Joint ERS/EACTS/ESTS clinical practice guidelines on adults with spontaneous pneumothorax.

BACKGROUND: The optimal management for spontaneous pneumothorax (SP) remains contentious, with various proposed approaches. This joint clinical practice guideline from the ERS, EACTS and ESTS societies provides evidence-based recommendations for the management of SP. METHODS: This multidisciplinary Task Force addressed 12 key clinical questions on the management of pneumothorax, using ERS methodology for guideline development. Systematic searches were performed in MEDLINE and Embase. Evidence was synthesised by conducting meta-analyses, if possible, or narratively. Certainty of evidence was rated with GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations). The Evidence to Decision framework was used to decide on the direction and strength of the recommendations. RESULTS: The panel makes a conditional recommendation for conservative care of minimally symptomatic patients with primary spontaneous pneumothorax (PSP) who are clinically stable. We make a strong recommendation for needle aspiration over chest tube drain for initial PSP treatment. We make a conditional recommendation for ambulatory management for initial PSP treatment. We make a conditional recommendation for early surgical intervention for the initial treatment of PSP in patients who prioritise recurrence prevention. The panel makes a conditional recommendation for autologous blood patch in secondary SP patients with persistent air leak (PAL). The panel could not make recommendations for other interventions, including bronchial valves, suction, pleurodesis in addition to surgical resection or type of surgical pleurodesis. CONCLUSIONS: With this international guideline, the ERS, EACTS and ESTS societies provide clinical practice recommendations for SP management. We highlight evidence gaps for the management of PAL and recurrence prevention, with research recommendations made.

DUETS for Light's in separating exudate from transudate.

BACKGROUND: Fifty years since its inception, Light's criteria have aided in classifying pleural effusions (PEs) as exudates if 1 or more criteria are met. Thoracic ultrasound (US) emerges as a non-invasive technique for point of care use especially if pleural procedures are contemplated. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop a score based on radiological and US features that could separate exudates from transudates without serum and pleural fluid biochemical tests necessary for Light's criteria. METHODS: A prospective review of consecutive patients with PE who underwent thoracocentesis was performed. CXRs were evaluated for laterality followed by US for echogenicity, pleural nodularity, thickening and septations. PE was classified as exudate or transudate according to Light's criteria and corroborated with albumin gradient. A score combining radiological and US features was developed. RESULTS: We recruited 201 patients with PE requiring thoracocentesis. Mean age was 64 years, 51% were females, 164 (81.6%) were exudates, and 37 (18.4%) were transudates. Assigning 1-point for Diaphragmatic nodularity, Unilateral, Echogenicity, Pleural Thickening and Septations, DUETS ranged from 1 to 5. DUETS ≥2 indicated high likelihood for exudate (PPV 98.8%, NPV 100%) with 1% misclassification versus 6.9% using Light's criteria (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: DUETS separated exudates from transudates with good accuracy, and could obviate paired serum and pleural fluid tests necessary for Light's criteria computation. Our study reflected real world practice where DUETS performed better than Light's criteria for PE that arose from more than one disease processes, and in the evaluation of patients with PE who have received diuretics.

The third PLeuralEffusion And Symptom Evaluation (PLEASE-3) study: Bendopnoea in patients with pleural effusion.

