Pyeong Hwa Kim1, Jiaywei Tsauo2, Ji Hoon Shin3. 1. Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88, Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul 138-736, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Interventional Therapy, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China. 3. Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88, Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul 138-736, Republic of Korea. Electronic address: jhshin@amc.seoul.kr.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies to evaluate the efficacy of lymphatic interventions for chylothorax. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for English-language studies until March 2017 that included patients with chylothorax treated with lymphangiography (LAG), thoracic duct embolization (TDE), or thoracic duct disruption (TDD). Exclusion criteria were as follows: a sample size of less than 10 patients, no extractable data, or data included in subsequent articles or duplicate reports. RESULTS: The cases of 407 patients from 9 studies were evaluated. The pooled technical success rates of LAG and TDE were 94.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 88.4%-97.2%; I2 = 46.7%) and 63.1% (95% CI, 55.4%-70.2%; I2 = 37.3%), respectively. The pooled clinical success rates of LAG, TDE, and TDD, on a per-protocol basis, were 56.6% (95% CI, 45.4%-67.2%; I2 = 5.4%), 79.4% (95% CI, 64.8%-89.0%; I2 = 68.1%), and 60.8% (95% CI, 49.4%-71.2%; I2 = 0%), respectively. The pooled major complication rate of LAG and TDE was 1.9% (95% CI, 0.8%-4.3%; I2 = 0%) and 2.4% (95% CI, 0.9%-6.6%; I2 = 26.4%), respectively. The pooled overall clinical success rate of lymphatic interventions, on an intention-to-treat basis, was 60.1% (95% CI, 52.1%-67.7%; I2 = 54.3%). Etiology of chylothorax was identified as a significant source of heterogeneity for the pooled clinical success rate of TDE and overall clinical success rate. CONCLUSIONS: Lymphatic interventions have a respectable efficacy for the treatment of chylothorax.
PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies to evaluate the efficacy of lymphatic interventions for chylothorax. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for English-language studies until March 2017 that included patients with chylothorax treated with lymphangiography (LAG), thoracic duct embolization (TDE), or thoracic duct disruption (TDD). Exclusion criteria were as follows: a sample size of less than 10 patients, no extractable data, or data included in subsequent articles or duplicate reports. RESULTS: The cases of 407 patients from 9 studies were evaluated. The pooled technical success rates of LAG and TDE were 94.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 88.4%-97.2%; I2 = 46.7%) and 63.1% (95% CI, 55.4%-70.2%; I2 = 37.3%), respectively. The pooled clinical success rates of LAG, TDE, and TDD, on a per-protocol basis, were 56.6% (95% CI, 45.4%-67.2%; I2 = 5.4%), 79.4% (95% CI, 64.8%-89.0%; I2 = 68.1%), and 60.8% (95% CI, 49.4%-71.2%; I2 = 0%), respectively. The pooled major complication rate of LAG and TDE was 1.9% (95% CI, 0.8%-4.3%; I2 = 0%) and 2.4% (95% CI, 0.9%-6.6%; I2 = 26.4%), respectively. The pooled overall clinical success rate of lymphatic interventions, on an intention-to-treat basis, was 60.1% (95% CI, 52.1%-67.7%; I2 = 54.3%). Etiology of chylothorax was identified as a significant source of heterogeneity for the pooled clinical success rate of TDE and overall clinical success rate. CONCLUSIONS: Lymphatic interventions have a respectable efficacy for the treatment of chylothorax.
Authors: Bill S Majdalany; Mamadou L Sanogo; Waleska M Pabon-Ramos; Kyle A Wilson; Abhishek K Goswami; Nima Kokabi; Minhaj S Khaja Journal: Semin Intervent Radiol Date: 2020-07-31 Impact factor: 1.513
Authors: C M Sommer; C C Pieper; F Offensperger; F Pan; H J Killguss; J Köninger; M Loos; T Hackert; M Wortmann; T D Do; G Maleux; G M Richter; H U Kauczor; J Kim; S Hur Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2021-04-12 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Shenise N Gilyard; Minhaj S Khaja; Abhishek K Goswami; Nima Kokabi; Wael E Saad; Bill S Majdalany Journal: Semin Intervent Radiol Date: 2020-07-31 Impact factor: 1.513