Richards Morgan K, Mcateer Jarod P, Edwards Todd C, Hoffman Lucas R, Kronman Matthew P, Shaw Dennis W, Goldin Adam B
1 Department of Surgery, University of Washington , Seattle, Washington.
2 Department of Health Services, University of Washington , Seattle, Washington.
Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2017 Feb/Mar;18(2):137-142. doi: 10.1089/sur.2016.134. Epub 2016 Nov 29.
Despite six randomized trials of various treatments for pediatric para-pneumonic effusion (PPE), management approaches differ. The purpose of this study was to gain insight into opinions on PPE treatment with the goal of designing a definitive trial to generate consensus intervention guidelines.
To evaluate physician opinions regarding PPE management, we developed a survey based on input from a nationwide, multi-disciplinary advisory group that established content validity. The survey was disseminated broadly to six pediatric medicine and interventional radiology groups. Descriptive and χ statistics were calculated.
There were 741 respondents (response rate 13.1%), of whom 52.2% were surgeons, 15.2% hospitalists, 14.2% pulmonologists, 12.4% intensivists, and 6.0% interventional radiologists. Nearly all respondents (97.3%) reported caring primarily for pediatric patients. Eighty percent reported no written institutional treatment guidelines. Nearly all (90.3%) agreed that patients require antibiotics, but there was disagreement regarding their duration. Respondents also were split as to how often PPE required drainage. There were multiple absolute indications for drainage, including mediastinal shift on chest radiograph (67.2%) and loculations on imaging (47.7%). There were substantial differences in the preferred first-line methods of drainage based on the treating physician's specialty, with surgeons preferring tube thoracostomy and a fibrinolytic agent (42.0%) or video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (41.6%), whereas interventional radiologists preferred either a tube thoracostomy (46.4%) or a tube thoracostomy with a fibrinolytic agent (39.3%) (p < 0.001). A large majority (75.3%) believed that the published evidence does not identify the optimal intervention.
There is a lack of consensus regarding the optimal treatment of PPE. Respondents believed the published evidence is inconclusive and were willing to participate in a prospective trial. These findings will help inform the design of a randomized, pragmatic clinical trial to optimize PPE management.
尽管针对小儿类肺炎性胸腔积液(PPE)的各种治疗进行了六项随机试验,但管理方法仍存在差异。本研究的目的是深入了解对PPE治疗的看法,以期设计一项确定性试验,以制定共识性干预指南。
为评估医生对PPE管理的意见,我们根据一个建立了内容效度的全国性多学科咨询小组的意见制定了一项调查。该调查广泛分发给六个儿科医学和介入放射学小组。计算描述性统计量和χ统计量。
共有741名受访者(回复率13.1%),其中52.2%为外科医生,15.2%为住院医师,14.2%为肺科医生,12.4%为重症监护医生,6.0%为介入放射科医生。几乎所有受访者(97.3%)报告主要照顾儿科患者。80%的人表示没有书面的机构治疗指南。几乎所有人(90.3%)都同意患者需要使用抗生素,但在使用时长上存在分歧。受访者在PPE需要引流的频率问题上也存在分歧。引流有多个绝对指征,包括胸部X线片显示纵隔移位(67.2%)和影像学显示有分隔(47.7%)。根据治疗医生的专业不同,首选的一线引流方法存在很大差异,外科医生更倾向于胸腔闭式引流加纤维蛋白溶解剂(42.0%)或电视辅助胸腔镜手术(41.6%),而介入放射科医生更倾向于胸腔闭式引流(46.4%)或胸腔闭式引流加纤维蛋白溶解剂(39.3%)(p<0.001)。绝大多数(75.3%)人认为已发表的证据未能确定最佳干预措施。
关于PPE的最佳治疗方法缺乏共识。受访者认为已发表的证据尚无定论,并愿意参与一项前瞻性试验。这些发现将有助于为优化PPE管理的随机实用临床试验的设计提供参考。