恶性积液的早期胸膜切除术(IPC加滑石粉):一种新的管理算法的评价

D. Fitzgerald, S. Muruganandan, C. Stanley, A. Badiei, K. Murray, C. Read, Y. C. Lee
{"title":"恶性积液的早期胸膜切除术(IPC加滑石粉):一种新的管理算法的评价","authors":"D. Fitzgerald, S. Muruganandan, C. Stanley, A. Badiei, K. Murray, C. Read, Y. C. Lee","doi":"10.1183/13993003.congress-2019.oa493","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Traditionally, most patients with malignant pleural effusion (MPE) have to undergo fluid drainage to assess if the underlying lung expands (or not) before being offered either pleurodesis or indwelling pleural catheter (IPC) respectively. Recent data suggest that talc can be safely instilled via IPC. Using IPC as a first-line definitive therapy for all MPE patients, followed by talc if suitable, will suit both subgroups and remove the need for prior assessment of expansion. This observational study enrolled 102 consecutive patients with symptomatic MPE (68% male) to assess the feasibility of EPIToME, a clinical algorithm incorporating results from AMPLE-1, -2, TIME-2, ASAP and IPC-Plus trials. All patients had IPC inserted and fluid evacuated. Those whose lung adequately expanded (n=47) underwent talc instillation and were discharged with daily vacuum drainages for 14 days or until pleurodesed. Using this protocol, 74% achieved pleurodesis after a median of 20 days. Patients unsuitable for talc pleurodesis (n=55) – trapped lung (n=31), prior failed pleurodesis, patient/oncologist preference - were discharged with symptom-guided drainage. All were followed for ≥120 days or till death. Only one patient needed further pleural drainage for fluid control in the first 12 months. Complications included symptomatic loculation (10%), IPC infection (7%) and reversible IPC blockage (3%). Conclusion: A high percentage of patients in the real-world unselected MPE population were not suitable for talc and first-line IPC offered optimal care. For those eligible, IPC combined with inpatient talc slurry pleurodesis, followed by daily home drainage provided good success rates.","PeriodicalId":20113,"journal":{"name":"Pleural and Mediastinal Malignancies","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"EPIToME (Early Pleurodesis via IPC with Talc for Malignant Effusion): Evaluation of a new management algorithm\",\"authors\":\"D. Fitzgerald, S. Muruganandan, C. Stanley, A. Badiei, K. Murray, C. Read, Y. C. Lee\",\"doi\":\"10.1183/13993003.congress-2019.oa493\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Traditionally, most patients with malignant pleural effusion (MPE) have to undergo fluid drainage to assess if the underlying lung expands (or not) before being offered either pleurodesis or indwelling pleural catheter (IPC) respectively. Recent data suggest that talc can be safely instilled via IPC. Using IPC as a first-line definitive therapy for all MPE patients, followed by talc if suitable, will suit both subgroups and remove the need for prior assessment of expansion. This observational study enrolled 102 consecutive patients with symptomatic MPE (68% male) to assess the feasibility of EPIToME, a clinical algorithm incorporating results from AMPLE-1, -2, TIME-2, ASAP and IPC-Plus trials. All patients had IPC inserted and fluid evacuated. Those whose lung adequately expanded (n=47) underwent talc instillation and were discharged with daily vacuum drainages for 14 days or until pleurodesed. Using this protocol, 74% achieved pleurodesis after a median of 20 days. Patients unsuitable for talc pleurodesis (n=55) – trapped lung (n=31), prior failed pleurodesis, patient/oncologist preference - were discharged with symptom-guided drainage. All were followed for ≥120 days or till death. Only one patient needed further pleural drainage for fluid control in the first 12 months. Complications included symptomatic loculation (10%), IPC infection (7%) and reversible IPC blockage (3%). Conclusion: A high percentage of patients in the real-world unselected MPE population were not suitable for talc and first-line IPC offered optimal care. For those eligible, IPC combined with inpatient talc slurry pleurodesis, followed by daily home drainage provided good success rates.\",\"PeriodicalId\":20113,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pleural and Mediastinal Malignancies\",\"volume\":\"28 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-09-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pleural and Mediastinal Malignancies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.congress-2019.oa493\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pleural and Mediastinal Malignancies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.congress-2019.oa493","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

传统上,大多数恶性胸腔积液(MPE)患者在分别进行胸膜截留或留置胸膜导管(IPC)之前,必须进行液体引流以评估潜在的肺是否扩张。最近的数据表明,滑石粉可以通过IPC安全地注入。将IPC作为所有MPE患者的一线决定性治疗,然后在合适的情况下使用滑石粉,将适合两个亚组,并且无需事先评估扩张。这项观察性研究招募了102例有症状的MPE患者(68%为男性),以评估EPIToME的可行性,这是一种临床算法,结合了AMPLE-1、-2、TIME-2、ASAP和IPC-Plus试验的结果。所有患者均插入IPC并排出液体。肺充分扩张的患者(n=47)接受滑石粉灌注,并每日真空引流出院,持续14天或直到胸膜切除。采用该方案,74%的患者在平均20天后实现了胸膜切除术。不适合滑石粉胸膜切除术的患者(55例)——肺陷陷(31例)、既往胸膜切除术失败、患者/肿瘤医生偏好——采用症状引导引流术出院。随访≥120 d或至死亡。在前12个月,只有1例患者需要进一步胸腔引流以控制液体。并发症包括症状性定位(10%)、IPC感染(7%)和可逆性IPC阻塞(3%)。结论:在现实世界中,未选择的MPE人群中有很高比例的患者不适合滑石粉,一线IPC提供了最佳护理。对于符合条件的患者,IPC联合住院滑石粉浆胸膜固定术,随后每日家庭引流提供了良好的成功率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
EPIToME (Early Pleurodesis via IPC with Talc for Malignant Effusion): Evaluation of a new management algorithm
Traditionally, most patients with malignant pleural effusion (MPE) have to undergo fluid drainage to assess if the underlying lung expands (or not) before being offered either pleurodesis or indwelling pleural catheter (IPC) respectively. Recent data suggest that talc can be safely instilled via IPC. Using IPC as a first-line definitive therapy for all MPE patients, followed by talc if suitable, will suit both subgroups and remove the need for prior assessment of expansion. This observational study enrolled 102 consecutive patients with symptomatic MPE (68% male) to assess the feasibility of EPIToME, a clinical algorithm incorporating results from AMPLE-1, -2, TIME-2, ASAP and IPC-Plus trials. All patients had IPC inserted and fluid evacuated. Those whose lung adequately expanded (n=47) underwent talc instillation and were discharged with daily vacuum drainages for 14 days or until pleurodesed. Using this protocol, 74% achieved pleurodesis after a median of 20 days. Patients unsuitable for talc pleurodesis (n=55) – trapped lung (n=31), prior failed pleurodesis, patient/oncologist preference - were discharged with symptom-guided drainage. All were followed for ≥120 days or till death. Only one patient needed further pleural drainage for fluid control in the first 12 months. Complications included symptomatic loculation (10%), IPC infection (7%) and reversible IPC blockage (3%). Conclusion: A high percentage of patients in the real-world unselected MPE population were not suitable for talc and first-line IPC offered optimal care. For those eligible, IPC combined with inpatient talc slurry pleurodesis, followed by daily home drainage provided good success rates.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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