Background: Pleural effusions often cause disabling breathlessness, however the mechanism is unknown. Patients with pleural effusions are subjected to pleural fluid drainage on a 'trial and error' basis, as symptom relief varies. This population commonly complain of bendopnoea (breathlessness on bending forward) which has not been investigated. Our pilot data found bendopnoea was significantly associated with presence of pleural effusion. The PLEASE-3 study will evaluate bendopnoea as a screening test for effusion-related breathlessness, its predictive value of symptomatic benefits from fluid drainage and explore its underlying physiological mechanism. Methods: PLEASE-3 is a multi-centre prospective study. Eligible patients are assessed at baseline (pre-drainage) and for patients undergoing drainage, up to 72 h post-procedure. Outcome measures include the prevalence of bendopnoea, its correlation with size of effusion and its predictive value of breathlessness relief after drainage. The relationship of bendopnoea with breathlessness, physiological parameters, functional capacity and diaphragmatic characteristics will be assessed. The study will recruit 200 participants. Discussion: This is the first study to investigate bendopnoea in patients with pleural effusion. It has minimal exclusion criteria to ensure that the results are generalisable. The presence and clinical significance of bendopnoea in the context of pleural effusion requires thorough investigation. The post assessment of patients undergoing pleural fluid drainage will provide insight into whether the presence of bendopnoea is able to predict clinical outcomes. Trial Registration: Name of the registry: Australia New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry Trial registration number: ACTRN12622000465752. URL of the trial registry record for this trial: https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=383639&isReview=true Date of registration: Registered on 24 March 2022. Funding of the trial: This study has received funding from the Sir Charles Gairdner Research Advisory Council research project grant. The study is sponsored by the Institute for Respiratory Health, a not-for-profit organisation. Name and contact information for the trial sponsor: Mr Bi Lam; Finance manager. Level 2, 6 Verdun Street, Nedlands WA 6009. t‖ + 61 8 6151 0877 e‖ bi.lam@resphealth.uwa.edu.au Role of sponsor : The funder is not involved in the planning of the study, gathering, analysing, and interpreting the data, or in preparing the manuscript.

The Pneumothorax And Symptom Evaluation (PASE) study: Bendopnoea in patients with pneumothorax.

Background: Pneumothorax can cause distressing breathlessness, however the effect of the accumulated air in the pleural space and its association with diaphragmatic function and symptoms of breathlessness is not well understood. Bendopnoea is an evolving clinical symptom that has been demonstrated as clinically useful in some heart and lung conditions. Whether bendopnoea is present in patients with pneumothorax, and its potential clinical usefulness has not yet been investigated. The PASE study is a pilot study to explore the incidence and clinical relevance of bendopnoea in patients with pneumothorax and may provide better understanding of pneumothorax related dyspnoea. Methods: PASE is a prospective study. Eligible patients are assessed at baseline (pre air drainage/lung reinflation) and in patients whose pneumothorax resolves once the lung has re-expanded (post conservative management or air drainage procedure). Outcome measures include the incidence of bendopnoea, correlation of the associated symptoms (pain and breathlessness) to the severity of bendopnoea and the size of pneumothorax; and correlation with clinical outcome (i.e., response to air drainage/lung reinflation). The study will recruit 50 participants. Discussion: This is the first study to explore bendopnoea in patients with pneumothorax. The presence and significance of bendopnoea in relation to clinical and physiological parameters in patients with pneumothorax requires investigation. The findings of this study may further current understanding of dyspnoea related pneumothorax. Trial Registration: Name of the registry: Australia New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry Trial registration number : ACTRN12623001109695p. URL of the trial registry record for this trial : https://anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=386631&isReview=true Date of registration : Registered on 24 October 2023. Funding of the trial : This study has not received grant support. The study is sponsored by the Institute for Respiratory Health, a not-for-profit organisation. Name and contact information for the trial sponsor : Mr Bi Lam; Finance manager. Level 2, 6 Verdun Street, Nedlands, WA 6009. Role of sponsor : The funder is not involved in the planning of the study, gathering, analysing, and interpreting the data, or in preparing the manuscript. Protocol version : 1.

Leveraging the pleural space for anticancer therapies in pleural mesothelioma.

Most patients with pleural mesothelioma (PM) present with symptomatic pleural effusion. In some patients, PM is only detectable on the pleural surfaces, providing a strong rationale for intrapleural anticancer therapy. In modern prospective studies involving expert radiological staging and specialist multidisciplinary teams, the population incidence of stage I PM (an approximate surrogate of pleura-only PM) is higher than in historical retrospective series. In this Viewpoint, we advocate for the expansion of intrapleural trials to serve these patients, given the paucity of data supporting licensed systemic therapies in this setting and the uncertainties involved in surgical therapy. We begin by reviewing the unique anatomical and physiological features of the PM-bearing pleural space, before critically appraising the evidence for systemic therapies in stage I PM and previous intrapleural PM trials. We conclude with a summary of key challenges and potential solutions, including optimal trial designs, repurposing of indwelling pleural catheters, and new technologies.

