Bédat Benoît, Plojoux Jérôme, Noel Jade, Morel Anna, Worley Jonathan, Triponez Frédéric, Karenovics Wolfram
Thoracic and Endocrine Surgery, University Hospitals of Geneva and Faculty of Medicine, Geneva, Switzerland.
Division of Pneumology, University Hospitals of Geneva and Faculty of Medicine, Geneva, Switzerland.
ERJ Open Res. 2019 Sep 10;5(3). doi: 10.1183/23120541.00084-2019. eCollection 2019 Jul.
Fibrinolysis can be used to improve fluid drainage in pleural infection. Treatment with either urokinase or tissue plasminogen activator (t-PA) in association with DNAse a chest tube has been effective at reducing the need for surgery. This study is the first to compare the efficacy of these two treatments. We performed a single-centre, controlled, prospective cohort study. All individuals with pleural infection admitted to our hospital between January 2014 and December 2017 who were treated with antibiotics, a chest tube and fibrinolysis were included in this study. The rate of additional procedure requirements (additional chest tube or surgery) after initial fibrinolysis, complications, costs, and radiological and biological outcomes were analysed. Among the 93 patients included in this study, 34% required additional procedures after an initial fibrinolysis, including 21% who received an additional chest tube and 13% who underwent thoracoscopy. The need for additional procedures arose due to presence of multiple pleural collections (p=0.01) and was associated with the use of large-bore drain (p=0.01). The success rate of fibrinolysis was not significantly different between urokinase and t-PA/DNAse (p=0.35). The differences in drainage duration and in length of hospital stay were not significant either (p=0.05 and p=0.12, respectively). Treatment with t-PA/DNAse was cheaper (p=0.04) but was associated with a higher rate of haemothorax (p=0.002). In conclusion, treatment with urokinase is safer and equally effective when compared with treatment with t-PA/DNAse.
纤维蛋白溶解可用于改善胸膜感染时的液体引流。使用尿激酶或组织型纤溶酶原激活剂(t-PA)联合脱氧核糖核酸酶(DNAse)并结合胸腔引流管进行治疗,在减少手术需求方面已取得成效。本研究首次比较了这两种治疗方法的疗效。我们进行了一项单中心、对照、前瞻性队列研究。本研究纳入了2014年1月至2017年12月期间入住我院、接受抗生素、胸腔引流管及纤维蛋白溶解治疗的所有胸膜感染患者。分析了初始纤维蛋白溶解治疗后额外治疗措施的需求率(额外放置胸腔引流管或手术)、并发症、费用以及影像学和生物学结果。在本研究纳入的93例患者中,34%在初始纤维蛋白溶解治疗后需要额外的治疗措施,其中21%接受了额外的胸腔引流管置入,13%接受了胸腔镜检查。由于存在多个胸膜腔积液,导致需要额外的治疗措施(p=0.01),并且与使用大口径引流管有关(p=0.01)。尿激酶与t-PA/DNAse之间纤维蛋白溶解的成功率无显著差异(p=0.35)。引流持续时间和住院时间的差异也不显著(分别为p=0.05和p=0.12)。t-PA/DNAse治疗费用较低(p=0.04)但血胸发生率较高(p=0.002)。总之,与t-PA/DNAse治疗相比,尿激酶治疗更安全且疗效相当。