Indwelling Pleural Catheter (IPC) for the Management of Hepatic Hydrothorax: The Known and the Unknown.

BACKGROUND: Hepatic hydrothorax (HH) is described as pleural effusion secondary to liver cirrhosis after ruling out other etiologies. We aim to assess the efficacy of an indwelling pleural catheter (IPC) placement in refractory HH in this systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: A comprehensive search of literature was performed from inception to December 2020. The authors reviewed, selected, and abstracted the data from eligible studies into Covidence, a systematic review software. Cochrane criteria was used to rate each study for the risk of bias. The data abstracted were described using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was evaluated using the I2 test. RESULTS: Ten studies involving a total of 269 patients were included. The studies were analyzed for the proportion of pleurodesis achieved, the average time to pleurodesis, total complication rate, pleural infection rate, and mortality. A proportion of 47% of the total subjects included achieved spontaneous pleurodesis in an average duration of 104.3 days. The frequency of total complication rate was noted to be 30.36%. The incidence of pleural cavity infection was described to be 12.4% and death resulting from complications of IPC was 3.35%. CONCLUSION: The current management options for the refractory pleural effusion in HH include repeated thoracenteses, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt, surgical repair of defects in the diaphragm, and liver transplantation. However, the cost, eligibility, and availability can be some of the major concerns with these treatment modalities. With this meta-analysis, we conclude that IPCs can provide an alternative therapeutic option for spontaneous pleurodesis.

Clinical outcomes of pleural drainage on pneumothorax and hydrothorax in critically ill patients with COVID-19: A case series with literature review.

BACKGROUND: For patients with COVID-19, pneumothorax and hydrothorax are suggested to be negative prognostic indicators. However, the management of these two conditions has rarely been discussed. We aimed to describe the clinical outcomes of pleural drainage in critically ill patients with COVID-19. METHODS: A total of 17 pleural drainages were performed in 11 critically ill patients with pneumothorax or hydrothorax. Either chest tubes or central venous catheters (CVCs) were used. The clinical outcomes, including respiratory and circulation indicators at 24 h and 1 h before the procedure and 24 h and 48 h after the procedure, were retrospectively recorded. RESULTS: (1) Following pleural drainage, there was a 19.1% improvement in the PaO2/FiO2 ratio from 147.4 mmHg (-1 h) to 175.5 mmHg (24 h), while the mean positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) decreased from 10.7 cmH2O (-1 h) to 8.9 cmH2O (24 h) and 8.1 cmH2O (48 h). The A-a gradients decreased from 313.3 mmHg (-1 h) to 261.3 mmHg (24 h). (2) The dosage of norepinephrine increased from 0.15 µg/kg/min (-1 h) to 0.40 µg/kg/min (24 h). (3) No haemorrhagic or infectious complications were observed. (4) A total of 41.6% of CVCs were partially or fully obstructed, while no chest tubes were obstructed. CONCLUSION: For critically ill patients with COVID-19, pleural drainage leads to a significant improvement in oxygenation and gas exchange, but the deterioration of circulation is not reversed. It is safe to perform pleural drainage even though anticoagulation therapy and glucocorticoids are widely used. Chest tubes rather than CVCs are recommended.