↓ Skip to main content

New strategies to manage complicated pleural effusions

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, May 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
New strategies to manage complicated pleural effusions
Published in
Critical Care, May 2012
DOI 10.1186/cc11337
Pubmed ID
Authors

Majed Safiyeh, David Huang

Abstract

EXPANDED ABSTRACT: CITATION: Rahman NM, Maskell NA, West A, Teoh R, Arnold A, Mackinlay C, Peckham D, Davies CW, Ali N, Kinnear W, Bentley A, Kahan BC, Wrightson JM, Davies HE, Hooper CE, Lee YC, Hedley EL, Crosthwaite N, Choo L, Helm EJ, Gleeson FV, Nunn AJ, Davies RJ: N Engl J Med 2011, 365:518-26. PMID: 21830966, available on www.pubmed. gov BACKGROUND: More than 30% of patients with pleural infection either die or require surgery. Drainage of infected fluid is the key to successful treatment, but intrapleural fibrinolytic therapy did not improve outcomes in an earlier, large, randomized trial therapy (Multicenter Intrapleural Sepsis Trial [MIST1]). METHODS: Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of intrapleural DNase alone, alteplase alone, or the combination of both, to improve pleural drainage.Design: Multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, 2 × 2 factorial randomized trial.Setting: Eleven centers in the United Kingdom (UK).Subjects: Adult patients (mean age 59 years, 72% men), who had clinical evidence of infection, and pleural fluid that had macroscopic purulence, a positive culture or Gram stain for bacteria, or a pH < 7.2.Intervention: Patients were assigned to 1 of the 4 study interventions for 3 days: double placebo, intrapleural tissue plasminogen activator (t-PA) and DNase, t-PA and placebo, or DNase and placebo.Outcomes: The primary outcome was the change in pleural opacity, measured as the percentage of the hemithorax occupied by effusion, on chest radiography on day 7 as compared with day 1. Secondary outcomes included referral for surgery, duration of hospital stay, and adverse events. RESULTS: The mean (± SD) change in pleural opacity was greater in the t-PA-DNase group than in the placebo group (-29.5 ± 23.3% vs. -17.2 ± 19.6%; difference, -7.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -13.4 to -2.4; P = 0.005). The change observed with t-PA alone and with DNase alone (-17.2 ± 24.3 and -14.7 ± 16.4%, respectively) was not significantly different from that observed with placebo. The frequency of surgical referral at 3 months was lower in the t-PA-DNase group than in the placebo group (2 of 48 patients [4%] vs. 8 of 51 patients [16%]; odds ratio for surgical referral, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.87; P = 0.03) but was greater in the DNase group (18 of 46 patients [39%]) than in the placebo group (odds ratio, 3.56; 95% CI, 1.30 to 9.75; P = 0.01). Combined t-PA-DNase therapy was associated with a reduction in the hospital stay, as compared with placebo (difference, -6.7 days; 95% CI, -12.0 to -1.9; P = 0.006). Hospital stay with either agent alone was not significantly different from that with placebo. The frequency of adverse events did not differ significantly among the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Intrapleural t-PA-DNase therapy improved fluid drainage in patients with pleural infection and reduced the frequency of surgical referral and the duration of hospital stay. Treatment with DNase alone or t-PA alone was ineffective.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 5%
Switzerland 1 3%
United States 1 3%
Unknown 34 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 7 18%
Student > Postgraduate 7 18%
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Researcher 4 11%
Student > Master 4 11%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 5 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 76%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Computer Science 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Unknown 6 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 May 2012.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#5,970
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#138,961
of 177,680 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#82
of 107 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 177,680 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 107 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.