Background: Malignant pleural effusions (MPE) are a common clinical problem. Little is known about the burden of MPE and of the treatments used to alleviate its symptoms on the United States Health Care System. Objectives: We aimed to obtain a better portrait of inpatient pleural procedures performed in the United States. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of MPE-associated hospitalizations using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project-Nationwide Inpatient Sample, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (HCUP-NIS 2012). Descriptive statistics were used to analyze procedures performed and their complications. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used to explore the relationship between procedures performed and inpatient mortality and length of stay. Results: Among the 126,825 hospital admissions with a diagnosis of MPE, 72,240 included one or more pleural procedures. Thoracentesis (54,070) was the most frequently performed procedure followed by chest tube placement (23,035), chemical pleurodesis (10,240), and thoracoscopy (6,615). Hospitalization for lung and breast cancer was more likely to include pleural procedures compared to hospitalization for other types of cancer (59.2 and 65.6%, respectively, p < 0.0001). Chemical pleurodesis through a chest tube compared to thoracoscopic chemical pleurodesis was performed more frequently (57 vs. 43%, p < 0.001) and associated with a longer hospital stay (4.9 vs. 5.9 days, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Hospital admissions for MPE represent a large burden on the US Health Care System. Many hospitalizations are associated with procedures not expected to reduce the recurrence rate of this condition.

Keywords:
Pleural disease, Pleural neoplasm, Pleurodesis, Pleural catheter, Pleuroscopy, Pneumologic oncology, Epidemiology
1.
Rodrîguez-Panadero F, Borderas Naranjo F, López Mejîas J: Pleural metastatic tumours and effusions. Frequency and pathogenic mechanisms in a post-mortem series. Eur Respir J 1989; 2: 366–369.
2.
Morgensztern D, Waqar S, Subramanian J, Trinkaus K, Govindan R: Prognostic impact of malignant pleural effusion at presentation in patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol 2012; 7: 1485–1489.
3.
Taghizadeh N, Fortin M, Tremblay A: USA hospitalizations for malignant pleural effusions – data from the 2012 national inpatient sample. Chest 2017; 151: 845–854.
4.
Sahn SA: Pleural diseases related to metastatic malignancies. Eur Respir J 1997; 10: 1907–1913.
5.
Chernow B, Sahn SA: Carcinomatous involvement of the pleura. An analysis of 96 patients. Am J Med 1977; 63: 695–702.
6.
Heffner JE, Nietert PJ, Barbieri C: Pleural fluid pH as a predictor of survival for patients with malignant pleural effusions. Chest 2000; 117: 79–86.
7.
Pilling JE, Dusmet ME, Ladas G, Goldstraw P: Prognostic factors for survival after surgical palliation of malignant pleural effusion. J Thorac Oncol 2010; 5: 1544–1550.
8.
Van Galen KPM, Visser HPJ, Van Der Ploeg T, Smorenburg CH: Prognostic factors in patients with breast cancer and malignant pleural effusion. Breast J 2010; 16: 675–677.
9.
Clive AO, Kahan BC, Hooper CE, Bhatnagar R, Morley AJ, Zahan-Evans N, et al: Predicting survival in malignant pleural effusion: development and validation of the LENT prognostic score. Thorax 2014; 69: 1–7.
10.
Wu S-G, Yu C-J, Tsai M-F, Liao W-Y, Yang C-H, Jan I-S, et al: Survival of lung adenocarcinoma patients with malignant pleural effusion. Eur Respir J 2013; 41: 1409–1418.
11.
Davies HE, Mishra EK, Kahan BC, Wrightson JM, Stanton AE, Guhan A, et al: Effect of an indwelling pleural catheter vs chest tube and talc pleurodesis for relieving dyspnea in patients with malignant pleural effusion: the TIME2 randomized controlled trial – with comments. JAMA 2012; 307: 2383–2389.
12.
Penz ED, Mishra EK, Davies HE, Manns BJ, Miller RF, Rahman NM: Comparing cost of indwelling pleural catheter vs talc pleurodesis for malignant pleural effusion. Chest 2014; 146: 991–1000.
13.
Ahmed L, Ip H, Rao D, Patel N, Noorzad F: Talc pleurodesis through indwelling pleural catheters for malignant pleural effusions. Chest 2014; 146:e190–e194.
14.
Reddy C, Ernst A, Lamb C, Feller-Kopman D: Rapid pleurodesis for malignant pleural effusions: a pilot study. Chest 2011; 139: 1419–1423.
15.
Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, 11 December 2015. Final Report on Calculating National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample (NIS) Variances. 2014. http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports (accessed April 20 2017).
16.
Zias N, Chroneou A, Tabba MK, Gonzalez AV, Gray AW, Lamb CR, et al: Post tracheostomy and post intubation tracheal stenosis: report of 31 cases and review of the literature. BMC Pulm Med 2008; 8: 18.
17.
Johnston WW: The malignant pleural effusion. Cancer 1985; 56: 905–909.
18.
Sanchez-Armengol A, Rodriguez-Panadero F: Survival and talc pleurodesis in metastatic pleural carcinoma, revisited: report of 125 cases. Chest 1993; 104: 1482–1485.
19.
Dresler CM, Olak J, Herndon JE, Richards WG, Scalzetti E, Fleishman SB, et al: Phase III intergroup study of talc poudrage vs talc slurry sclerosis for malignant pleural effusion. Chest 2005; 127: 909–915.
20.
Yim APC, Chan ATC, Lee TW, Wan IYP, Ho JKS: Thoracoscopic talc insufflation versus talc slurry for symptomatic malignant pleural effusion. Ann Thorac Surg 1996; 62: 1655–1658.
21.
Stefani A, Natali P, Casali C, Morandi U: Talc poudrage versus talc slurry in the treatment of malignant pleural effusion. A prospective comparative study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2006; 30: 827–832.
22.
Janssen JP, Collier G, Astoul P, Tassi GF, Noppen M, Rodriguez-Panadero F, et al: Safety of pleurodesis with talc poudrage in malignant pleural effusion: a prospective cohort study. Lancet 2007; 369: 1535–1539.
23.
Terra RM, Junqueira JJM, Teixeira LR, Vargas FS, Pêgo-Fernandes PM, Jatene FB: Is full postpleurodesis lung expansion a determinant of a successful outcome after talc pleurodesis? Chest 2009; 136: 361–368.
© 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel
2018
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.