For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
31
views
14
references
 Top references
cited by
15
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      837
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A Simple Method for Differentiating Complicated Parapneumonic Effusion/Empyema from Parapneumonic Effusion Using the Split Pleura Sign and the Amount of Pleural Effusion on Thoracic CT

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Pleural separation, the “split pleura” sign, has been reported in patients with empyema. However, the diagnostic yield of the split pleura sign for complicated parapneumonic effusion (CPPE)/empyema and its utility for differentiating CPPE/empyema from parapneumonic effusion (PPE) remains unclear. This differentiation is important because CPPE/empyema patients need thoracic drainage. In this regard, the aim of this study was to develop a simple method to distinguish CPPE/empyema from PPE using computed tomography (CT) focusing on the split pleura sign, fluid attenuation values (HU: Hounsfield units), and amount of fluid collection measured on thoracic CT prior to diagnostic thoracentesis.

          Methods

          A total of 83 consecutive patients who underwent chest CT and were diagnosed with CPPE (n=18)/empyema (n=18) or PPE (n=47) based on the diagnostic thoracentesis were retrospectively analyzed.

          Results

          On univariate analysis, the split pleura sign (odds ratio (OR), 12.1; p<0.001), total amount of pleural effusion (≥30 mm) (OR, 6.13; p<0.001), HU value≥10 (OR, 5.94; p=0.001), and the presence of septum (OR, 6.43; p=0.018), atelectasis (OR, 6.83; p=0.002), or air (OR, 9.90; p=0.002) in pleural fluid were significantly higher in the CPPE/empyema group than in the PPE group. On multivariate analysis, only the split pleura sign (hazard ratio (HR), 6.70; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.91-23.5; p=0.003) and total amount of pleural effusion (≥30 mm) on thoracic CT (HR, 7.48; 95%CI, 1.76-31.8; p=0.006) were risk factors for empyema. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the presence of both split pleura sign and total amount of pleural effusion (≥30 mm) on thoracic CT for CPPE/empyema were 79.4%, 80.9%, 75%, and 84.4%, respectively, with an area under the curve of 0.801 on receiver operating characteristic curve analysis.

          Conclusion

          This study showed a high diagnostic yield of the split pleura sign and total amount of pleural fluid (≥30 mm) on thoracic CT that is useful and simple for discriminating between CPPE/empyema and PPE prior to diagnostic thoracentesis.

          Related collections

          Most cited references14

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          U.K. Controlled trial of intrapleural streptokinase for pleural infection.

          John F. Gleeson, T. Peto, Jeffrey Rees … (2005)
          Intrapleural fibrinolytic agents are used in the drainage of infected pleural-fluid collections. This use is based on small trials that did not have the statistical power to evaluate accurately important clinical outcomes, including safety. We conducted a trial to clarify the therapeutic role of intrapleural streptokinase. In this double-blind trial, 454 patients with pleural infection (defined by the presence of purulent pleural fluid or pleural fluid with a pH below 7.2 with signs of infection or by proven bacterial invasion of the pleural space) were randomly assigned to receive either intrapleural streptokinase (250,000 IU twice daily for three days) or placebo. Patients received antibiotics and underwent chest-tube drainage, surgery, and other treatment as part of routine care. The number of patients in the two groups who had died or needed surgical drainage at three months was compared (the primary end point); secondary end points were the rates of death and of surgery (analyzed separately), the radiographic outcome, and the length of the hospital stay. The groups were well matched at baseline. Among the 427 patients who received streptokinase or placebo, there was no significant difference between the groups in the proportion of patients who died or needed surgery (with streptokinase: 64 of 206 patients [31 percent]; with placebo: 60 of 221 [27 percent]; relative risk, 1.14 [95 percent confidence interval, 0.85 to 1.54; P=0.43), a result that excluded a clinically significant benefit of streptokinase. There was no benefit to streptokinase in terms of mortality, rate of surgery, radiographic outcomes, or length of the hospital stay. Serious adverse events (chest pain, fever, or allergy) were more common with streptokinase (7 percent, vs. 3 percent with placebo; relative risk, 2.49 [95 percent confidence interval, 0.98 to 6.36]; P=0.08). The intrapleural administration of streptokinase does not improve mortality, the rate of surgery, or the length of the hospital stay among patients with pleural infection. Copyright 2005 Massachusetts Medical Society.
          Article 0 comments Cited 130 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Clinical practice. Pleural effusion.

            Richard Light (2002)
            Article 0 comments Cited 115 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Medical and surgical treatment of parapneumonic effusions : an evidence-based guideline.

              G Colice, David R. Light, Maurice Curtis … (2000)
              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. 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." 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
              Article 0 comments Cited 76 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Luis Seijo: Role: Academic Editor
                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): PLoS One
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): PLoS ONE
                Journal ID (publisher-id): plos
                Journal ID (pmc): plosone
                Title: PLoS ONE
                Publisher: Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                ISSN (Electronic): 1932-6203
                Publication date (Electronic): 15 June 2015
                Publication date Collection: 2015
                Volume: 10
                Issue: 6
                Electronic Location Identifier: e0130141
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Respiratory Medicine, Kyorin University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
                [2 ]Division of Allergy/Pulmonary/Critical Care, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, United States of America
                [3 ]Department of Radiology, Kyorin University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
                [4 ]Infectious Disease Surveillance Center, National Institute of Infectious Diseases, Tokyo, Japan
                Fundación Jimenez Diaz, SPAIN
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Conceived and designed the experiments: NT TS. Performed the experiments: NT TS. Analyzed the data: NT TS YT HI. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: TK DK HG HT HK. Wrote the paper: NT TS RL.

                ‡ Naoki Tsujimoto and Takeshi Saraya are double first authors.

                Article
                Publisher ID: PONE-D-14-56412
                DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0130141
                PMC ID: 4468172
                PubMed ID: 26076488
                SO-VID: 5f7f0d12-fdb5-4e9d-8de6-0625cbe7dd51
                Copyright statement: Copyright @ 2015
                License:

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited

                History
                Date received : 16 December 2014
                Date accepted : 18 May 2015
                Page count
                Figures: 6, Tables: 5, Pages: 12
                Funding
                The authors received no specific funding for this work.
                Categories
                Subject: Research Article
                Custom metadata
                Data Availability All relevant data are within the paper.

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Uncategorized
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content837

                See all similar

                Cited by15

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors152

                See all reference authors