Romero-Candeira Santiago, Hernández Luis, Romero-Brufao Susana, Orts David, Fernández Cleofé, Martín Concepción
Servicio de Neumología. Hospital General Universitario de Alicante, Spain.
Chest. 2002 Nov;122(5):1524-9. doi: 10.1378/chest.122.5.1524.
The usefulness of biochemical criteria to separate pleural transudates from exudates is controversial, and the limitations of Light's criteria in patients receiving diuretic therapy is of general concern. We evaluated the added value of biochemical criteria to clinical judgment for separating transudates from exudates.
A community teaching hospital.
A prospective, observational study for the evaluation of diagnostic tests.
In 249 consecutive patients referred for diagnostic thoracentesis, two physicians classified the pleural effusion as transudate or exudate based on all available information just before performing the thoracentesis. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the clinical presumption were compared with those of Light's criteria, and serum-pleural fluid albumin and protein gradients. The combined accuracy of biochemical and clinical criteria was also assessed.
The accuracy of Light's criteria (93%) was significantly higher than that showed by the initial clinical presumption (84%; p < 0.01) and that of the alternative biochemical criteria: serum-pleural fluid albumin gradient (87%; p < 0.03) and serum-pleural fluid protein gradient (86%; p < 0.01). In patients receiving diuretic therapy, the accuracy of Light's criteria was 83% (60 of 72 cases), neither different to that of the albumin gradient (88%; 63 of 72 cases) nor to that of the protein gradient (86%; 62 of 72 cases). When these alternative biochemical criteria were applied exclusively to patients receiving diuretics who were thought to have a transudative effusion by clinical criteria, but having fluid identified as exudative by Light's criteria, the results did not improve significantly. Using a multiparametric model for the population receiving diuretics, the accuracy was greater (93%; 67 of 72 cases) than that of Light's criteria but without reaching statistical significance (p = 0.12).
Light's criteria are significantly superior to the clinical presumption to separate pleural transudates from exudates. In patients receiving diuretics, Light's criteria lose accuracy, which is similar to that showed by the use of alternative biochemical criteria alone or combined with clinical judgment.
利用生化标准区分胸腔漏出液和渗出液的有效性存在争议,而利氏标准在接受利尿治疗患者中的局限性受到广泛关注。我们评估了生化标准在区分漏出液和渗出液时相对于临床判断的附加价值。
一家社区教学医院。
一项用于评估诊断试验的前瞻性观察性研究。
在249例连续接受诊断性胸腔穿刺术的患者中,两名医生在进行胸腔穿刺术之前,根据所有可用信息将胸腔积液分类为漏出液或渗出液。将临床推断的敏感性、特异性和准确性与利氏标准以及血清 - 胸腔积液白蛋白和蛋白梯度的敏感性、特异性和准确性进行比较。还评估了生化和临床标准的联合准确性。
利氏标准的准确性(93%)显著高于初始临床推断的准确性(84%;p < 0.01)以及替代生化标准的准确性:血清 - 胸腔积液白蛋白梯度(87%;p < 0.03)和血清 - 胸腔积液蛋白梯度(86%;p < 0.01)。在接受利尿治疗的患者中,利氏标准的准确性为83%(72例中的60例),与白蛋白梯度的准确性(88%;72例中的63例)以及蛋白梯度的准确性(86%;72例中的62例)均无差异。当这些替代生化标准仅应用于那些根据临床标准被认为有漏出性胸腔积液,但根据利氏标准积液被确定为渗出性的接受利尿剂治疗的患者时,结果没有显著改善。对于接受利尿剂治疗的人群使用多参数模型,准确性更高(93%;72例中的67例),但未达到统计学显著性(p = 0.12)。
在区分胸腔漏出液和渗出液方面,利氏标准明显优于临床推断。在接受利尿剂治疗的患者中,利氏标准的准确性降低,这与单独使用替代生化标准或与临床判断相结合时所显示的准确性相似。