Rajesh Thomas1,2,3, Edward T H Fysh1,2,3, Nicola A Smith4, Pyng Lee5, Benjamin C H Kwan6, Elaine Yap7, Fiona C Horwood7, Francesco Piccolo8, David C L Lam9, Luke A Garske10, Ranjan Shrestha11, Christopher Kosky2,12, Catherine A Read3, Kevin Murray13, Y C Gary Lee1,2,3. 1. Department of Respiratory Medicine, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, Western Australia, Australia. 2. School of Medicine and Pharmacology, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia. 3. Institute for Respiratory Health, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia. 4. Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand. 5. Division of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Yong Loo Lin Medical School, National University of Singapore, Singapore. 6. Department of Respiratory Medicine, St George Hospital and Sutherland Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 7. Department of Respiratory Medicine, Middlemore Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand. 8. Department of Internal Medicine, St John of God Midland Hospital, Perth, Western Australia, Australia. 9. Department of Medicine, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China. 10. Department of Respiratory and Sleep Medicine, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. 11. Department of Respiratory Medicine, Fiona Stanley Hospital, Perth, Western Australia, Australia. 12. Departments of Pulmonary Physiology and General Medicine, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, Western Australia, Australia. 13. School of Population and Global Health, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.
Abstract
Importance: Indwelling pleural catheter and talc pleurodesis are established treatments for malignant pleural effusions among patients with poor prognosis. Objective: To determine whether indwelling pleural catheters are more effective than talc pleurodesis in reducing total hospitalization days in the remaining lifespan of patients with malignant pleural effusion. Design, Setting, and Participants: This open-label, randomized clinical trial included participants recruited from 9 centers in Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and Hong Kong between July 2012 and October 2014; they were followed up for 12 months (study end date: October 16, 2015). Patients (n = 146) with symptomatic malignant pleural effusion who had not undergone indwelling pleural catheter or pleurodesis treatment were included. Interventions: Participants were randomized (1:1) to indwelling pleural catheter (n = 74) or talc pleurodesis (n = 72), minimized by malignancy (mesothelioma vs others) and trapped lung (vs not), and stratified by region (Australia vs Asia). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the total number of days spent in hospital from procedure to death or to 12 months. Secondary outcomes included further pleural interventions, patient-reported breathlessness, quality-of-life measures, and adverse events. Results: Among the 146 patients who were randomized (median age, 70.5 years; 56.2% male), 2 withdrew before receiving the randomized intervention and were excluded. The indwelling pleural catheter group spent significantly fewer days in hospital than the pleurodesis group (median, 10.0 [interquartile range [IQR], 3-17] vs 12.0 [IQR, 7-21] days; P = .03; Hodges-Lehmann estimate of difference, 2.92 days; 95% CI, 0.43-5.84). The reduction was mainly in effusion-related hospitalization days (median, 1.0 [IQR, 1-3] day with the indwelling pleural catheter vs 4.0 (IQR, 3-6) days with pleurodesis; P < .001; Hodges-Lehmann estimate, 2.06 days; 95% CI, 1.53-2.58). Fewer patients randomized to indwelling pleural catheter required further ipsilateral invasive pleural drainages (4.1% vs 22.5%; difference, 18.4%; 95% CI, 7.7%-29.2%). There were no significant differences in improvements in breathlessness or quality of life offered by indwelling pleural catheter or talc pleurodesis. Adverse events were seen in 22 patients in the indwelling pleural catheter group (30 events) and 13 patients in the pleurodesis group (18 events). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with malignant pleural effusion, treatment with an indwelling pleural catheter vs talc pleurodesis resulted in fewer hospitalization days from treatment to death, but the magnitude of the difference is of uncertain clinical importance. These findings may help inform patient choice of management for pleural effusion. Trial Registration: anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12611000567921.
