Abstract/Text: The first step in the evaluation of patients with pleural effusion is to determine whether the effusion is a transudate or an exudate. An exudative effusion is diagnosed if the patient meets Light's criteria. The serum to pleural fluid protein or albumin gradients may help better categorize the occasional transudate misidentified as an exudate by these criteria. If the patient has a transudative effusion, therapy should be directed toward the underlying heart failure or cirrhosis. If the patient has an exudative effusion, attempts should be made to define the etiology. Pneumonia, cancer, tuberculosis, and pulmonary embolism account for most exudative effusions. Many pleural fluid tests are useful in the differential diagnosis of exudative effusions. Other tests helpful for diagnosis include helical computed tomography and thoracoscopy.

Abstract/Text: Controversy exists regarding the clinical utility of pleural fluid pH, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and glucose for identifying complicated parapneumonic effusions that require drainage. In this report, we performed a meta-analysis of pertinent studies, using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) techniques, to assess the diagnostic accuracy of these tests, to determine appropriate decision thresholds, and to evaluate the quality of the primary studies. Seven primary studies reporting values for pleural fluid pH (n = 251), LDH (n = 114), or glucose (n = 135) in pneumonia patients were identified. We found that pleural fluid pH had the highest diagnostic accuracy for all patients with parapneumonic effusions as measured by the area under the ROC curve (AUC = 0.92) compared with pleural fluid glucose (AUC = 0.84) or LDH (AUC = 0.82). After excluding patients with purulent effusions, pH (AUC = 0.89) retained the highest diagnostic accuracy. Pleural fluid pH decision thresholds varied between 7.21 and 7.29 depending on cost-prevalence considerations. The quality of the primary studies was the major limitation in determining the value of pleural fluid chemical analysis. We conclude that meta-analysis of the available data refines the application of pleural fluid chemical analysis but a clearer understanding of the usefulness of these tests awaits more rigorous primary investigations.

Abstract/Text: Controversy exists regarding the clinical utility of pleural fluid pH, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and glucose for identifying complicated parapneumonic effusions that require drainage. In this report, we performed a meta-analysis of pertinent studies, using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) techniques, to assess the diagnostic accuracy of these tests, to determine appropriate decision thresholds, and to evaluate the quality of the primary studies. Seven primary studies reporting values for pleural fluid pH (n = 251), LDH (n = 114), or glucose (n = 135) in pneumonia patients were identified. We found that pleural fluid pH had the highest diagnostic accuracy for all patients with parapneumonic effusions as measured by the area under the ROC curve (AUC = 0.92) compared with pleural fluid glucose (AUC = 0.84) or LDH (AUC = 0.82). After excluding patients with purulent effusions, pH (AUC = 0.89) retained the highest diagnostic accuracy. Pleural fluid pH decision thresholds varied between 7.21 and 7.29 depending on cost-prevalence considerations. The quality of the primary studies was the major limitation in determining the value of pleural fluid chemical analysis. We conclude that meta-analysis of the available data refines the application of pleural fluid chemical analysis but a clearer understanding of the usefulness of these tests awaits more rigorous primary investigations.

Abstract/Text: Controversy exists regarding the clinical utility of pleural fluid pH, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and glucose for identifying complicated parapneumonic effusions that require drainage. In this report, we performed a meta-analysis of pertinent studies, using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) techniques, to assess the diagnostic accuracy of these tests, to determine appropriate decision thresholds, and to evaluate the quality of the primary studies. Seven primary studies reporting values for pleural fluid pH (n = 251), LDH (n = 114), or glucose (n = 135) in pneumonia patients were identified. We found that pleural fluid pH had the highest diagnostic accuracy for all patients with parapneumonic effusions as measured by the area under the ROC curve (AUC = 0.92) compared with pleural fluid glucose (AUC = 0.84) or LDH (AUC = 0.82). After excluding patients with purulent effusions, pH (AUC = 0.89) retained the highest diagnostic accuracy. Pleural fluid pH decision thresholds varied between 7.21 and 7.29 depending on cost-prevalence considerations. The quality of the primary studies was the major limitation in determining the value of pleural fluid chemical analysis. We conclude that meta-analysis of the available data refines the application of pleural fluid chemical analysis but a clearer understanding of the usefulness of these tests awaits more rigorous primary investigations.

Abstract/Text: Controversy exists regarding the clinical utility of pleural fluid pH, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and glucose for identifying complicated parapneumonic effusions that require drainage. In this report, we performed a meta-analysis of pertinent studies, using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) techniques, to assess the diagnostic accuracy of these tests, to determine appropriate decision thresholds, and to evaluate the quality of the primary studies. Seven primary studies reporting values for pleural fluid pH (n = 251), LDH (n = 114), or glucose (n = 135) in pneumonia patients were identified. We found that pleural fluid pH had the highest diagnostic accuracy for all patients with parapneumonic effusions as measured by the area under the ROC curve (AUC = 0.92) compared with pleural fluid glucose (AUC = 0.84) or LDH (AUC = 0.82). After excluding patients with purulent effusions, pH (AUC = 0.89) retained the highest diagnostic accuracy. Pleural fluid pH decision thresholds varied between 7.21 and 7.29 depending on cost-prevalence considerations. The quality of the primary studies was the major limitation in determining the value of pleural fluid chemical analysis. We conclude that meta-analysis of the available data refines the application of pleural fluid chemical analysis but a clearer understanding of the usefulness of these tests awaits more rigorous primary investigations.

