Association between Tunneled Pleural Catheter Use and Infection in Patients Immunosuppressed from Antineoplastic Therapy. A Multicenter Study

[Management of Malignant Pleural Effusion]

Malignant pleural effusion is a common diagnosis in metastasized cancers. It is always of palliative character. Main symptoms are dyspnoea and reduced quality of life. Diagnosis is made by ultrasound-guided puncture of the pleural effusion (cytology) and often video-assisted thoracic surgery with biopsy of the pleural surface (histology). The goal of treatment is a fast, sustainable, minimally invasive, patient-centred therapy that increases quality of life. Besides systemic therapy and best supportive care the patient can be treated with local therapy including either pleurodesis (via drainage or VATS) or an indwelling-pleural catheter (IPC). Decision for one of these procedures is made upon performance index (ECOG), expandability of the lung, prognosis and the patient's wish. For the first technique, the lung must be expandable. The latter one (IPC) can be implanted both with expandable and trapped lung. Both are similarly effective in symptom control.

Current Trends in Treating Malignant Pleural Effusion: Evidence, Guidelines, and Best Practice Recommendations

Malignant pleural effusion (MPE) is common in individuals with cancer and typically reflects advanced disease. Most cases are symptomatic, with dyspnea and pain having a severe effect on the patient's quality of life (QOL). The management of MPE aims to relieve symptoms, improve QOL, prevent repeated pleural interventions, and minimize hospital admissions. Common treatments for MPE that provide symptomatic relief include thoracentesis, chemical (talc) pleurodesis, or indwelling pleural catheters (IPCs). Talc pleurodesis and IPCs are the mainstay of treatment but represent very different treatment strategies: talc pleurodesis is an inpatient procedure, whereas IPCs are an ambulatory strategy. Given their similar efficacy, treatment decisions in MPE are often determined by other factors, such as the patient's clinical characteristics, individual treatment goals, and preferences for hospital-based or home-based care. We provide a summary of the evidence for different interventions for treating MPE and compare recommendations from the major American, European, British, and Spanish guidelines regarding when to consider each treatment. We highlight specific challenging treatment scenarios and key clinical considerations that may influence treatment decisions for different patients. There are barriers to accessing and receiving evidence-based care. Patients with symptomatic MPE would benefit from early referral from oncology teams to pleural services. We provide best practice recommendations for optimal referral and coordination of care to ensure that patients receive maximum benefits from their interventions.

[Management of Malignant Pleural Effusion]

Malignant pleural effusion is a common diagnosis in metastasized cancers. It is always of palliative character. Main symptoms are dyspnoea and reduced quality of life. Diagnosis is made by ultrasound-guided puncture of the pleural effusion (cytology) and often video-assisted thoracic surgery with biopsy of the pleural surface (histology). The goal of treatment is a fast, sustainable, minimally invasive, patient-centred therapy that increases quality of life. Besides systemic therapy and best supportive care the patient can be treated with local therapy including either pleurodesis (via drainage or VATS) or an indwelling-pleural catheter (IPC). Decision for one of these procedures is made upon performance index (ECOG), expandability of the lung, prognosis and the patient's wish. For the first technique, the lung must be expandable. The latter one (IPC) can be implanted both with expandable and trapped lung. Both are similarly effective in symptom control.

Resource Use and Costs of Indwelling Pleural Catheters versus Pleurodesis for Malignant Pleural Effusions: A Population-based Study