Australasian Malignant PLeural Effusion (AMPLE)-4 trial: study protocol for a multi-centre randomised trial of topical antibiotics prophylaxis for infections of indwelling pleural catheters.

BACKGROUND: Malignant pleural effusion (MPE) is a debilitating condition as it commonly causes disabling breathlessness and impairs quality of life (QoL). Indwelling pleural catheter (IPC) offers an effective alternative for the management of MPE. However, IPC-related infections remain a significant concern and there are currently no long-term strategies for their prevention. The Australasian Malignant PLeural Effusion (AMPLE)-4 trial is a multicentre randomised trial that evaluates the use of topical mupirocin prophylaxis (vs no mupirocin) to reduce catheter-related infections in patients with MPE treated with an IPC. METHODS: A pragmatic, multi-centre, open-labelled, randomised trial. Eligible patients with MPE and an IPC will be randomised 1:1 to either regular topical mupirocin prophylaxis or no mupirocin (standard care). For the interventional arm, topical mupirocin will be applied around the IPC exit-site after each drainage, at least twice weekly. Weekly follow-up via phone calls or in person will be conducted for up to 6 months. The primary outcome is the percentage of patients who develop an IPC-related (pleural, skin, or tract) infection between the time of catheter insertion and end of follow-up period. Secondary outcomes include analyses of infection (types and episodes), hospitalisation days, health economics, adverse events, and survival. Subject to interim analyses, the trial will recruit up to 418 participants. DISCUSSION: Results from this trial will determine the efficacy of mupirocin prophylaxis in patients who require IPC for MPE. It will provide data on infection rates, microbiology, and potentially infection pathways associated with IPC-related infections. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Sir Charles Gairdner and Osborne Park Health Care Group Human Research Ethics Committee has approved the study (RGS0000005920). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australia New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12623000253606. Registered on 9 March 2023.

Joint ERS/EACTS/ESTS clinical practice guidelines on adults with spontaneous pneumothorax.

OBJECTIVES: The optimal management for spontaneous pneumothorax (SP) remains contentious, with various proposed approaches. This joint clinical practice guideline from the ERS, EACTS and ESTS societies provides evidence-based recommendations for the management of SP. METHODS: This multidisciplinary Task Force addressed 12 key clinical questions on the management of pneumothorax, using ERS methodology for guideline development. Systematic searches were performed in MEDLINE and Embase. Evidence was synthesised by conducting meta-analyses, if possible, or narratively. Certainty of evidence was rated with GRADE (Grading, Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation). The Evidence to Decision framework was used to decide on the direction and strength of the recommendations. RESULTS: The panel makes a conditional recommendation for conservative care of minimally symptomatic patients with primary spontaneous pneumothorax (PSP) who are clinically stable. We make a strong recommendation for needle aspiration over chest tube drain for initial PSP treatment. We make a conditional recommendation for ambulatory management for initial PSP treatment. We make a conditional recommendation for early surgical intervention for the initial treatment of PSP in patients who prioritise recurrence prevention. The panel makes a conditional recommendation for autologous blood patch in secondary SP patients with persistent air leak (PAL). The panel could not make recommendations for other interventions, including bronchial valves, suction, pleurodesis in addition to surgical resection or type of surgical pleurodesis. CONCLUSIONS: With this international guideline, the ERS, EACTS and ESTS societies provide clinical practice recommendations for SP management. We highlight evidence gaps for the management of PAL and recurrence prevention, with research recommendations made. SHAREABLE ABSTRACT: This update of an ERS Task Force statement from 2015 provides a concise comprehensive update of the literature base. 24 evidence-based recommendations were made for management of pneumothorax, balancing clinical priorities and patient views.https://bit.ly/3TKGp9e.