Impact of a Dedicated Pleural Clinic on Indwelling Pleural Catheter Related Outcomes: A Retrospective Single Center Experience.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent pleural effusions are a major cause of morbidity and frequently lead to hospitalization. Indwelling pleural catheters (IPCs) are tunneled catheters that allow ambulatory intermittent drainage of pleural fluid without repeated thoracentesis. Despite the efficacy and safety of IPCs, data supporting postplacement follow-up is limited and variable. Our study aims to characterize the impact of a dedicated pleural clinic (PC) on patient outcomes as they relate to IPCs. METHODS: Patients who underwent IPC placement between 2015 and 2021 were included in this retrospective study. Differences in outcomes were analyzed between patients with an IPC placed and managed by Interventional Pulmonology (IP) through the PC and those placed by non-IP services (non-PC providers) before and after the PC implementation. RESULTS: In total, 371 patients received IPCs. Since the implementation of the PC, there was an increase in ambulatory IPC placement (31/133 pre-PC vs. 96/238 post-PC; P =0.001). There were fewer admissions before IPC placement (18/103 vs. 43/133; P =0.01), and fewer thoracenteses per patient (2.7±2.5 in PC cohort vs. 4±5.1 in non-PC cohort; P <0.01). The frequency of pleurodesis was higher in the PC cohort (40/103 vs. 41/268; P <0.001). A Fine and Gray competing risks model indicated higher likelihood of pleurodesis in the PC cohort (adjusted subhazard ratio 3.8, 95% CI: 2.5-5.87). CONCLUSION: Our experience suggests that the implementation of a dedicated PC can lead to improved patient outcomes including fewer procedures and admissions before IPC placement, and increased rates of pleurodesis with IPC removal.

Clinical features, diagnostics, and outcomes of patients presenting with acute respiratory illness: A retrospective cohort study of patients with and without COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Most data on the clinical presentation, diagnostics, and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 have been presented as case series without comparison to patients with other acute respiratory illnesses. METHODS: We examined emergency department patients between February 3 and March 31, 2020 with an acute respiratory illness who were tested for SARS-CoV-2. We determined COVID-19 status by PCR and metagenomic next generation sequencing (mNGS). We compared clinical presentation, diagnostics, treatment, and outcomes. FINDINGS: Among 316 patients, 33 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2; 31 without COVID-19 tested positive for another respiratory virus. Among patients with additional viral testing (27/33), no SARS-CoV-2 co-infections were identified. Compared to those who tested negative, patients with COVID-19 reported longer symptoms duration (median 7d vs. 3d, p < 0.001). Patients with COVID-19 were more often hospitalized (79% vs. 56%, p = 0.014). When hospitalized, patients with COVID-19 had longer hospitalizations (median 10.7d vs. 4.7d, p < 0.001) and more often developed ARDS (23% vs. 3%, p < 0.001). Most comorbidities, medications, symptoms, vital signs, laboratories, treatments, and outcomes did not differ by COVID-19 status. INTERPRETATION: While we found differences in clinical features of COVID-19 compared to other acute respiratory illnesses, there was significant overlap in presentation and comorbidities. Patients with COVID-19 were more likely to be admitted to the hospital, have longer hospitalizations and develop ARDS, and were unlikely to have co-existent viral infections. FUNDING: National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Heart Lung Blood Institute, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, Chan Zuckerberg Initiative.

Qualitative coronary artery calcium assessment on CT lung screening exam helps predict first cardiac events.

RESULTS: A total of 1,513 individuals underwent CTLS. Downstream data, pre-test cardiac risk factors and CAC scores were available for 88.3% (1,336/1,513). The average length of follow-up was 2.64 (SD ±0.72) years. There were a total of 43 events, occurring in 1.55% (6/386) of patients with mild CAC, 3.24% (11/339) of patients with moderate CAC, and 8.90% (26/292) of patients with marked CAC. There were no events among patients with no reported CAC (0/319). Using multivariable logistic modeling, the increased odds of an initial cardiac event was 2.56 (95% CI, 1.76-3.92, P<0.001) for mild CAC, 6.57 (95% CI, 3.10-15.4, P<0.001) for moderate CAC, and 16.8 (95% CI, 5.46-60.3, P<0.001) for marked CAC, as compared to individuals with no CAC. Time to event analysis showed distinct differences among the four CAC categories (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Qualitative coronary artery calcification scoring of CTLS exams may provide a novel method to help select individuals at elevated risk for an initial cardiac event.