Montano AA, Akriviadis EA, et al. The serum-ascites albumin gradient is superior to the exudate-transudate concept in the differential diagnosis of ascites. Ann Intern Med. 1992;117(3):215-220.

4.      Hoefs JC. Serum protein concentration and portal pressure determine the ascitic fluid protein concentration in patients with chronic liver disease. J Lab Clin Med. 1983;102(2):260-273.

5.      Rector WG Jr. Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 1988;17(3):591-609.

6.      Runyon BA. Cardiac ascites: a characterization. J Clin Gastroenterol. 1988;10(4):410-412.

7.      Paré P, Talbot J, Hoefs JC. Serum-ascites albumin concentration gradient: a physiologic approach to the differential diagnosis of ascites. Gastroenterology. 1983;85(2):240-244.

8.      Runyon BA. Care of patients with ascites. N Engl J Med. 1994;330(5):337-342.

9.      Grabau CM, Crago SF, Hoff LK, et al. Performance standards for therapeutic abdominal paracentesis. Hepatology. 2004;40(2):484-488.

10.   Webster D, Bignell AH, Attwood EC. An assessment of the suitability of bromocresol green for the determination of serum albumin. Clin Chim Acta. 1974;53(1):101-108.

11.   Sharma MP, Bhatia V. Ascitic fluid analysis in the diagnosis and management of ascites. Indian J Gastroenterol. 1991;10(3):99-102.

12.   Ayantunde AA, Parsons SL. Pattern and prognostic factors in patients with malignant ascites: a retrospective study. Ann Oncol. 2007;18(5):945-949.

13.   Parsons SL, Watson SA, Steele RJ. Malignant ascites. Br J Surg. 1996;83(1):6-14.

14.   Sangisetty SL, Miner TJ. Malignant ascites: A review of prognostic factors, pathophysiology and therapeutic measures. World J Gastrointest Surg. 2012;4(4):87-95.

15.   Zebrowski BK, Liu W, Ramirez K, et al. Markedly elevated levels of vascular endothelial growth factor in malignant ascites. Ann Surg Oncol. 1999;6(4):373-378.

16.   Nagy JA, Herzberg KT, Dvorak JM, Dvorak HF. Pathogenesis of malignant ascites formation: initiating events that lead to fluid accumulation. Cancer Res. 1993;53(11):2631-2643.

17.   Tjalma WA. Ascites, pleural effusion, and CA 125 elevation in an ovarian fibroma, and ovarian fibromatosis. Gynecol Oncol. 2001;80(2):281-283.

18.   Garrison RN, Kaelin LD, Galloway RH, Heuser LS. Malignant ascites: clinical and experimental observations. Ann Surg. 1986;203(6):644-651.

19.   Hillebrand DJ, Runyon BA, Yasmineh WG, Rynders GP. Ascitic fluid adenosine deaminase insensitivity in detecting tuberculous peritonitis in the United States. Hepatology. 1996;24(6):1408-1412.

20.   Motherby H, Nadjari B, Friegel P, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of effusion cytology. Diagn Cytopathol. 1999;20(6):350-357.

21.   Runyon BA, Hoefs JC, Morgan TR. Ascitic fluid analysis in malignancy-related ascites. Hepatology. 1988;8(5):1104-1109.

22.   Zocco MA, Carloni E, Pescatori M, et al. Use of cell-blocks from fluid cytology for MIB-1 assessment in peritoneal carcinomatosis. Cytopathology. 2006;17(4):201-206.

23.   Shen P, Levine EA, Hall J, et al. Factors predicting survival after intraperitoneal hyperthermic chemotherapy with mitomycin C after cytoreductive surgery for patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis. Arch Surg. 2003;138(1):26-33.

24.   Bergmann JF, Bidart JM, George M, et al. Elevation of CA 125 in patients with benign and malignant ascites. Cancer. 1987;59(2):213-217.

