Resource Use and Costs of Indwelling Pleural Catheters Versus Pleurodesis for Malignant Pleural Effusions: A Population-Based Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rationale Malignant pleural effusions (MPEs) are associated with significant health service use and healthcare costs, but the current evidence is limited. Objectives To compare 12-month post-procedure: 1) health service utilization; and 2) healthcare costs after indwelling pleural catheter (IPC) insertion with at-home drainage performed by home care nursing services, versus in-hospital chemical pleurodesis. Methods We performed a retrospective population-based study on a cohort of adults with MPEs who underwent IPC insertion or chemical pleurodesis between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2019 using provincial health administrative data (Ontario, Canada). Patients were followed from the procedure date until death or until 12 months after the procedure. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was performed to adjust for imbalances in baseline characteristics. Differences in length of stay, readmissions, emergency department visits, home care visits, and healthcare costs were estimated using weighted regression analysis. Results Of 5,752 included individuals, 4,432 (77%) underwent IPC insertion and 1,320 (23%) had pleurodesis. In the weighted sample, individuals who received an IPC had fewer inpatient days (12.4 d vs. 16 d; standardized mean difference, 0.229) but a higher proportion of subsequent admissions for empyema (2.7% vs. 1.1%; P = 0.0002) than those undergoing pleurodesis. Individuals with IPCs received more hours of nursing home care (41 h vs. 21.1 h; standardized mean difference, 0.671) but overall had lower average healthcare costs ($40,179 vs. $46,640 per patient; standardized mean difference, 0.177) than those receiving pleurodesis. Conclusions IPCs with home nursing drainage are associated with reduced health resource use compared with pleurodesis in adults with MPEs, even after controlling for important baseline and clinical characteristics. Given that both procedures have similar health outcomes, our findings support the ongoing promotion of IPCs to increase outpatient management of patients with MPEs.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".