Abstract/Text: OBJECTIVE: A panel was convened by the Health and Science Policy Committee of the American College of Chest Physicians to develop a clinical practice guideline on the medical and surgical treatment of parapneumonic effusions (PPE) using evidence-based methods.
OPTIONS AND OUTCOMES CONSIDERED: Based on consensus of clinical opinion, the expert panel developed an annotated table for evaluating the risk for poor outcome in patients with PPE. Estimates of the risk for poor outcome were based on the clinical judgment that, without adequate drainage of the pleural space, the patient with PPE would be likely to have any or all of the following: prolonged hospitalization, prolonged evidence of systemic toxicity, increased morbidity from any drainage procedure, increased risk for residual ventilatory impairment, increased risk for local spread of the inflammatory reaction, and increased mortality. Three variables, pleural space anatomy, pleural fluid bacteriology, and pleural fluid chemistry, were used in this annotated table to categorize patients into four separate risk levels for poor outcome: categories 1 (very low risk), 2 (low risk), 3 (moderate risk), and 4 (high risk). The panel's consensus opinion supported drainage for patients with moderate (category 3) or high (category 4) risk for a poor outcome, but not for patients with very low (category 1) or low (category 2) risk for a poor outcome. The medical literature was reviewed to evaluate the effectiveness of medical and surgical management approaches for patients with PPE at moderate or high risk for poor outcome. The panel grouped PPE management approaches into six categories: no drainage performed, therapeutic thoracentesis, tube thoracostomy, fibrinolytics, video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS), and surgery (including thoracotoiny with or without decortication and rib resection). The fibrinolytic approach required tube thoracostomy for administration of drug, and VATS included post-procedure tube thoracostomy. Surgery may have included concomitant lung resection and always included postoperative tube thoracostomy. All management approaches included appropriate treatment of the underlying pneumonia, including systemic antibiotics. Criteria for including articles in the panel review were adequate data provided for >/=20 adult patients with PPE to allow evaluation of at least one relevant outcome (death or need for a second intervention to manage the PPE); reasonable assurance provided that drainage was clinically appropriate (patients receiving drainage were either category 3 or category 4) and drainage procedure was adequately described; and original data were presented. The strength of panel recommendations on management of PPE was based on the following approach: level A, randomized, controlled trials with consistent results or individual randomized, controlled trial with narrow confidence interval (CI); level B, controlled cohort and case control series; level C, historically controlled series and case series; and level D, expert opinion without explicit critical appraisal or based on physiology, bench research, or "first principles."
EVIDENCE: The literature review revealed 24 articles eligible for full review by the panel, 19 of which dealt with the primary management approach to PPE and 5 with a rescue approach after a previous approach had failed. Of the 19 involving the primary management approach to PPE, there were 3 randomized, controlled trials, 2 historically controlled series, and 14 case series. The number of patients included in the randomized controlled trials was small; methodologic weaknesses were found in the 19 articles describing the results of primary management approaches to PPE. The proportion and 95% CI of patients suffering each of the two relevant outcomes (death and need for a second intervention to manage the PPE) were calculated for the pooled data for each management approach from the 19 articles on the primary management approach. (ABST

Abstract/Text: AIM: To assess the value of the British Thoracic Society (BTS) and the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) guidelines to predict which patients with non-purulent parapneumonic effusions (PPE) warrant chest tube drainage.
METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on all patients who underwent thoracentesis because of a PPE over a 10-year period at a Spanish medical center. Classification of PPE as complicated (CPPE) or uncomplicated (UPPE) was based on the clinician's decision to insert a chest tube to resolve the effusion. Empyema was defined as pus in the pleural space. Data collected included patient demographics, size of the effusion, and microbiological and pleural fluid chemistries that might influence the physician's decision to place a chest tube.
RESULTS: Of the 240 patients with PPE who entered the study, 85 had UPPE, 67 had CPPE, and 88 had empyema. Individual pleural fluid parameters, namely a pH<7.20, a glucose<40 mg/dL or <60 mg/dL, a LDH>1000 U/L or a positive culture had a relatively high specificity (from 78% for LDH to 94% for glucose<40 mg/dL), but low to moderate sensitivity (from 25% for culture to 73% for LDH) in predicting the need for chest tube placement in non-purulent PPE. While pleural fluid cultures performed poorly in discriminating UPPE from CPPE (likelihood ratio positive 1.7), effusion's size performed the best (likelihood ratio positive 5.7). BTS and ACCP guidelines yielded measures of sensitivity (98% and 97%, respectively), and negative likelihood ratio (0.03 and 0.05, respectively) for identifying a CPPE.
CONCLUSIONS: Both guidelines have similar accuracy and perform satisfactorily in distinguishing CPPE from UPPE, albeit at an admissible cost of needlessly increasing chest tube drainage.