25.   Loewenstein MS, Zamcheck N. Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels in benign gastrointestinal disease states. Cancer. 1978;42(3 Suppl):1412-1418.

26.   Chu CM, Lin SM, Peng SM, et al. The role of laparoscopy in the evaluation of ascites of unknown origin. Gastrointest Endosc. 1994;40(3):285-289.

27.   Low RN, Barone RM, Gurney J, et al. Peritoneal tumor: MR imaging with dilute oral barium and intravenous gadolinium-containing contrast agents compared with unenhanced MR imaging and CT. Radiology. 1997;204(2):513-520.

28.   Jacquet P, Sugarbaker PH. Clinical research methodologies in diagnosis and staging of patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis. Cancer Treat Res. 1996;82:359-374.

29.   Runyon BA. Treatment of patients with cirrhosis and ascites. Semin Liver Dis. 1997;17(3):249-260.

30.   Keen J, Fallon M, Collis C. Management of non-cirrhotic ascites. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2000;12(6):388-393.

31.   Courtney A, Nemcek AA Jr, Rosenberg S, et al. Prospective evaluation of the PleurX catheter when used to treat recurrent ascites associated with malignancy. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2008;19(12):1723-1731.

32.   Fleming ND, Alvarez-Secord A, Von Gruenigen V, et al. Indwelling catheters for the management of refractory malignant ascites: a systematic literature overview and retrospective chart review. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2009;38(3):341-349.

33.   Hurwitz H, Fehrenbacher L, Novotny W, et al. Bevacizumab plus irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(23):2335-2342.

34.   Van der Speeten K, Stuart OA, Sugarbaker PH. Using pharmacologic data to plan clinical treatments for patients with peritoneal surface malignancy. Curr Drug Discov Technol. 2009;6(1):72-81.

35.   National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Palliative Care. Version 2.2023. Accessed October 2024.

36.   Sanai FM, Bzeizi KI. Systematic review: tuberculous peritonitis—presenting features, diagnostic strategies and treatment. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2005;22(8):685-700.

37.   Marshall JB. Tuberculosis of the gastrointestinal tract and peritoneum. Am J Gastroenterol. 1993;88(7):989-999.

38.   Chow KM, Chow VC, Hung LC, et al. Tuberculous peritonitis-associated mortality is

39.   high among patients waiting for the results of mycobacterial cultures of ascitic fluid samples. Clin Infect Dis. 2002;35(4):409-413.

40.   Singh MM, Bhargava AN, Jain KP. Tuberculous peritonitis: an evaluation of pathogenetic mechanisms, diagnostic procedures and therapeutic measures. N Engl J Med. 1969;281(20):1091-1094.

41.   Shakil AO, Korula J, Kanel GC, et al. Diagnostic features of tuberculous peritonitis in the absence and presence of chronic liver disease: a case control study. Am J Med. 1996;100(2):179-185.

42.   Aguado JM, Pons F, Casafont F, et al. Tuberculous peritonitis: a study comparing cirrhotic and noncirrhotic patients. J Clin Gastroenterol. 1990;12(5):550-554.

43.   Dwivedi M, Misra SP, Misra V, Kumar R. Value of adenosine deaminase estimation in the diagnosis of tuberculous ascites. Am J Gastroenterol. 1990;85(9):1123-1125.

44.   Shakil AO, Korula J, Kanel GC, et al. Diagnostic features of tuberculous peritonitis in the absence and presence of chronic liver disease: a case control study. Am J Med. 1996;100(2):179-185.

45.   Riquelme A, Calvo M, Salech F, et al. Value of adenosine deaminase (ADA) in ascitic fluid for the diagnosis of tuberculous peritonitis: a meta-analysis. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2006;40(8):705-710.

46.   Bhargava DK, Gupta M, Nijhawan S, et al. Adenosine deaminase (ADA) in peritoneal tuberculosis: diagnostic value in ascitic fluid and serum. Tubercle. 1990;71(2):121-126.

