Pleural manometry during thoracocentesis in patients with malignant pleural effusion: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Large-volume therapeutic thoracocentesis may be associated with pulmonary congestion or a more serious complication; re-expansion pulmonary edema (RPE). We investigated whether monitoring pleural pressure with manometry during thoracocentesis would prevent these pulmonary symptoms/RPE and allow larger volume drainage. Methods: We did a randomized controlled trial involving 110 patients with large malignant pleural effusions. Patients were randomly allocated to obtain thoracocentesis with or without pleural manometry. We measured the incidence of pulmonary congestion symptoms, total fluid aspirated, and pleural pressures in both groups. This trial is listed on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT04420663. Results: The mean amount of total thoracocentesis fluid withdrawn from the control group was 945.4±78.9 (mL) and 1690.9±681.0 (mL) from the intervention group (P<0.001). Clinical symptoms of pulmonary congestion appeared in (n=20) (36.3%) of patients in the intervention group while no symptoms appeared in controls (P<0.001). The difference between opening and closing pressures between the non-symptomatic cluster and the symptomatic cluster was (32.8±15.6 versus 42.2±13) respectively (P=0.02). Total fluid withdrawn from the non-symptomatic cluster was 1828.5±505 mL in comparison to 1,450±875 mL in the symptomatic cluster (P=0.04). Conclusion: O gradient in pleural pressure which should be avoided to prevent pulmonary congestion symptoms or RPE. Pulmonary congestion symptoms/RPE are not related to the amount of volume withdrawn but to the gradient of pleural pressure drop. Our conclusion does support the adoption of pleural manometry whenever large-volume thoracocentesis is intended.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".