Indwelling Pleural Catheter versus Pleurodesis for Malignant Pleural Effusions. A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Rationale: Several randomized trials have compared the efficacy of an indwelling pleural catheter (IPC) versus the more traditional chemical pleurodesis in the management of malignant pleural effusion (MPE). Objectives: As part of the American Thoracic Society's guidelines for management of MPE, we performed a systematic review and a meta‐analysis to compare patient‐centered outcomes with the use of a tunneled pleural catheter versus chemical pleurodesis for the first‐line treatment of malignant pleural effusions. Methods: We performed literature searches in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We included randomized controlled trials comparing IPC and pleurodesis in adult patients with symptomatic MPE. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool recommended by the Cochrane Methods Bias Group. The meta‐analysis was performed with Review Manager software, using a random effects model. We used risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) as the effect measure for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences for continuous outcomes. Results: We identified five randomized trials, involving 545 patients, that compared IPC and pleurodesis. Lack of blinding and the inevitable attrition of patients due to death resulted in an overall high risk of bias among the studies. No differences in survival or measures of dyspnea were observed in any of the studies. Total hospital length of stay was shorter, and repeat pleural interventions were less common in the IPC group (RR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.18‐0.55). However, the risk of cellulitis was higher with IPC (RR, 5.83; 95% CI, 1.56‐21.8). No differences were noted in other adverse events. Conclusions: Compared with chemical pleurodesis, IPC results in shorter hospital length of stay and fewer repeat pleural procedures but carries a higher risk of cellulitis. Careful assessment of individual patient preferences and costs should be considered when choosing between IPC and pleurodesis.

[1]  T. Henry,et al.  Management of Malignant Pleural Effusions. An Official ATS/STS/STR Clinical Practice Guideline , 2018, American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine.

[2]  Y. C. Lee,et al.  Effect of an Indwelling Pleural Catheter vs Talc Pleurodesis on Hospitalization Days in Patients With Malignant Pleural Effusion: The AMPLE Randomized Clinical Trial , 2017, JAMA.

[3]  J. Burgers,et al.  A randomized controlled trial comparing indwelling pleural catheters with talc pleurodesis (NVALT-14). , 2017, Lung cancer.

[4]  H. Jones,et al.  Interventions for the management of malignant pleural effusions: a network meta-analysis. , 2016, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[5]  Anoop Chauhan,et al.  Effect of Opioids vs NSAIDs and Larger vs Smaller Chest Tube Size on Pain Control and Pleurodesis Efficacy Among Patients With Malignant Pleural Effusion: The TIME1 Randomized Clinical Trial. , 2015, JAMA.

[6]  R. Mahidhara,et al.  A propensity-matched comparison of pleurodesis or tunneled pleural catheter in patients undergoing diagnostic thoracoscopy for malignancy. , 2013, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[7]  A. Forster,et al.  Management of malignant pleural effusions with indwelling pleural catheters or talc pleurodesis. , 2013, Canadian respiratory journal.

[8]  R. Aye,et al.  Thoracoscopic talc versus tunneled pleural catheters for palliation of malignant pleural effusions. , 2012, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[9]  T. Demmy,et al.  Optimal management of malignant pleural effusions (results of CALGB 30102). , 2012, Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN.

[10]  Y. C. Lee,et al.  Indwelling pleural catheters reduce inpatient days over pleurodesis for malignant pleural effusion. , 2012, Chest.

[11]  R. Davies,et al.  Effect of an indwelling pleural catheter vs chest tube and talc pleurodesis for relieving dyspnea in patients with malignant pleural effusion: the TIME2 randomized controlled trial. , 2012, JAMA.

[12]  Jonathan J Shuster,et al.  Meta‐analysis of safety for low event‐rate binomial trials , 2012, Research synthesis methods.

[13]  M. Raza Management of a malignant pleural effusion: British Thoracic Society pleural disease guideline 2010 , 2011 .

[14]  Edmund Neville,et al.  Management of a malignant pleural effusion: British Thoracic Society pleural disease guideline 2010 , 2010, Thorax.

[15]  Michele Tarsilla Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions , 2010, Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation.

[16]  D. Moher,et al.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. , 2009, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[17]  E. Scalzetti,et al.  Phase III intergroup study of talc poudrage vs talc slurry sclerosis for malignant pleural effusion. , 2005, Chest.

[18]  P. Goldstraw,et al.  Management of malignant pleural effusions. , 2001, The European respiratory journal.

[19]  S. Sahn,et al.  Management of malignant pleural effusions. , 2001, The European respiratory journal.

[20]  J. Roth,et al.  Outpatient management of malignant pleural effusion by a chronic indwelling pleural catheter. , 2000, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[21]  K. Kovitz,et al.  A randomized comparison of indwelling pleural catheter and doxycycline pleurodesis in the management of malignant pleural effusions , 1999, Cancer.