47.   Burgess LJ, Swanepoel CG, Taljaard JJ. The use of adenosine deaminase as a diagnostic tool for peritoneal tuberculosis. Tuberculosis (Edinb). 2001;81(3):243-248.

48.   Riquelme A, Calvo M, Salech F, et al. Value of adenosine deaminase (ADA) in ascitic fluid for the diagnosis of tuberculous peritonitis: a meta-analysis. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2006;40(8):705-710.

49.   Liao YJ, Wu CY, Lee SW, et al. Adenosine deaminase activity in tuberculous peritonitis among patients with underlying liver cirrhosis. World J Gastroenterol. 2012;18(37):5260-5265.

50.   Khajeh Mir Ahmad Reza, Shafiei Pour S, Moafi AR. The diagnostic value of ascitic fluid lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level in the differential diagnosis of ascites. J Lab Physicians. 2019;11(2):152-156.

51.   Vardareli E, Kebapci M, Saricam T, et al. Tuberculous peritonitis of the wet ascitic type: clinical features and diagnostic value of image-guided peritoneal biopsy. Dig Liver Dis. 2004;36(3):199-204.

52.   Chow KM, Chow VC, Szeto CC. Indication for peritoneal biopsy in tuberculous peritonitis. Am J Surg. 2003;185(6):567-573.

53.   Biadglegne F, Mulu A, Rodloff AC, Sack U. Diagnostic performance of the Xpert MTB/RIF assay for tuberculous peritonitis using peritoneoscopy-guided peritoneal biopsy tissue. BMC Infect Dis. 2014;14:452.

54.   Kohli M, Schiller I, Dendukuri N, et al. Xpert MTB/RIF assay for extrapulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;8(8):CD012768.

55.   Shafer RW, Kim DS, Weiss JP, Quale JM. Extrapulmonary tuberculosis in patients with human immunodeficiency virus infection. Medicine (Baltimore). 1991;70(6):384-397.

56.   World Health Organization. WHO consolidated guidelines on tuberculosis. Module 3: Diagnosis – rapid diagnostics for tuberculosis detection. 2021 update. Geneva: WHO; 2021.

57.   Bhargava DK, Shriniwas, Chopra P, et al. Peritoneal tuberculosis: laparoscopic patterns and its diagnostic accuracy. Am J Gastroenterol. 1992;87(1):109-112.

58.   Pratap Mouli V, Munot K, Anand AC. Diagnostic usefulness of adenosine deaminase in tuberculous ascites. J Assoc Physicians India. 1995;43(11):745-747.

59.   Sinan T, Sheikh M, Ramadan S, et al. CT features in abdominal tuberculosis: 20 years experience. BMC Med Imaging. 2002;2(1):3.

60.   World Health Organization. WHO consolidated guidelines on tuberculosis. Module 4: Treatment – drug-susceptible tuberculosis treatment. Geneva: WHO; 2020.

61.   Sharma SK, Mohan A, Sharma A, Mitra DK. Miliary tuberculosis: new insights into an old disease. Lancet Infect Dis. 2005;5(7):415-430.

62.   Singh D, Kumar V, Rana SS. Adjunctive corticosteroids in the management of abdominal tuberculosis. Med Hypotheses. 2007;68(6):1174-1179.

63.   Breen RA, Smith CJ, Bettinson H, et al. Paradoxical reactions during tuberculosis treatment in patients with and without HIV co-infection. Thorax. 2004;59(8):704-707.

64.   Manohar A, Simjee AE, Haffejee AA, Pettengell KE. Symptoms and investigative findings in 145 patients with tuberculous peritonitis diagnosed by peritoneoscopy and biopsy over a five year period. Gut. 1990;31(10):1130-1132.

