4.7 Article

Single-center experience with 250 tunnelled pleural catheter insertions for malignant pleural effusion

期刊

CHEST
卷 129, 期 2, 页码 362-368

出版社

AMER COLL CHEST PHYSICIANS
DOI: 10.1378/chest.129.2.362

关键词

dyspnea; lung cancer; malignancies; pleural effusion

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Malignant pleural effusions (MPEs) are a common cause of dyspnea in patients with advanced cancer. Tunnelled pleural catheters (TPCs) can be used in patients with this condition, but the published experience with them is limited. Objective: To describe the use of TPCs in the management of MPE in a large group of patients in a clinical setting. Methods: Retrospective analysis of 250 sequential TPC insertions in patients with MPEs in a single center. Results: Two hundred fifty TPC procedures for MPE were performed in 223 patients (19 contralateral. procedures and 8 repeat ipsilateral procedures) during a 3-year period. Symptom control was complete following 97 procedures (38.8%), was partial in 125 procedures (50%), and was absent in 9 procedures (3.6%); in addition, there were 10 failed TPC insertions (4.0%) and 9 TPC insertions (3.6%) without assessment of symptoms at the 2-week follow-up visit. Spontaneous pleurodesis occurred following 103 of the 240 successful TPC procedures (42.9%) and was more frequent when <= 20% of the hemithorax contained fluid at the 2-week follow-up visit (57.2% vs 25.3%, respectively; p < 0.001). Catheters stayed in place for a median duration of 56 days. Following successful TPC placement, no further ipsilateral pleural procedures were required in 90.1% of cases. The overall median survival time following TPC insertion was 144 days. Complication rates were low and compared favorably with those seen with other treatment options. Conclusions: TPC placement is an effective method of palliation for MPE that allows outpatient management and low complication rates. The insertion of a TPC should be considered as a first-line treatment option in the management of patients with MPE.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据