Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: To compare malignant pleural effusion (MPE) treatment outcomes and complications among patients receiving indwelling pleural catheter (IPC), talc pleurodesis (TPS), or dual therapy. Outcomes were determined by measuring length of stay (LOS) and post-procedure dyspnea scores. Complications were measured by comparing intervention failures and adverse events.
METHODS: The Veterans Affairs\' Corporate Data Warehouse was utilized to retrospectively review the charts of 314 MPE subjects. Dyspnea scores were estimated by researchers and LOS was determined by adding the duration of stay for all admissions post procedure. Complications were recorded through chart review.
RESULTS: IPC exhibited higher failure rates than the other approaches 1 year post intervention. Pneumonia/chest infection rate and lung entrapment were also more prevalent. There was no significant difference in dyspnea rates. LOS illustrated a significant difference between groups, with talc patients spending a median of 7 days in the hospital immediately post procedure, while IPC and IPC + TPS patients spent a median of 3 and 2 days, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving IPC or combination treatment spend fewer days in the hospital than TPS patients. However, IPC appears to be associated with more adverse events and higher long-term failure rates than other management strategies.
METHODS: The Veterans Affairs\' Corporate Data Warehouse was utilized to retrospectively review the charts of 314 MPE subjects. Dyspnea scores were estimated by researchers and LOS was determined by adding the duration of stay for all admissions post procedure. Complications were recorded through chart review.
RESULTS: IPC exhibited higher failure rates than the other approaches 1 year post intervention. Pneumonia/chest infection rate and lung entrapment were also more prevalent. There was no significant difference in dyspnea rates. LOS illustrated a significant difference between groups, with talc patients spending a median of 7 days in the hospital immediately post procedure, while IPC and IPC + TPS patients spent a median of 3 and 2 days, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving IPC or combination treatment spend fewer days in the hospital than TPS patients. However, IPC appears to be associated with more adverse events and higher long-term failure rates than other management strategies.
摘要：
目的：比较接受胸腔置管（IPC）的恶性胸腔积液（MPE）治疗结果和并发症。滑石粉胸膜固定术（TPS），或双重疗法。结果通过测量住院时间（LOS）和术后呼吸困难评分来确定。通过比较干预失败和不良事件来测量并发症。
方法：退伍军人事务公司数据仓库用于回顾性审查314名MPE受试者的图表。研究人员估计呼吸困难评分，并通过增加所有入院后的住院时间来确定LOS。通过图表回顾记录并发症。
结果：IPC在干预后1年表现出比其他方法更高的失败率。肺炎/胸部感染率和肺卡压也更为普遍。呼吸困难率无显著差异。LOS说明了组间的显著差异，滑石粉患者在手术后立即在医院花费7天的中位数，而IPC和IPC+TPS患者的中位时间为3天和2天，分别。
结论：与TPS患者相比，接受IPC或联合治疗的患者住院天数更少。然而,与其他管理策略相比，IPC似乎与更多的不良事件和更高的长期失败率相关。
方法：退伍军人事务公司数据仓库用于回顾性审查314名MPE受试者的图表。研究人员估计呼吸困难评分，并通过增加所有入院后的住院时间来确定LOS。通过图表回顾记录并发症。
结果：IPC在干预后1年表现出比其他方法更高的失败率。肺炎/胸部感染率和肺卡压也更为普遍。呼吸困难率无显著差异。LOS说明了组间的显著差异，滑石粉患者在手术后立即在医院花费7天的中位数，而IPC和IPC+TPS患者的中位时间为3天和2天，分别。
结论：与TPS患者相比，接受IPC或联合治疗的患者住院天数更少。然而,与其他管理策略相比，IPC似乎与更多的不良事件和更高的长期失败率相关。