65.   Maringhini A, Ciambra M, Patti R, et al. Ascites, pleural, and pericardial effusions in acute pancreatitis: a prospective study of incidence, natural history, and prognostic role. Dig Dis Sci. 1996;41(4):848-852.

66.   Kozarek RA, Ball TJ, Patterson DJ, et al. Endoscopic transpapillary therapy for disrupted pancreatic duct and peripancreatic fluid collections. Gastroenterology. 1991;100(5 Pt 1):1362-1370.

67.   Arvanitakis M, Koustiani G, Gantzarou A, et al. Staging of severity and prognosis of acute pancreatitis by computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging—a comparative study. Dig Liver Dis. 2007;39(5):473-482.

68.   Eckhauser FE, Raper SE, Knol JA, Mulholland MW. Surgical management of pancreatic pseudocysts, pancreatic abscesses, and pancreatic-cutaneous fistulas. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1984;159(2):150-158.

69.   Runyon BA, Hoefs JC, Morgan TR. Ascitic fluid analysis in malignancy-related ascites. Hepatology. 1988;8(5):1104-1109.

70.   Agarwal N, Pitchumoni CS, Sivaprasad AV. Evaluating tests for acute pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol. 1990;85(4):356-366.

71.   Balthazar EJ, Ranson JH, Naidich DP, et al. Acute pancreatitis: prognostic value of CT. Radiology. 1985;156(3):767-772.

72.   Sandrasegaran K, Tann M, Jennings SG, et al. Disconnection of the pancreatic duct: an important but overlooked complication of severe acute pancreatitis. Radiographics. 2007;27(5):1389-1400.

73.   Freeman ML, DiSario JA, Nelson DB, et al. Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis: a prospective, multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;54(4):425-434.

74.   Vu MK, van der Veek PP, Frolich M, et al. Does jejunal feeding activate exocrine pancreatic secretion? Eur J Clin Invest. 1999;29(12):1053-1059.

75.   Uhl W, Anghelacopoulos SE, Friess H, Büchler MW. The role of octreotide and somatostatin in acute and chronic pancreatitis. Digestion. 1999;60 Suppl 2:23-31.

76.   Hastier P, Rouquier P, Buckley MJ, et al. Pancreatic fistulae complicating severe acute pancreatitis treated by octreotide. Gastroenterol Clin Biol. 1998;22(12):1115-1117.

77.   Kozarek RA, Ball TJ, Patterson DJ, et al. Endoscopic transpapillary therapy for disrupted pancreatic duct and peripancreatic fluid collections. Gastroenterology. 1991;100(5 Pt 1):1362-1370.

78.   Arvanitakis M, Delhaye M, Bali MA, et al. Pancreatic-fluid collections: a randomized controlled trial regarding stent removal after endoscopic transmural drainage. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;65(4):609-619.

79.   Nealon WH, Walser E. Main pancreatic ductal anatomy can direct choice of modality for treating pancreatic pseudocysts (surgery versus percutaneous drainage). Ann Surg. 2002;235(6):751-758.

80.   Bradley EL 3rd, Clements JL Jr, Gonzalez AC. The natural history of pancreatic pseudocysts: a unified concept of management. Am J Surg. 1979;137(1):135-141.

81.   Twardowski ZJ, Khanna R, Nolph KD, et al. Intraabdominal pressures during natural activities in patients treated with continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. Nephron. 1986;44(2):129-135.

82.   Kleiner M, Arora RC, Martin DB. Ascites in chronic hemodialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis. 1986;7(3):253-255.

83.   Bagolan P, Spagnoli A, Ciprandi G, et al. A new technique in the treatment of chylous ascites. J Pediatr Surg. 2002;37(8):E29.

84.   Rodelas R, Donoso G, Prieto JC, et al. Uremic ascites: report of 19 cases. Clin Nephrol. 1975;4(3):119-123.

85.   Perez GO, Pelleya R, Nootens R, et al. Kinetics of dialysis in patients with ascites: studies of peritoneal and hemodialysis. Proc Clin Dial Transplant Forum. 1978;8:157-161.

