Conservative versus Interventional Treatment for Spontaneous Pneumothorax.

BACKGROUND: Whether conservative management is an acceptable alternative to interventional management for uncomplicated, moderate-to-large primary spontaneous pneumothorax is unknown. METHODS: In this open-label, multicenter, noninferiority trial, we recruited patients 14 to 50 years of age with a first-known, unilateral, moderate-to-large primary spontaneous pneumothorax. Patients were randomly assigned to immediate interventional management of the pneumothorax (intervention group) or a conservative observational approach (conservative-management group) and were followed for 12 months. The primary outcome was lung reexpansion within 8 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 316 patients underwent randomization (154 patients to the intervention group and 162 to the conservative-management group). In the conservative-management group, 25 patients (15.4%) underwent interventions to manage the pneumothorax, for reasons prespecified in the protocol, and 137 (84.6%) did not undergo interventions. In a complete-case analysis in which data were not available for 23 patients in the intervention group and 37 in the conservative-management group, reexpansion within 8 weeks occurred in 129 of 131 patients (98.5%) with interventional management and in 118 of 125 (94.4%) with conservative management (risk difference, -4.1 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -8.6 to 0.5; P = 0.02 for noninferiority); the lower boundary of the 95% confidence interval was within the prespecified noninferiority margin of -9 percentage points. In a sensitivity analysis in which all missing data after 56 days were imputed as treatment failure (with reexpansion in 129 of 138 patients [93.5%] in the intervention group and in 118 of 143 [82.5%] in the conservative-management group), the risk difference of -11.0 percentage points (95% CI, -18.4 to -3.5) was outside the prespecified noninferiority margin. Conservative management resulted in a lower risk of serious adverse events or pneumothorax recurrence than interventional management. CONCLUSIONS: Although the primary outcome was not statistically robust to conservative assumptions about missing data, the trial provides modest evidence that conservative management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax was noninferior to interventional management, with a lower risk of serious adverse events. (Funded by the Emergency Medicine Foundation and others; PSP Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12611000184976.).

Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of invasive versus conservative management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax.

INTRODUCTION: Current management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax (PSP) is variable, with little evidence from randomised controlled trials to guide treatment. Guidelines emphasise intervention in many patients, which involves chest drain insertion, hospital admission and occasionally surgery. However, there is evidence that conservative management may be effective and safe, and it may also reduce the risk of recurrence. Significant questions remain regarding the optimal initial approach to the management of PSP. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This multicentre, prospective, randomised, open label, parallel group, non-inferiority study will randomise 342 participants with a first large PSP to conservative or interventional management. To maintain allocation concealment, randomisation will be performed in real time by computer and stratified by study site. Conservative management will involve a period of observation prior to discharge, with intervention for worsening symptoms or physiological instability. Interventional treatment will involve insertion of a small bore drain. If drainage continues after 1 hour, the patient will be admitted. If drainage stops, the drain will be clamped for 4 hours. The patient will be discharged if the lung remains inflated. Otherwise, the patient will be admitted. The primary end point is the proportion of participants with complete lung re-expansion by 8 weeks. Secondary end points are as follows: days in hospital, persistent air leak, predefined complications and adverse events, time to resolution of symptoms, and pneumothorax recurrence during a follow-up period of at least 1 year. The study has 95% power to detect an absolute non-inferiority margin of 9%, assuming 99% successful expansion at 8 weeks in the invasive treatment arm. The primary analysis will be by intention to treat. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Local ethics approval has been obtained for all sites. Study findings will be disseminated by publication in a high-impact international journal and presentation at major international Emergency Medicine and Respiratory meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12611000184976; Pre-results.

Protocol of the Australasian Malignant Pleural Effusion (AMPLE) trial: a multicentre randomised study comparing indwelling pleural catheter versus talc pleurodesis.

INTRODUCTION: Malignant pleural effusion can complicate most cancers. It causes breathlessness and requires hospitalisation for invasive pleural drainages. Malignant effusions often herald advanced cancers and limited prognosis. Minimising time spent in hospital is of high priority to patients and their families. Various treatment strategies exist for the management of malignant effusions, though there is no consensus governing the best choice. Talc pleurodesis is the conventional management but requires hospitalisation (and substantial healthcare resources), can cause significant side effects, and has a suboptimal success rate. Indwelling pleural catheters (IPCs) allow ambulatory fluid drainage without hospitalisation, and are increasingly employed for management of malignant effusions. Previous studies have only investigated the length of hospital care immediately related to IPC insertion. Whether IPC management reduces time spent in hospital in the patients' remaining lifespan is unknown. A strategy of malignant effusion management that reduces hospital admission days will allow patients to spend more time outside hospital, reduce costs and save healthcare resources. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Australasian Malignant Pleural Effusion (AMPLE) trial is a multicentred, randomised trial designed to compare IPC with talc pleurodesis for the management of malignant pleural effusion. This study will randomise 146 adults with malignant pleural effusions (1:1) to IPC management or talc slurry pleurodesis. The primary end point is the total number of days spent in hospital (for any admissions) from treatment procedure to death or end of study follow-up. Secondary end points include hospital days specific to pleural effusion management, adverse events, self-reported symptom and quality-of-life scores. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Sir Charles Gairdner Group Human Research Ethics Committee has approved the study as have the ethics boards of all the participating hospitals. The trial results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry-ACTRN12611000567921; National Institutes of Health-NCT02045121.