Indwelling Pleural Catheter Is as Effective as Talc Pleurodesis Via Chest Tube in Relieving Dyspnea in Patients with Malignant Pleural Effusion
Clinical question: Is indwelling pleural catheter (IPC) as effective as chest tube and talc pleurodesis (talc) in improving dyspnea from malignant pleural effusion in patients who had no previous pleurodesis?
Background: Despite guidelines recommending chest tube insertion with pleurodesis as a first-line treatment for symptom palliation from malignant pleural effusion, there has been no randomized trial comparing indwelling pleural catheter with chest tube and talc pleurodesis.
Study design: Open-label, randomized controlled trial.
Setting: Seven hospitals in the United Kingdom.
Synopsis: One hundred six patients with malignant pleural effusion were randomized to undergo either IPC or talc treatment, and their daily mean dyspnea was measured. There was a clinically significant improvement of dyspnea in both IPC and talc groups over the first 42 days of the trial, without any significant difference in dyspnea between the two groups. After six months, researchers found a clinically significant decrease in dyspnea in the IPC group compared with the talc group. Chest pain and global quality of life were improved and were similar in both groups throughout the trial period. Length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the IPC group compared with the talc group, but more patients in the IPC group experienced adverse events.
Bottom line: Indwelling pleural catheter is as effective as talc pleurodesis in reliving dyspnea from malignant pleural effusion; however, IPC is associated with increased adverse events despite shorter length of hospital stay.
Citation: Davies HE, Mishra EK, Kahan BC, et al. Effect of an indwelling pleural catheter vs. chest tube and talc pleurodesis for relieving dyspnea in patients with malignant pleural effusion: the TIME2 randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2012;307(22):2383-2389.
Early Surgery Better than Conventional Treatment in High-Risk Native-Valve Endocarditis
Clinical question: Is early cardiac surgery better than conventional treatment for patients with left-sided, native-valve, infective endocarditis?
Background: Although guidelines strongly recommend early surgery for patients with infective endocarditis and congestive heart failure, the timing of surgery for patients with large vegetations and high risk of embolism without heart failure symptoms remains controversial.
Study design: Prospective, randomized trial.
Setting: Two medical centers in South Korea.
Synopsis: Seventy-six patients with left-sided, native-valve, infective endocarditis with a high risk of embolism (defined as vegetation with a diameter greater than 10 mm or severe mitral or aortic valve disease) were randomized to undergo early surgery (within 48 hours of enrollment) or conventional treatment (antibiotic therapy and surgery only if complications required urgent surgery). The primary outcome of composite in-hospital death or
clinical embolic events within six weeks of the trial occurred in only one patient in the early surgery group, compared with nine patients in the conventional group (hazard ratio 0.10, 95% CI, 0.01-0.82, P=0.03).
There was no difference in all-cause mortality at six months between the two groups, but the rate of composite endpoint of death from any cause, embolic events, or recurrence of infective endocarditis at six months was significantly lower in the early surgery group compared with the conventional group.
Bottom line: Early cardiac surgery for patients with left-sided, native-valve infective endocarditis with a high risk of embolism significantly improved the composite outcome of all-cause mortality, embolic events, or recurrence of endocarditis compared with the conventional therapy.
Citation: Kang DH, Kim YJ, Kim SH, et al. Early surgery versus conventional treatment for infective endocarditis. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(26):2466-2473.