Pleural catheters after thoracoscopic treatment of malignant pleural effusion: a randomized comparative study on quality of life

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Pleural Effusions: A Systematic Review

Pleural effusions cause breathlessness, decreased activity levels, and impaired quality of life. Clinical trials of drainage of pleural effusion use patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to assess these variables. This systematic review aimed to identify which PROMs have been used in clinical trials in pleural effusions, what variables were assessed, whether they were responsive to pleural interventions, and whether they have been validated in patients with pleural effusions, including a defined minimal clinically important difference (MCID). A systematic review was performed to identify relevant clinical trials from Medline, EMBASE, Emcare, and CINAHL and data were extracted. From 329 abstracts, 29 clinical trials of pleural effusion drainage that used PROMs as an outcome measure were identified. A total of 16 different PROMs were used. The most used PROMs were unidimensional measurements of breathlessness, particularly the visual analogue scale for dyspnoea (VASD), all of which nearly showed improvements in breathlessness following pleural fluid drainage. Other variables commonly assessed included activity levels and health-related quality of life. Multidimensional PROMs showed inconsistent responsiveness to pleural fluid drainage. Only the VASD was validated in this patient group with a defined MCID. A range of PROMs are used in clinical trials of pleural fluid drainage. No single PROM measures all the outcomes of interest. Unidimensional measurements of breathlessness are responsive to pleural fluid drainage. Only the VASD is validated with an MCID. There is a need for properly validated, response PROMs which measure the key outcomes of interest in this patient group.

Talc pleurodesis versus indwelling pleural catheter among patients with malignant pleural effusion: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Talc pleurodesis (TP) and indwelling pleural catheter (IPC) are used for the management of malignant pleural effusion (MPE). Our meta-analysis was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of both treatments among patients with MPE.

METHODS

We acquired pertinent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) by searching PubMed, ScienceDirect, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, Ovid Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. The endpoints included survival, pleurodesis rates, total drainage, further pleural interventions, hospital days, symptoms, quality of life (QoL), and complications.

RESULTS

We included four high-quality RCTs. Both treatments were effective among patients with MPE and no previous pleurodesis, with comparable survival and equivalent relief of breathlessness. Additionally, the TP group had higher pleurodesis rates, less total drainage, and fewer all-grade complications (including catheter blockage and cellulitis). However, patients in the TP group had more pleural procedures and relatively longer hospital stays. Additionally, no apparent difference was detected in QoL.

CONCLUSIONS

TP has better pleurodesis rates, less total drainage, and fewer all-grade complications. However, TP has more pleural procedures and is not feasible for patients with trapped lungs. IPC has fewer further pleural interventions and shorter hospital stays. However, IPC has the nuisance of long-term in situ draining.