RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Prior studies have found no differences in procedural chest discomfort for patients undergoing manual syringe aspiration or drainage with gravity after thoracentesis. However, whether gravity drainage could protect against chest pain due to the larger negative-pressure gradient generated by wall suction has not been investigated. RESEARCH QUESTION: Does wall suction drainage result in more chest discomfort compared with gravity drainage in patients undergoing large-volume thoracentesis? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: In this multicenter, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial, patients with large free-flowing effusions of ≥ 500 mL were assigned at a 1:1 ratio to wall suction or gravity drainage. Wall suction was performed with a suction system attached to the suction tubing and with vacuum pressure adjusted to full vacuum. Gravity drainage was performed with a drainage bag placed 100 cm below the catheter insertion site and connected via straight tubing. Patients rated chest discomfort on a 100-mm visual analog scale before, during, and after drainage. The primary outcome was postprocedural chest discomfort at 5 min. Secondary outcomes included measures of postprocedure chest discomfort, breathlessness, procedure time, volume of fluid drained, and complication rates. RESULTS: Of the 228 patients initially randomized, 221 were included in the final analysis. The primary outcome of procedural chest discomfort did not differ significantly between the groups (P = .08), nor did the secondary outcomes of postprocedural discomfort and dyspnea. Similar volumes were drained in both groups, but the procedure duration was longer in the gravity arm by approximately 3 min. No differences in rate of pneumothorax or reexpansion pulmonary edema were noted between the two groups. INTERPRETATION: Thoracentesis via wall suction and gravity drainage results in similar levels of procedural discomfort and dyspnea improvement. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT05131945; URL: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov.
RESUMO
Lung and breast cancer are the two most common causes of malignant pleural effusion (MPE). MPE diagnosis plays a crucial role in determining staging and therapeutic interventions in these cancers. However, our understanding of the pathogenesis and progression of MPE at the molecular level is limited. Extracellular Vesicles (EVs) and their contents, including microRNAs (miRNAs), can be isolated from all bodily fluids, including pleural fluid. This study aims to compare EV-miRNA patterns of expression in MPE caused by breast (BA-MPE) and lung (LA-MPE) adenocarcinomas compared to the control group of heart-failure-induced effusions (HF-PE). We conducted an analysis of 24 pleural fluid samples (8 LA-MPE, 8 BA-MPE, and 8 HF-PE). Using NanoString technology, we profiled miRNAs within EVs isolated from 12 cases. Bioinformatic analysis demonstrated differential expression of miR-1246 in the MPE group vs. HF-PE group and miR-150-5p and miR-1246 in the BA-MPE vs. LA-MPE group, respectively. This difference was demonstrated and validated in an independent cohort using real-time PCR (RT-PCR). miRNA-1246 demonstrated 4-fold increased expression (OR: 3.87, 95% CI: 0.43, 35) in the MPE vs. HF-PE group, resulting in an area under the curve of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.60, 0.99). The highest accuracy for differentiating MPE vs. HF-PE was seen with a combination of miRNAs compared to each miRNA alone. Consistent with prior studies, this study demonstrates dysregulation of specific EV-based miRNAs in breast and lung cancer; pleural fluid provides direct access for the analysis of these EV-miRNAs as biomarkers and potential targets and may provide insight into the underlying pathogenesis of tumor progression. These findings should be explored in large prospective studies.