• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

滑石粉混悬液与胸腔镜滑石粉灌洗治疗恶性胸腔积液的比较:系统评价和荟萃分析。

Talc slurry versus thoracoscopic talc insufflation for malignant pleural effusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

机构信息

. Centro Universitário de João Pessoa, João Pessoa (PB) Brasil.

. Universidade de Pernambuco, Recife (PE) Brasil.

出版信息

J Bras Pneumol. 2024 Aug 19;50(3):e20240115. doi: 10.36416/1806-3756/e20240115. eCollection 2024.

DOI:10.36416/1806-3756/e20240115
PMID:39166590
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11449594/
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Talc pleurodesis is a widely used treatment option for malignant pleural effusion (MPE). However, the optimal form of administration remains controversial. Thus, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness of talc slurry (TS) in comparison with thoracoscopic talc insufflation/poudrage (TTI) for MPE treatment.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases for studies that compared TS with TTI in patients with MPE. We used a random-effects model with a 95% CI to pool the data. Heterogeneity was assessed with I2 statistics.

RESULTS

We included eight studies involving 1,163 patients, 584 of whom (50.21%) underwent TS. Pleurodesis failure rates were similar between the procedures (OR = 1.07; 95% CI: 0.56-2.06; p = 0.83; I2 = 62%); and 68% of patients (95% CI: 0.31-1.47; p = 0.33; I2 = 58%) had postoperative complications, which were lower in patients in the TS group than in the TTI group. In a subgroup analysis considering only randomized clinical trials, the failure rate was significantly lower in the TS treatment group (OR = 0.62; 95% CI: 0.42-0.90; p = 0.01; I2 = 0%). Similarly, dyspnea was less common in the TS group (OR = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.41-1.34; p = 0.32; I2 = 55%). Adverse effects were reported in 86 patients, and no significant difference was seen between the TS and TTI groups: empyema (OR = 1.43; 95% CI: 0.36-5.64; p = 0.86; I2 = 0%), pain (OR = 1.22 (95% CI: 0.67-2.21; p = 0.51; I2 = 38%), and pneumonia (OR = 1.15; 95% CI: 0.30-4.46; p = 0.86; I2 = 27%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that TS is an effective treatment for MPE, with no significant increase in adverse events. Results suggest equivalent efficacy and safety for both procedures.

摘要

目的

滑石粉胸膜固定术是治疗恶性胸腔积液(MPE)的常用方法。然而,最佳给药方式仍存在争议。因此,我们进行了系统评价和荟萃分析,以评估滑石粉混悬液(TS)与胸腔镜滑石粉灌输/撒粉(TTI)治疗 MPE 的疗效。

方法

我们检索了 PubMed、EMBASE 和 Cochrane 图书馆数据库,以比较 TS 与 TTI 在 MPE 患者中的应用。我们使用随机效应模型和 95%置信区间(CI)来汇总数据。使用 I2 统计量评估异质性。

结果

我们纳入了八项研究,共涉及 1163 名患者,其中 584 名(50.21%)接受了 TS 治疗。两种方法的胸膜固定术失败率相似(OR=1.07;95%CI:0.56-2.06;p=0.83;I2=62%);68%的患者(95%CI:0.31-1.47;p=0.33;I2=58%)出现术后并发症,TS 组的并发症发生率低于 TTI 组。在仅考虑随机临床试验的亚组分析中,TS 治疗组的失败率显著降低(OR=0.62;95%CI:0.42-0.90;p=0.01;I2=0%)。同样,TS 组呼吸困难的发生率较低(OR=0.74;95%CI:0.41-1.34;p=0.32;I2=55%)。86 例患者报告了不良反应,TS 组和 TTI 组之间无显著差异:脓胸(OR=1.43;95%CI:0.36-5.64;p=0.86;I2=0%)、疼痛(OR=1.22(95%CI:0.67-2.21;p=0.51;I2=38%)和肺炎(OR=1.15;95%CI:0.30-4.46;p=0.86;I2=27%)。

结论

我们的研究结果表明,TS 是治疗 MPE 的有效方法,且不良反应无显著增加。结果表明两种方法的疗效和安全性相当。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8fdc/11449594/fee524323fb2/1806-3756-jbpneu-50-03-e20240115-gf3.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8fdc/11449594/0ecf48e14a63/1806-3756-jbpneu-50-03-e20240115-gf1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8fdc/11449594/38589e18a2d9/1806-3756-jbpneu-50-03-e20240115-gf2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8fdc/11449594/fee524323fb2/1806-3756-jbpneu-50-03-e20240115-gf3.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8fdc/11449594/0ecf48e14a63/1806-3756-jbpneu-50-03-e20240115-gf1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8fdc/11449594/38589e18a2d9/1806-3756-jbpneu-50-03-e20240115-gf2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8fdc/11449594/fee524323fb2/1806-3756-jbpneu-50-03-e20240115-gf3.jpg