86.   Sagristà-Sauleda J, Angel J, Sánchez A, et al. Effusive-constrictive pericarditis. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(5):469-475.

87.   Twardowski ZJ. Clinical manifestation and development of intra-abdominal pressure with patients with chronic renal disease. Adv Perit Dial. 1990;6:87-92.

88.   Cheung AK, Rocco MV, Yan G, et al. Serum beta-2 microglobulin levels predict mortality in dialysis patients: results of the HEMO study. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2006;17(2):546-555.

89.   Pierratos A, Ouwendyk M, Francoeur R, et al. Nocturnal hemodialysis: three-year experience. J Am Soc Nephrol. 1998;9(5):859-868.

90.   Tornatore MA, Ventimiglia R. Resolution of nephrogenic ascites with continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. Am J Kidney Dis. 1997;29(2):305-307.

91.   Daugirdas JT, Ing TS. First-use reactions during hemodialysis: a definition of subtypes. Kidney Int Suppl. 1988;24:S37-S43.

92.   Moreno JM, Bover J, Gomis A, et al. Uremic ascites: report of 10 patients treated with continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis and a review of the literature. Perit Dial Int. 1996;16 Suppl 1:S552-S554.

93.   Fouque D, Kalantar-Zadeh K, Kopple J, et al. A proposed nomenclature and diagnostic criteria for protein-energy wasting in acute and chronic kidney disease. Kidney Int. 2008;73(4):391-398.

94.   Burack JH, Hahn JA, Saint-Maurice D, Jacobson MA. Microbiology of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia in persons with and at risk for human immunodeficiency virus type 1 infection: implications for rational empiric antibiotic therapy. Arch Intern Med. 1994;154(22):2589-2596.

95.   Burak KW, Kremers WK, Batts KP, et al. Impact of cytomegalovirus infection, year of transplantation, and donor age on outcomes after liver transplantation for hepatitis C. Liver Transpl. 2002;8(4):362-369.

96.   Zeimet AG, Marth C, Müller-Holzner E, et al. Tumor marker CA 125 in tissues of the female reproductive tract and in serum during the normal menstrual cycle. Fertil Steril. 1993;59(5):1028-1035.

97.   Cárdenas A, Chopra S. Chylous ascites. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;97(8):1896-1900.

98.   Cattau EL Jr, Benjamin SB, Knuff TE, Castell DO. The accuracy of the physical examination in the diagnosis of suspected ascites. JAMA. 1982;247(8):1164-1166.

99.   Alexandrakis MG, Passam FH, Kyriakou DS, Bouros D. Pleural effusions in hematologic malignancies. Chest. 2004;125(4):1546-1555.

100.                    Brooks A, Davies B, Smethhurst M, Connolly J. Prospective evaluation of non-radiologist performed emergency abdominal ultrasound for haemoperitoneum. Emerg Med J. 2004;21(5):e5.

101.                    Das DK. Serous effusions in malignant lymphomas: a review. Diagn Cytopathol. 2006;34(5):335-347.

102.                    Chu CM, Chang CH, Liaw YF, Shieh MJ. Jaundice after peritoneovenous shunting for intractable ascites. A retrospective study of 32 patients. Gastroenterology. 1987;93(1):151-156.

103.                    Patel PA, Ernst FR, Gunnarsson CL. Ultrasonography guidance reduces complications and improves the cost of care among patients undergoing thoracentesis and paracentesis. Chest. 2012;141(5):1364-1369.

104.                    McVay PA, Toy PT. Lack of increased bleeding after paracentesis and thoracentesis in patients with mild coagulation abnormalities. Transfusion. 1991;31(2):164-171.

105.                    Rosenberg S, Courtney A, Nemcek AA Jr, Omary RA. Comparison of percutaneous management techniques for recurrent malignant ascites. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2004;15(10):1129-1131.

