Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Diagnostics (Basel) ; 14(10)2024 May 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38786339

ABSTRACT

Malignant pleural effusion (MPE) is a manifestation of advanced cancer that requires a prompt and accurate diagnosis. Ultrasonography (US) and computed tomography (CT) are valuable imaging techniques for evaluating pleural effusions; however, their relative predictive ability for a malignant origin remains debatable. This prospective study aimed to compare chest US with CT findings as predictors of malignancy in patients with undiagnosed exudative pleural effusion. Fifty-four adults with undiagnosed exudative pleural effusions underwent comprehensive clinical evaluation including chest US, CT, and histopathologic biopsy. Blinded radiologists evaluated the US and CT images for features suggestive of malignancy, based on predefined criteria. Diagnostic performance measures were calculated using histopathology as a reference standard. Of the 54 patients, 33 (61.1%) had MPEs confirmed on biopsy. No significant differences between US and CT were found in detecting parietal pleural abnormalities, lung lesions, chest wall invasion, or liver metastasis. US outperformed CT in identifying diaphragmatic pleural thickening ≥10 mm (33.3% vs. 6.1%, p < 0.001) and nodularity (45.5% vs. 3%, p < 0.001), whereas CT was superior for mediastinal thickening (48.5% vs. 15.2%, p = 0.002). For diagnosing MPE, diaphragmatic nodularity detected by US had 45.5% sensitivity and 100% specificity, whereas CT mediastinal thickening had 48.5% sensitivity and 90.5% specificity. Both US and CT demonstrate reasonable diagnostic performance for detecting MPE, with particular imaging findings favoring a malignant origin. US may be advantageous for evaluating diaphragmatic pleural involvement, whereas CT is more sensitive to mediastinal abnormalities.

2.
Monaldi Arch Chest Dis ; 94(1)2023 May 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37144390

ABSTRACT

The present study aimed to assess the effect of a conservative (permissive hypoxemia) versus conventional (normoxia) protocol for oxygen supplementation on the outcome of type I respiratory failure patients admitted to respiratory intensive care unit (ICU). This randomized controlled clinical trial was carried out at the Respiratory ICU, Chest Department of Zagazig University Hospital, for 18 months, starting in July 2018. On admission, 56 enrolled patients with acute respiratory failure were randomized in a 1:1 ratio into the conventional group [oxygen therapy was supplied to maintain oxygen saturation (SpO2) between 94% and 97%] and the conservative group (oxygen therapy was administered to maintain SpO2 values between 88% and 92%). Different outcomes were assessed, including ICU mortality, the need for mechanical ventilation (MV) (invasive or non-invasive), and ICU length of stay. In the current study, the partial pressure of oxygen was significantly higher among the conventional group at all times after the baseline reading, and bicarbonate was significantly higher among the conventional group at the first two readings. There was no significant difference in serum lactate level in follow-up readings. The mean duration of MV and ICU length of stay was 6.17±2.05 and 9.25±2.22 days in the conventional group versus 6.46±2.0 and 9.53±2.16 days in the conservative group, respectively, without significant differences between both groups. About 21.4% of conventional group patients died, while 35.7% of conservative group patients died without a significant difference between both groups. We concluded that conservative oxygen therapy may be applied safely to patients with type I acute respiratory failure.


Subject(s)
Oxygen , Respiratory Insufficiency , Humans , Oxygen/therapeutic use , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods , Intensive Care Units , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...