Guidelines for Specialized Epilepsy Centers: Executive Summary of the Report of the National Association of Epilepsy Centers Guideline Panel.

The National Association of Epilepsy Centers first published the guidelines for epilepsy centers in 1990, which were last updated in 2010. Since that update, epilepsy care and the science of guideline development have advanced significantly, including the importance of incorporating a diversity of stakeholder perspectives such as those of patients and their caregivers. Currently, despite extensive published data examining the efficacy of treatments and diagnostic testing for epilepsy, there remain significant gaps in data identifying the essential services needed for a comprehensive epilepsy center and the optimal manner for their delivery. The trustworthy consensus-based statements (TCBS) process produces unbiased, scientifically valid guidelines through a transparent process that incorporates available evidence and expert opinion. A systematic literature search returned 5937 relevant studies from which 197 articles were retained for data extraction. A panel of 41 stakeholders with diverse expertise evaluated this evidence and drafted recommendations following the TCBS process. The panel reached consensus on 52 recommendations covering services provided by specialized epilepsy centers in both the inpatient and outpatient settings in major topic areas including epilepsy monitoring unit care, surgery, neuroimaging, neuropsychology, genetics, and outpatient care. Recommendations were informed by the evidence review and reflect the consensus of a broad panel of expert opinions.

AABIP Evidence-informed Guidelines and Expert Panel Report for the Management of Indwelling Pleural Catheters.

BACKGROUND: While the efficacy of Indwelling pleural catheters for palliation of malignant pleural effusions is supported by relatively robust evidence, there is less clarity surrounding the postinsertion management. METHODS: The Trustworthy Consensus-Based Statement approach was utilized to develop unbiased, scientifically valid guidance for the management of patients with malignant effusions treated with indwelling pleural catheters. A comprehensive electronic database search of PubMed was performed based on a priori crafted PICO questions (Population/Intervention/Comparator/Outcomes paradigm). Manual searches of the literature were performed to identify additional relevant literature. Dual screenings at the title, abstract, and full-text levels were performed. Identified studies were then assessed for quality based on a combination of validated tools. Appropriateness for data pooling and formation of evidence-based recommendations was assessed using predetermined criteria. All panel members participated in development of the final recommendations utilizing the modified Delphi technique. RESULTS: A total of 7 studies were identified for formal quality assessment, all of which were deemed to have a high risk of bias. There was insufficient evidence to allow for data pooling and formation of any evidence-based recommendations. Panel consensus resulted in 11 ungraded consensus-based recommendations. CONCLUSION: This manuscript was developed to provide clinicians with guidance on the management of patients with indwelling pleural catheters placed for palliation of malignant pleural effusions. Through a systematic and rigorous process, management suggestions were developed based on the best available evidence with augmentation by expert opinion when necessary. In addition, these guidelines highlight important gaps in knowledge which require further study.

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.

Management of Malignant Pleural Effusions. An Official ATS/STS/STR Clinical Practice Guideline.

BACKGROUND: This Guideline, a collaborative effort from the American Thoracic Society, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and Society of Thoracic Radiology, aims to provide evidence-based recommendations to guide contemporary management of patients with a malignant pleural effusion (MPE). METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel developed seven questions using the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcomes) format. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach and the Evidence to Decision framework was applied to each question. Recommendations were formulated, discussed, and approved by the entire panel. RESULTS: The panel made weak recommendations in favor of: 1) using ultrasound to guide pleural interventions; 2) not performing pleural interventions in asymptomatic patients with MPE; 3) using either an indwelling pleural catheter (IPC) or chemical pleurodesis in symptomatic patients with MPE and suspected expandable lung; 4) performing large-volume thoracentesis to assess symptomatic response and lung expansion; 5) using either talc poudrage or talc slurry for chemical pleurodesis; 6) using IPC instead of chemical pleurodesis in patients with nonexpandable lung or failed pleurodesis; and 7) treating IPC-associated infections with antibiotics and not removing the catheter. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations, based on the best available evidence, can guide management of patients with MPE and improve patient outcomes.