Rationale: Malignant pleural effusions (MPEs) are associated with significant health service use and healthcare costs, but the current evidence is limited. Objectives: To compare 12-month post-procedure: 1) health service utilization; and 2) healthcare costs after indwelling pleural catheter (IPC) insertion with at-home drainage performed by home care nursing services, versus in-hospital chemical pleurodesis. Methods: We performed a retrospective population-based study on a cohort of adults with MPEs who underwent IPC insertion or chemical pleurodesis between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2019 using provincial health administrative data (Ontario, Canada). Patients were followed from the procedure date until death or until 12 months after the procedure. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was performed to adjust for imbalances in baseline characteristics. Differences in length of stay, readmissions, emergency department visits, home care visits, and healthcare costs were estimated using weighted regression analysis. Results: Of 5,752 included individuals, 4,432 (77%) underwent IPC insertion and 1,320 (23%) had pleurodesis. In the weighted sample, individuals who received an IPC had fewer inpatient days (12.4 d vs. 16 d; standardized mean difference, 0.229) but a higher proportion of subsequent admissions for empyema (2.7% vs. 1.1%; P = 0.0002) than those undergoing pleurodesis. Individuals with IPCs received more hours of nursing home care (41 h vs. 21.1 h; standardized mean difference, 0.671) but overall had lower average healthcare costs ($40,179 vs. $46,640 per patient; standardized mean difference, 0.177) than those receiving pleurodesis. Conclusions: IPCs with home nursing drainage are associated with reduced health resource use compared with pleurodesis in adults with MPEs, even after controlling for important baseline and clinical characteristics. Given that both procedures have similar health outcomes, our findings support the ongoing promotion of IPCs to increase outpatient management of patients with MPEs.

A practical approach to the diagnosis and management of malignant pleural effusions in resource-constrained settings

No pleural intervention in a patient with confirmed malignant pleural effusion (MPE) prolongs life, but even the recommended interventions for diagnosis and palliation can be costly and therefore unavailable in large parts of the world. However, there is good evidence to guide clinicians working in low- and middle-income countries on the most cost-effective and clinically effective strategies for the diagnosis and management of MPE. Transthoracic ultrasound-guided closed pleural biopsy is a safe method of pleural biopsy with a diagnostic yield approaching that of thoracoscopy. With the use of pleural fluid cytology and ultrasound-guided biopsy, ≥90% of cases can be diagnosed. Cases with an associated mass lesion are best suited to an ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration with/without core needle biopsy. Those with diffuse pleural thickening and/or nodularity should have an Abrams needle (<1 cm thickening) or core needle (≥1 cm thickening) biopsy of the area of interest. Those with insignificant pleural thickening should have an ultrasound-guided Abrams needle biopsy close to the diaphragm. The goals of management are to alleviate dyspnoea, prevent re-accumulation of the pleural effusion and minimise re-admissions to hospital. As the most cost-effective strategy, we suggest early use of indwelling pleural catheters with daily drainage for 14 days, followed by talc pleurodesis if the lung expands. The insertion of an intercostal drain with talc slurry is an alternative strategy which is noninferior to thoracoscopy with talc poudrage.

Educational aims

To provide clinicians practising in resource-constrained settings with a practical evidence-based approach to the diagnosis and management of malignant pleural effusions.To explain how to perform an ultrasound-guided closed pleural biopsy.To explain the cost-effective use of indwelling pleural catheters.

Efficacy and Safety of Indwelling Catheter for Malignant Pleural Effusions Related to Timing of Cancer Therapy: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

To compare the efficacy and safety of indwelling pleural catheters (IPC) in relation with the timing of systemic cancer therapy (SCT) (i.e., before, during, or after SCT) in patients with malignant pleural effusion (MPE).

METHODS

Systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCT), quasi-controlled trials, prospective and retrospective cohorts, and case series of over 20 patients, in which the timing of IPC insertion in relation to that of SCT was provided. Medline (via PubMed), Embase, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched from inception to January 2023. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias (ROB) tool for RCTs and the ROB in non-randomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) for non-randomized designs.

RESULTS

Ten studies (n=2907 patients; 3066 IPCs) were included. Using SCT while the IPC was in situ decreased overall mortality, increased survival time, and improved quality-adjusted survival. Timing of SCT had no effect on the risk of IPC-related infections (2.85% overall), even in immunocompromised patients with moderate or severe neutropenia (relative risk 0.98 [95%CI: 0.93-1.03] for patients treated with the combination of IPC and SCT). The inconsistency of the results or the lack of analysis of all outcome measures in relation to the SCT/IPC timing precluded drawing solid conclusions about time to IPC removal or need of re-interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on observational evidence, the efficacy and safety of IPC for MPE does not seem to vary depending on the IPC insertion timing (before, during, or after SCT). The data most likely support early IPC insertion.