RCT Entities:
Importance: Indwelling pleural catheter and talc pleurodesis are established treatments for malignant pleural effusions among patients with poor prognosis. Objective: To determine whether indwelling pleural catheters are more effective than talc pleurodesis in reducing total hospitalization days in the remaining lifespan of patients with malignant pleural effusion. Design, Setting, and Participants: This open-label, randomized clinical trial included participants recruited from 9 centers in Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and Hong Kong between July 2012 and October 2014; they were followed up for 12 months (study end date: October 16, 2015). Patients (n = 146) with symptomatic malignant pleural effusion who had not undergone indwelling pleural catheter or pleurodesis treatment were included. Interventions: Participants were randomized (1:1) to indwelling pleural catheter (n = 74) or talc pleurodesis (n = 72), minimized by malignancy (mesothelioma vs others) and trapped lung (vs not), and stratified by region (Australia vs Asia). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the total number of days spent in hospital from procedure to death or to 12 months. Secondary outcomes included further pleural interventions, patient-reported breathlessness, quality-of-life measures, and adverse events. Results: Among the 146 patients who were randomized (median age, 70.5 years; 56.2% male), 2 withdrew before receiving the randomized intervention and were excluded. The indwelling pleural catheter group spent significantly fewer days in hospital than the pleurodesis group (median, 10.0 [interquartile range [IQR], 3-17] vs 12.0 [IQR, 7-21] days; P = .03; Hodges-Lehmann estimate of difference, 2.92 days; 95% CI, 0.43-5.84). The reduction was mainly in effusion-related hospitalization days (median, 1.0 [IQR, 1-3] day with the indwelling pleural catheter vs 4.0 (IQR, 3-6) days with pleurodesis; P < .001; Hodges-Lehmann estimate, 2.06 days; 95% CI, 1.53-2.58). Fewer patients randomized to indwelling pleural catheter required further ipsilateral invasive pleural drainages (4.1% vs 22.5%; difference, 18.4%; 95% CI, 7.7%-29.2%). There were no significant differences in improvements in breathlessness or quality of life offered by indwelling pleural catheter or talc pleurodesis. Adverse events were seen in 22 patients in the indwelling pleural catheter group (30 events) and 13 patients in the pleurodesis group (18 events). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with malignant pleural effusion, treatment with an indwelling pleural catheter vs talc pleurodesis resulted in fewer hospitalization days from treatment to death, but the magnitude of the difference is of uncertain clinical importance. These findings may help inform patient choice of management for pleural effusion. Trial Registration: anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12611000567921.
Authors: Todd L Demmy; Lin Gu; Jack E Burkhalter; Eric M Toloza; Thomas A D'Amico; Susan Sutherland; Xiaofei Wang; Laura Archer; Linda J Veit; Leslie Kohman Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Helen E Davies; Eleanor K Mishra; Brennan C Kahan; John M Wrightson; Andrew E Stanton; Anur Guhan; Christopher W H Davies; Jamal Grayez; Richard Harrison; Anjani Prasad; Nicola Crosthwaite; Y C Gary Lee; Robert J O Davies; Robert F Miller; Najib M Rahman Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-06-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Rajesh Thomas; Charley A Budgeon; Yi Jin Kuok; Catherine Read; Edward T H Fysh; Sean Bydder; Y C Gary Lee Journal: Chest Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Najib M Rahman; Justin Pepperell; Sunita Rehal; Tarek Saba; Augustine Tang; Nabeel Ali; Alex West; Gihan Hettiarachchi; Dipak Mukherjee; Johnson Samuel; Andrew Bentley; Lee Dowson; Jonathan Miles; C Frank Ryan; Ken Y Yoneda; Anoop Chauhan; John P Corcoran; Ioannis Psallidas; John M Wrightson; Rob Hallifax; Helen E Davies; Y C Gary Lee; Melissa Dobson; Emma L Hedley; Douglas Seaton; Nicky Russell; Margaret Chapman; Bethan M McFadyen; Rachel A Shaw; Robert J O Davies; Nick A Maskell; Andrew J Nunn; Robert F Miller Journal: JAMA Date: 2015 Dec 22-29 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Eleanor K Mishra; John P Corcoran; Robert J Hallifax; John Stradling; Nicholas A Maskell; Najib M Rahman Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-04-15 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Amelia O Clive; Brennan C Kahan; Clare E Hooper; Rahul Bhatnagar; Anna J Morley; Natalie Zahan-Evans; Oliver J Bintcliffe; Rogier C Boshuizen; Edward T H Fysh; Claire L Tobin; Andrew R L Medford; John E Harvey; Michel M van den Heuvel; Y C Gary Lee; Nick A Maskell Journal: Thorax Date: 2014-08-06 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: Maree Azzopardi; Rajesh Thomas; Sanjeevan Muruganandan; David C L Lam; Luke A Garske; Benjamin C H Kwan; Muhammad Redzwan S Rashid Ali; Phan T Nguyen; Elaine Yap; Fiona C Horwood; Alexander J Ritchie; Michael Bint; Claire L Tobin; Ranjan Shrestha; Francesco Piccolo; Christian C De Chaneet; Jenette Creaney; Robert U Newton; Delia Hendrie; Kevin Murray; Catherine A Read; David Feller-Kopman; Nick A Maskell; Y C Gary Lee Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-07-05 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Christopher Mallow; Margaret Hayes; Roy Semaan; Thomas Smith; Russell Hales; Roy Brower; Lonny Yarmus Journal: Expert Rev Respir Med Date: 2018-06-19 Impact factor: 3.772