No abstract

Survivin level was 41.75 ± 76.20 in MPE, 15.83 ± 10.92 in TPE and 8.33 ± 8.67 in TE. When the patients divided two groups as malignant and non-malignant pleural effusion (non-MPE), survivin level was significantly higher in MPE (41.75 ± 76.20) than in non-MPE (13.33±2.05) (p = 0.012). The cutoff value for survivin levels detected by ROC curve analysis was 7.5 pg/ml, with sensitivity and specificity values of 72%, 44%, respectively. Survivin had no discriminative power in differentiating exudative effusions of MPE from TPE (p = 0.405). There was no correlation between survivin level and age, sex, location, fluid pH, glucose, protein, albumine and ADA level while there was significant moderate correlation with fluid LDH (r = 0.49; p < 0.001). Survivin levels can distinguish patients who had poor prognosis (median survival 75 days, n = 24) and those who had good prognosis (median survival 219 days, n = 27, p = 0.03) in MPE. In conclusion, survivin expression levels detected with ELISA had no discriminative power in differentiating exudative effusions included MPE and TPE. Elevated survivin levels are associated with poor survival in MPE. Our results suggest that survivin may be a potential prognostic marker in MPE.

BackgroundTransthoracic fine needle aspiration biopsy is a well-established and safe technique for obtaining pulmonary tissue. However, there is very little data about repeating procedure.ObjectivesWe aimed to investigate whether repeating CT-guided transthoracic fine needle aspiration (TFNA) increases diagnostic yield and complication rate.Patients and MethodsPatients underwent TFNA and the final diagnoses achieved were included in the study. Consequently, 316 TFNA procedures performed in 240 patients were investigated retrospectively. A diagnosis was not reached in the first TFNA in 64 patients, then they underwent repeated TFNA. The factors that affected the diagnostic yield and complication rate were recorded.ResultsThe final diagnoses of 199 (82.9%) patients were malignant and 41 patients were benign. One hundred seventy six patients underwent the TFNA procedure only once. Sixty-four patients underwent a second procedure, while 12 underwent a third one. The diagnosis rate in the first procedures (diagnosis obtained in 142 out of 240 patients) was 59%. With the repeated procedures, 30 other patients were diagnosed. The diagnosis rate increased to 72% (172 out of 240 patients) (P<0.001). Twenty-nine (9.2%) pneumothoraces in 26 patients were detected in 316 TFNA procedures. In the repeated TFNA group (64 patients) there were seven pneumothoraces (11%) in the first TFNA procedure and six pneumothoraces (9%) in the repeated TFNA procedures (P=0.41). In three patients, pneumothorax was detected in the first and repeated procedures. Pneumothorax was significantly associated with the maximum diameter of the lesion (P=0.003), distance to pleura (P=0.001), contact to the pleura (P=0.0001) and smoking history (pack/year) (P=0.04).ConclusionThis study demonstrated that repeating the TFNA procedure in pulmonary lesions improves the diagnostic yield without an increase in the rate of pneumothorax.

PurposeTo compare the bronchodilator efficacy of 18 μg once-daily tiotropium inhalation administered via Discair® versus HandiHaler® in adults with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).Patients and methodsFifty-eight patients with moderate-to-severe COPD were enrolled in this randomized, active-controlled, parallel-group, open-label, Phase IV non-inferiority trial. Patients were randomly assigned to a test group (n=29, inhalation with Discair) or a reference group (n=29, inhalation with HandiHaler). The primary efficacy parameter was the average maximum change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1, in L). Change in forced vital capacity (FVC, in L), %FEV1 and %FVC, the standardized area under the response–time curve (AUC) for the absolute change in FEV1 and FVC, time to onset and peak of response, and safety data were also evaluated.ResultsThe test inhaler was non-inferior to the reference inhaler in terms of maximum change in FEV1 at 24 h (unadjusted change: 0.0017 L [95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.0777, 0.0812]; change adjusted for time to reach maximum change in FEV1 and smoking in pack-years: 0.0116 L [95% CI: −0.0699, 0.0931]), based on a non-inferiority margin of 0.100 L. There were also no significant differences between the two groups in maximum change in FVC value from baseline (0.3417 L vs 0.4438 L, P=0.113), percent change from baseline (22.235 vs 20.783 for FEV1, P=0.662; 16.719 vs 20.337 for FVC, P=0.257), and AUC0–24 h (2.949 vs 2.833 L for FEV1, P=0.891; 2.897 vs 4.729 L for FVC, P=0.178). There were no adverse events, serious adverse events, or deaths.ConclusionOur findings show that the Discair was non-inferior to the HandiHaler. More specifically, these devices had similar clinical efficacy in terms of time-dependent response over 24 h for patients with moderate-to-severe COPD.

No abstract