Mortality after treatment of malignant pleural effusions with indwelling pleural catheters versus chemical pleurodesis: a population-based study.

IF 5.8 2区 医学 Q1 Medicine
Chanel Kwok, Kednapa Thavorn, Kayvan Amjadi, Shawn D Aaron, Tetyana Kendzerska
{"title":"Mortality after treatment of malignant pleural effusions with indwelling pleural catheters versus chemical pleurodesis: a population-based study.","authors":"Chanel Kwok, Kednapa Thavorn, Kayvan Amjadi, Shawn D Aaron, Tetyana Kendzerska","doi":"10.1186/s12931-024-03023-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Little is known about patient outcomes following treatment of malignant pleural effusions (MPE) in the real-world setting.</p><p><strong>Research question: </strong>We aimed to compare post-procedure all-cause mortality between individuals who received indwelling pleural catheter (IPC) insertion versus chemical pleurodesis for managing MPEs.</p><p><strong>Study design and methods: </strong>We performed a retrospective population-based study using provincial health administrative data (Ontario, Canada) of adults with a MPE who underwent IPC insertion or chemical pleurodesis between 2015 and 2019. Individuals were followed until death or March 31, 2021. Difference in post-procedure mortality was calculated using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW)-adjusted Cox proportional hazard regression analysis to balance potential confounders at baseline.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 4,790 (77.3%) individuals who received an IPC and 1,407 (22.7%) who had chemical pleurodesis for MPE. IPC insertions are increasing and chemical pleurodesis procedures are decreasing. The majority of IPCs were inserted in outpatients (61%), by pulmonologists (64.2%) and at sites with higher annual IPC volume, while chemical pleurodesis procedures were generally done by thoracic surgeons (74%) and at sites with higher annual pleurodesis volumes. In unadjusted comparison median time from initial cancer diagnosis to intervention was significantly longer in the IPC group (244 days, interquartile range [IQR]:33-903) compared to pleurodesis group (81 days, IQR:10-737; p < 0.0001). Unadjusted median time from index procedure to death was significantly longer in the pleurodesis group (165[IQR:48-457] days vs. 81[IQR:29-256] days, p < 0.0001), however the difference between groups became insignificant after the IPTW was applied (HR 1.27, 95%CI 0.95-1.69). 35% of IPCs were removed prior to death or end of follow-up.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>After adjusting for differences in baseline characteristics there was no difference in post-procedure mortality between IPC and chemical pleurodesis groups. In the real world, there are significant differences in the characteristics of patients who receive these two procedures and notable regional practice variation between procedure use. Future research should evaluate these variations in care and their effect on patient outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":49131,"journal":{"name":"Respiratory Research","volume":"25 1","pages":"409"},"PeriodicalIF":5.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11562646/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Respiratory Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12931-024-03023-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Little is known about patient outcomes following treatment of malignant pleural effusions (MPE) in the real-world setting.

Research question: We aimed to compare post-procedure all-cause mortality between individuals who received indwelling pleural catheter (IPC) insertion versus chemical pleurodesis for managing MPEs.

Study design and methods: We performed a retrospective population-based study using provincial health administrative data (Ontario, Canada) of adults with a MPE who underwent IPC insertion or chemical pleurodesis between 2015 and 2019. Individuals were followed until death or March 31, 2021. Difference in post-procedure mortality was calculated using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW)-adjusted Cox proportional hazard regression analysis to balance potential confounders at baseline.

Results: We identified 4,790 (77.3%) individuals who received an IPC and 1,407 (22.7%) who had chemical pleurodesis for MPE. IPC insertions are increasing and chemical pleurodesis procedures are decreasing. The majority of IPCs were inserted in outpatients (61%), by pulmonologists (64.2%) and at sites with higher annual IPC volume, while chemical pleurodesis procedures were generally done by thoracic surgeons (74%) and at sites with higher annual pleurodesis volumes. In unadjusted comparison median time from initial cancer diagnosis to intervention was significantly longer in the IPC group (244 days, interquartile range [IQR]:33-903) compared to pleurodesis group (81 days, IQR:10-737; p < 0.0001). Unadjusted median time from index procedure to death was significantly longer in the pleurodesis group (165[IQR:48-457] days vs. 81[IQR:29-256] days, p < 0.0001), however the difference between groups became insignificant after the IPTW was applied (HR 1.27, 95%CI 0.95-1.69). 35% of IPCs were removed prior to death or end of follow-up.

Interpretation: After adjusting for differences in baseline characteristics there was no difference in post-procedure mortality between IPC and chemical pleurodesis groups. In the real world, there are significant differences in the characteristics of patients who receive these two procedures and notable regional practice variation between procedure use. Future research should evaluate these variations in care and their effect on patient outcomes.

使用留置胸膜导管与化学胸膜穿刺术治疗恶性胸腔积液后的死亡率:一项基于人群的研究。
背景:在现实世界中,人们对恶性胸腔积液(MPE)治疗后的患者预后知之甚少:研究设计与方法:我们旨在比较接受留置胸膜导管插入术(IPC)和化学胸膜穿刺术治疗 MPE 的患者术后全因死亡率:我们利用省级卫生行政数据(加拿大安大略省)对在 2015 年至 2019 年期间接受过留置胸膜导管插入术或化学胸膜穿刺术的 MPE 成人进行了一项基于人群的回顾性研究。研究人员对患者进行了随访,直至其死亡或 2021 年 3 月 31 日。采用逆概率治疗加权(IPTW)调整后的考克斯比例危险回归分析计算术后死亡率的差异,以平衡基线的潜在混杂因素:我们发现 4,790 人(77.3%)接受了 IPC,1,407 人(22.7%)接受了 MPE 化学胸膜穿刺术。插入 IPC 的人数在增加,而化学胸膜穿刺术在减少。大多数IPC是在门诊病人(61%)、肺科医生(64.2%)和年IPC手术量较高的医院进行的,而化学性胸膜穿刺术一般是由胸外科医生(74%)和年胸膜穿刺术量较高的医院进行的。在未经调整的比较中,IPC 组从癌症初步诊断到介入治疗的中位时间(244 天,四分位数间距[IQR]:33-903)明显长于胸膜腔穿刺组(81 天,IQR:10-737;P 解释:IPC 组从癌症初步诊断到介入治疗的中位时间(244 天,四分位数间距[IQR]:33-903):调整基线特征差异后,IPC 组和化学胸膜穿刺组的术后死亡率没有差异。在现实世界中,接受这两种手术的患者特征存在显著差异,而且不同地区在使用这两种手术时也存在明显差异。未来的研究应评估这些护理差异及其对患者预后的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Respiratory Research
Respiratory Research RESPIRATORY SYSTEM-
CiteScore
9.70
自引率
1.70%
发文量
314
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Respiratory Research publishes high-quality clinical and basic research, review and commentary articles on all aspects of respiratory medicine and related diseases. As the leading fully open access journal in the field, Respiratory Research provides an essential resource for pulmonologists, allergists, immunologists and other physicians, researchers, healthcare workers and medical students with worldwide dissemination of articles resulting in high visibility and generating international discussion. Topics of specific interest include asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cystic fibrosis, genetics, infectious diseases, interstitial lung diseases, lung development, lung tumors, occupational and environmental factors, pulmonary circulation, pulmonary pharmacology and therapeutics, respiratory immunology, respiratory physiology, and sleep-related respiratory problems.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信