相似文献

1
Talc slurry versus thoracoscopic talc insufflation for malignant pleural effusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.滑石粉混悬液与胸腔镜滑石粉灌洗治疗恶性胸腔积液的比较:系统评价和荟萃分析。
J Bras Pneumol. 2024 Aug 19;50(3):e20240115. doi: 10.36416/1806-3756/e20240115. eCollection 2024.
2
Talc poudrage versus talc slurry in the treatment of malignant pleural effusion. A prospective comparative study.滑石粉喷洒术与滑石粉浆治疗恶性胸腔积液的前瞻性对照研究。
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2006 Dec;30(6):827-32. doi: 10.1016/j.ejcts.2006.10.002.
3
Phase III intergroup study of talc poudrage vs talc slurry sclerosis for malignant pleural effusion.滑石粉喷洒与滑石粉浆硬化治疗恶性胸腔积液的III期组间研究。
Chest. 2005 Mar;127(3):909-15. doi: 10.1378/chest.127.3.909.
4
Interventions for the management of malignant pleural effusions: a network meta-analysis.恶性胸腔积液管理的干预措施:一项网状Meta分析
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Apr 21;4(4):CD010529. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010529.pub3.
5
Effect of Thoracoscopic Talc Poudrage vs Talc Slurry via Chest Tube on Pleurodesis Failure Rate Among Patients With Malignant Pleural Effusions: A Randomized Clinical Trial.胸腔镜滑石粉喷洒与经胸管注入滑石粉悬液对恶性胸腔积液患者胸膜固定术失败率的影响:一项随机临床试验
JAMA. 2020 Jan 7;323(1):60-69. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.19997.
6
Interventions for the management of malignant pleural effusions: a network meta-analysis.恶性胸腔积液管理的干预措施:一项网状荟萃分析。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 May 8;2016(5):CD010529. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010529.pub2.
7
Malignant pleural effusions and the role of talc poudrage and talc slurry: a systematic review and meta-analysis.恶性胸腔积液以及滑石粉喷洒和滑石粉浆的作用:一项系统评价和荟萃分析
F1000Res. 2014 Oct 27;3:254. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.5538.2. eCollection 2014.
8
Thoracoscopy and talc poudrage compared with intercostal drainage and talc slurry infusion to manage malignant pleural effusion: the TAPPS RCT.胸腔镜和滑石粉喷洒与肋间引流和滑石粉混悬液灌注治疗恶性胸腔积液的比较:TAPPS RCT。
Health Technol Assess. 2020 Jun;24(26):1-90. doi: 10.3310/hta24260.
9
Complications of thoracoscopic talc insufflation for the treatment of malignant pleural effusions: a meta-analysis.胸腔镜滑石粉注射治疗恶性胸腔积液的并发症:荟萃分析。
J Cardiothorac Surg. 2021 May 4;16(1):125. doi: 10.1186/s13019-021-01475-1.
10
Thoracoscopic talc insufflation versus talc slurry for symptomatic malignant pleural effusion.胸腔镜滑石粉吹入术与滑石粉浆治疗有症状的恶性胸腔积液的比较
Ann Thorac Surg. 1996 Dec;62(6):1655-8.

引用本文的文献

1
The Evolving Role of Chemotherapy in the Management of Pleural Malignancies: Current Evidence and Future Directions.化疗在胸膜恶性肿瘤治疗中的角色演变:当前证据与未来方向
Cancers (Basel). 2025 Jun 25;17(13):2143. doi: 10.3390/cancers17132143.

本文引用的文献

1
Talc pleurodesis in malignant pleural effusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.滑石粉胸膜固定术治疗恶性胸腔积液:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2021 May;69(5):832-842. doi: 10.1007/s11748-020-01549-2. Epub 2020 Nov 22.
2
Effect of Thoracoscopic Talc Poudrage vs Talc Slurry via Chest Tube on Pleurodesis Failure Rate Among Patients With Malignant Pleural Effusions: A Randomized Clinical Trial.胸腔镜滑石粉喷洒与经胸管注入滑石粉悬液对恶性胸腔积液患者胸膜固定术失败率的影响:一项随机临床试验
JAMA. 2020 Jan 7;323(1):60-69. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.19997.
3
RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.
《随机对照试验偏倚风险评估工具2:修订版》
BMJ. 2019 Aug 28;366:l4898. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l4898.
4
Malignant Pleural Effusion and Its Current Management: A Review.恶性胸腔积液及其当前的管理:综述。
Medicina (Kaunas). 2019 Aug 15;55(8):490. doi: 10.3390/medicina55080490.
5
Comparison of Efficiency of Pleurodesis Between Video Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery (VATS) and Standard Thoracostomy.电视辅助胸腔镜手术(VATS)与标准胸廓造口术胸膜固定术效率的比较
Acta Inform Med. 2018 Oct;26(3):185-189. doi: 10.5455/aim.2018.26.185-189.
6
Management of Malignant Pleural Effusions. An Official ATS/STS/STR Clinical Practice Guideline.恶性胸腔积液的处理。美国胸科学会/胸外科学会/胸外科医师学会临床实践指南官方版。
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018 Oct 1;198(7):839-849. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201807-1415ST.
7
ERS/EACTS statement on the management of malignant pleural effusions.ERS/EACTS 声明:恶性胸腔积液的管理
Eur Respir J. 2018 Jul 27;52(1). doi: 10.1183/13993003.00349-2018. Print 2018 Jul.
8
Diagnosis and management of malignant pleural effusions: state of the art in 2017.恶性胸腔积液的诊断与管理:2017年的最新进展
J Thorac Dis. 2017 Sep;9(Suppl 10):S1111-S1122. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2017.07.79.
9
ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions.ROBINS-I:一种评估干预性非随机研究偏倚风险的工具。
BMJ. 2016 Oct 12;355:i4919. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i4919.
10
Malignant pleural effusion: from bench to bedside.恶性胸腔积液:从实验台到病床边
Eur Respir Rev. 2016 Jun;25(140):189-98. doi: 10.1183/16000617.0019-2016.