ERS/ESTS statement on the management of pleural infection in adults

Pleural infection is a common condition encountered by respiratory physicians and thoracic surgeons alike. The European Respiratory Society (ERS) and European Society of Thoracic Surgeons (ESTS) established a multidisciplinary collaboration of clinicians with expertise in managing pleural infection with the aim of producing a comprehensive review of the scientific literature. Six areas of interest were identified: 1) epidemiology of pleural infection, 2) optimal antibiotic strategy, 3) diagnostic parameters for chest tube drainage, 4) status of intrapleural therapies, 5) role of surgery and 6) current place of outcome prediction in management. The literature revealed that recently updated epidemiological data continue to show an overall upwards trend in incidence, but there is an urgent need for a more comprehensive characterisation of the burden of pleural infection in specific populations such as immunocompromised hosts. There is a sparsity of regular analyses and documentation of microbiological patterns at a local level to inform geographical variation, and ongoing research efforts are needed to improve antibiotic stewardship. The evidence remains in favour of a small-bore chest tube optimally placed under image guidance as an appropriate initial intervention for most cases of pleural infection. With a growing body of data suggesting delays to treatment are key contributors to poor outcomes, this suggests that earlier consideration of combination intrapleural enzyme therapy (IET) with concurrent surgical consultation should remain a priority. Since publication of the MIST-2 study, there has been considerable data supporting safety and efficacy of IET, but further studies are needed to optimise dosing using individualised biomarkers of treatment failure. Pending further prospective evaluation, the MIST-2 regimen remains the most evidence based. Several studies have externally validated the RAPID score, but it requires incorporating into prospective intervention studies prior to adopting into clinical practice.

Recommendations of the Spanish Society of Thoracic Surgery for the management of malignant pleural effusion

This article summarizes the clinical guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of malignant pleural effusion (MPE) sponsored by the Spanish Society of Thoracic Surgery (SECT). Ten clinical controversies were elaborated under the methodology of PICO (Patient, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) questions and the quality of the evidence and grading of the strength of the recommendations was based on the GRADE system. Immunocytochemical and molecular analyses of pleural fluid may avoid further invasive diagnostic procedures. Currently, the definitive control of MPE can be achieved either by pleurodesis (talc poudrage or slurry) or the insertion of a indwelling pleural catheter (IPC). It is likely that the combination of both techniques (i.e., thoracoscopy with talc poudrage and insertion of a IPC, or instillation of talc slurry through a IPC) will have a predominant role in the future therapeutic management.

Scheule A, Markowiak T, Ried M. The Treatment of Malignant Pleural Effusion With Permanent Indwelling Pleural Catheters

BACKGROUND

40 000 to 60 000 people develop malignant pleural effusion (MPE) in Germany each year. The most common causes are lung cancer and breast cancer. Patients with pleural carcinomatosis have a median survival time of four months.

METHODS

We investigated the current health services situation regarding treatment with indwelling pleural catheters (IPC) versus talc pleurodesis (TP) in Germany based on registry data from the Federal Statistical Office, the Pleural Tumor Registry of the German Society for Thoracic Surgery, and the IPC registry of the ewimed GmbH company. In addition, we conducted a selective literature review on IPC and TP.

RESULTS

The symptoms of dyspnea and thoracic pressure determine the need for therapy in MPE. Both TP and IPC are effective treatment options for MPE. Both therapeutic procedures are considered equally effective with respect to the relief of dyspnea, post-interventional quality of life, and complication rates. TP yields a higher rate of successful pleurodesis than IPC (relative risk: 1.56; 95% confidence interval: [1.26; 1.92]; p < 0.0001), while patients who receive an IPC stay in the hospital for a shorter time than those who undergo TP (a difference of slightly more than two days). The survival of patients with MPE is not affected by which of the two local therapeutic procedures is chosen.

CONCLUSION

The indication for either IPC or TP needs to be determined individually for each patient on the basis of his or her general condition, symptoms, clinical situation ("trapped lung"), and prognosis.