ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2024
Comparison of outcomes of surgical and other invasive treatment modalities for malignant pleural effusion in patients with pleural carcinomatosis.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Treatment modalities for malignant pleural effusion (MPE) are diverse. The objectives were to analyze actual clinical data from patients with MPE and pleural carcinomatosis and to compare the outcomes of different treatment modalities with regard to effectiveness, survival, morbidity, and mortality as well as the duration of hospitalization. Methods: Patients with pathologically proven pleural carcinomatosis or MPE from 2018 to 2020 were included in this retrospective-observational study with additional questionnaires. We identified four treatment modalities: (I) video-assisted thoracic surgery with pleurodesis (VATS, mechanical/chemical); (II) VATS with pleurodesis combined with indwelling pleural catheter (IPC) placement; (III) VATS (without pleurodesis) combined with IPC placement; and (IV) management with IPC placement alone. Results: We enrolled 91 patients aged 38-90 years who were treated by either VATS-pleurodesis (N=22), VATS-IPC placement (N=21), a combination of VATS with pleurodesis and IPC placement (N=22), or IPC placement alone (N=26). The mean survival time was 138.3 days. No significant differences were detected among treatment groups regarding the outcome of pleurodesis failure, either initially or later. Patients in the VATS-pleurodesis with IPC group experienced significantly more complications than those in the other treatment modality groups [odds ratio (OR): 3.288, P=0.026]. However, no statistically significant differences were observed regarding the type of adverse event and survival. Hypoalbuminemia, systemic therapy, and successful pleurodesis (P=0.008; P=0.011; P=0.044, respectively) were significantly correlated with survival. In multiple linear regression, hypoalbuminemia persisted as an independent predictor of survival (P=0.031). The type of intervention showed significant differences regarding the duration of hospitalization (P=0.017). IPC placement alone shortened the mean total hospitalization time by 7.9, 5.9, and 7.0 days compared to VATS-pleurodesis (P≤0.001), VATS-IPC placement (P=0.004), and VATS-pleurodesis with IPC placement (P≤0.001), respectively. Conclusions: The survival time was very short, and each treatment group had pros and cons. Therefore, decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis. The use of an IPC, even if the lung is not trapped, can significantly reduce the length of hospital stay. VATS is needed when histology is needed. The ideal method for treating recurrent MPE should be simple, effective, and inexpensive, with minimal disturbance to the patient.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.