106.                    Lund RH, Newkirk JB. Peritoneovenous shunt for intractable ascites: a review. Arch Surg. 1979;114(4):489-493.

107.                    Barnett TD, Rubins J. Placement of a permanent tunneled peritoneal drainage catheter for palliation of malignant ascites: a simplified percutaneous approach. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2002;13(4):379-383.

108.                    Sadeghi B, Arvieux C, Glehen O, et al. Peritoneal carcinomatosis from non-gynecologic malignancies: results of the EVOCAPE 1 multicentric prospective study. Cancer. 2000;88(2):358-363.

109.                    Debi U, Ravisankar V, Prasad KK, et al. Abdominal tuberculosis of the gastrointestinal tract: revisited. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20(40):14831-14840.

110.                    Temel JS, Greer JA, Muzikansky A, et al. Early palliative care for patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(8):733-742.

111.                    Mao X, Xu J, Wang W, et al. Crosstalk between cancer-associated fibroblasts and immune cells in the tumor microenvironment: new findings and future perspectives. Mol Cancer. 2021;20(1):131.

112.                    Bettegowda C, Sausen M, Leary RJ, et al. Detection of circulating tumor DNA in early- and late-stage human malignancies. Sci Transl Med. 2014;6(224):224ra24.

113.                    Huang S, Chong N, Lewis NE, et al. The matrix reloaded: how sensing the extracellular matrix synchronizes bacterial communities. J Bacteriol. 2006;188(3):711-719.

114.                    Classe JM, Catala L, Glehen O, et al. Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in ovarian cancer. Bull Cancer. 2010;97(9):1023-1030.

115.                    Light RW, Nguyen T, Mulligan ME, Sasse SA. The in vitro efficacy of vasoactive agents to lyse parapneumonic effusions. Chest. 2000;117(6):1728-1733.

________________________________________

Abbreviations

ADA - Adenosine deaminase

AFB - Acid-fast bacilli

AFP - Alpha-fetoprotein

ATT - Anti-tuberculosis therapy

CA - Cancer antigen

CEA - Carcinoembryonic antigen

CMV - Cytomegalovirus

CT - Computed tomography

ERCP - Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

ESRD - End-stage renal disease

HD - Hemodialysis

HCC - Hepatocellular carcinoma

HIPEC - Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy

HIV - Human immunodeficiency virus

ICU - Intensive care unit

IDPN - Intradialytic parenteral nutrition

INR - International normalized ratio

LDH - Lactate dehydrogenase

LVP - Large-volume paracentesis

MAC - Mycobacterium avium complex

MRCP - Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography

MRI - Magnetic resonance imaging

NGS - Next-generation sequencing

NPO - Nil per os (nothing by mouth)

PCR - Polymerase chain reaction

PD - Peritoneal dialysis

PET - Positron emission tomography

PMN - Polymorphonuclear leukocytes

PTLD - Post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder

SAAG - Serum-ascites albumin gradient

SBP - Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis

SLE - Systemic lupus erythematosus

TB - Tuberculosis

TIPS - Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt

TPA - Tissue plasminogen activator

TPN - Total parenteral nutrition

UF - Ultrafiltration

VEGF - Vascular endothelial growth factor

WHO - World Health Organization

________________________________________

Author Disclosures and Acknowledgments

Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflicts of interest relevant to this manuscript.

Funding: No external funding was received for this work.

Acknowledgments: The author thanks the multidisciplinary teams in critical care, gastroenterology, infectious diseases, and oncology whose collaborative approach to complex ascites cases informed the practical insights shared in this review.

________________________________________

This comprehensive review provides critical care physicians with an evidence-based, practical approach to diagnosing and managing low SAAG ascites. By systematically applying the diagnostic pearls, avoiding common pitfalls, and utilizing the clinical hacks presented here, intensivists can improve outcomes for this challenging patient population.