Table 1.
Studies evaluating the use of IPCs in congestive cardiac failure (CCF) related pleural effusions; copied with permission [21]
| Study | Study design | Sample size (n) | Primary outcome | Pleurodesis success (%) | Time to pleurodesis (days) | Complications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Borgeson et al. (2009) [15] | Prospective, single centre | 22 | Rate of pleurodesis | 41 | 109 (median) | Infection, catheter occlusion |
| Srour et al. (2013) [16] | Prospective, single centre | 43 | Improvement in breathlessness | 29% | 66 (median) | None |
| Freeman et al. (2014) [17] | Retrospective, single centre | 40 | Palliation of effusion | 35% | 150 (mean) | None |
| Majid et al. (2016), Group 1a [18] | Retrospective, single centre |
15 (TTP + IPC) |
Improvement in breathlessness and pleurodesis | 80% | 11 (median) | Cellulitis |
| Majid et al. (2016) Group 2b [18] | Retrospective, single centre | 28 (IPC only) | Improvement in breathlessness and pleurodesis | 25% | 66 (median) | Empyema (2/28), cellulitis |
| Frost et al. (2020) [19] | Retrospective, single centre | 30 | Symptom control | 24% | NR | Cellulitis, IPC malfunction |
| Walker et al. (2022) [20] | Randomised control, multicentre | 21 | Mean daily dyspnoea score over 12 weeks from randomisation | Disease-specific data not recorded | Disease-specific data not recorded | Cellulitis, empyema |
NR not recorded. TTP thoracoscopy with talc poudrage, IPC indwelling pleural catheters