MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Silver Nitrate–coated versus Standard Indwelling Pleural Catheter for Malignant Effusions: The SWIFT Randomized Trial

2022· article· en· W4221107940 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the American Thoracic Society · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPleural and Pulmonary Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchBD
KeywordsMalignant pleural effusionPleurodesisCatheterRandomized controlled trialRandomizationPleural effusionGold standard (test)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rationale Tunneled, indwelling pleural catheters (IPCs) have been demonstrated to be an effective method of managing malignant pleural effusions. However, they allow pleurodesis and can therefore be removed in only a subset of patients. A novel, silver nitrate–coated IPC was developed with the intention of creating a rapid, effective chemical pleurodesis to allow more frequent and earlier catheter removal. This study represents the pivotal clinical trial evaluating that catheter versus the standard IPC. Objectives To compare the efficacy of a novel silver nitrate–eluting indwelling pleural catheter (SNCIPC) with that of a standard, uncoated catheter. Methods The SWIFT [A Pivotal Multi-Center, Randomized, Controlled, Single-Blinded Study Comparing the Silver Nitrate-Coated Indwelling Pleural Catheter (SNCIPC) to the Uncoated PleurX® Pleural Catheter for the Management of Symptomatic, Recurrent, Malignant Pleural Effusions] trial was a multicenter, parallel-group, randomized, controlled, patient-blind trial. Central randomization occurred according to a computer-generated schedule, stratified by site. Recruitment was from 17 secondary or tertiary care hospitals in the United States and 3 in the United Kingdom and included adult patients with malignant pleural effusion needing drainage, without evidence of lung entrapment or significant loculation. The intervention group underwent insertion of an SNCIPC with maximal fluid drainage, followed by a tapering drainage schedule. The control group received a standard, uncoated catheter. Follow-up was conducted until 90 days. The primary outcome measure was pleurodesis efficacy, measured by fluid drainage, at 30 days. Results A total of 119 patients were randomized. Five withdrew before receiving treatment, leaving 114 (77 SNCIPC, 37 standard IPC) for analysis. The mean age was 66 years (standard deviation, 11). More patients in the SNCIPC group were inpatients (39% vs. 14%; P = 0.009). For the primary outcome, pleurodesis rates were 12 (32%) of 37 in the control group and 17 (22%) of 77 in the SNCIPC group (rate difference, −0.10; 95% confidence interval, −0.30 to 0.09). Median time to pleurodesis was 11 days (interquartile range, 9 to 23) in the control group and 4 days (interquartile range, 2 to 15) in the SNCIPC group. No significant difference in treatment-related adverse event rates was noted between groups. Conclusions The SNCIPC did not improve pleurodesis efficacy compared with a standard IPC. This study does not support the wider use of the SNCIPC device. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02649894).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.583

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.108
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the American Thoracic SocietySame topicPleural and Pulmonary DiseasesFrench-language works237,207