Indwelling pleural catheters for pleural effusions associated with end-stage renal disease: a case series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pleural effusions are a common complication of end-stage renal disease.These effusions are occasionally refractory to medical management, but few options are then available. Indwelling pleural catheter insertion (IPC) has been well described for the management of malignant pleural effusions and, more recently, of nonmalignant effusions of other origin. We aimed to analyze our experience and to evaluate the safety and feasibility of using IPCs for pleural effusion associated with end-stage renal disease. METHODS: We constructed a cohort of patients who underwent IPC insertion for pleural effusions associated with end-stage renal disease. The IPCs were inserted as a palliative measure in patients who had thoracentesis twice within the preceding 2 weeks, no evidence of infection and either failure to respond, complications or intolerance to maximal medical therapy, or if IPC insertion would enable discharge when the patient was hospitalized mainly for dyspnea due to pleural effusion. RESULTS: There were nine IPCs inserted in eight patients. Patients had significant dyspnea at baseline with a median baseline dyspnea index of 1.5 [interquartile range (IQR) 0–3]. Dyspnea improved significantly 2 weeks after catheter insertion with a median transitional dyspnea index of 6 (IQR 4.5–7.0). There was no occurrence of empyema or other major complications.Serum albumin did not decrease after catheter insertion. IPCs were removed in four patients(50%) and successful spontaneous pleurodesis occurred in three patients (37.5%) after a median of 77 days (IQR 9–208). CONCLUSION: IPC insertion for pleural effusions associated with end-stage renal disease appears safe and effective. Larger studies are needed, particularly regarding the impact of this intervention on quality of life.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".