Background: The current cost of treatment of malignant pleural effusion (MPE) with an indwelling pleural catheter (IPC) is unclear.Objective: We propose a review of the scientific evidence on the cost and effectiveness of this therapeutic option. Methods: Systematic review of the literature on the cost and effectiveness of the treatment of MPE by IPC, according to the PRISMA methodology and quality according to the scientific guidelines. Results: A total of 4 articles, 152 patients, and 159 IPCs were included. The use of IPC was associated with improvement in symptoms and quality of life. The most common complications were infections (empyema in 20.9% of patients and cellulitis in 17.3%); 9% of cases were hospitalized due to complications, and <2% required subsequent procedures. The average cost of IPC (set/drainage bottles) ranged from e2,025.6 to e1,200.5 if it was placed on an outpatient basis, e1,100 if survival was <6 weeks, and e4,028 in patients with mesothelioma. Complications increased the cost, and taking into account follow-up visits, additional tests, and days of admission for complications, the cost was >e5,000. Compared with pleurodesis, the cost of IPC was significantly lower when patient survival was <14 weeks, but not when survival was longer or home care was required. Conclusions: The use of IPC is associated with good control of MPE and seldom requires many subsequent procedures; however, it is also associated with a certain rate of complications, which may increase costs. However, ambulatory management may help reduce costs, which are directly related to the type of tumor, the duration of survival, and the need for specialized treatment.

No abstract

No abstract

Introduction: There is debate as to whether lung-ultrasound (LUS) can replace lung-auscultation (LA) in the assessment of respiratory diseases. Methodology: The diagnostic validity, safety, and reliability of LA and LUS were analyzed in patients admitted in a pulmonary ward due to decompensated obstructive airway diseases, decompensated interstitial diseases, and pulmonary infections, in a prospective study. Standard formulas were used to calculate the diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. The interobserver agreement with respect to the LA and LUS findings was evaluated based on the Kappa coefficient (ᴋ). Results: A total of 115 patients were studied. LUS was more sensitive than the LA in evaluating pulmonary infections (93.59% vs. 77.02%; p = 0.001) and more specifically in the case of decompensated obstructive airway diseases (95.6% vs. 19.10%; p = 0.001). The diagnostic accuracy of LUS was also greater in the case of pulmonary infections (75.65% vs. 60.90%; p = 0.02). The sensitivity and specificity of the combination of LA and LUS was 95.95%, 50% in pulmonary infections, 76.19%, 100% in case of decompensated obstructive airway diseases, and (100%, 88.54%) in case of interstitial diseases. (ᴋ) was 0.71 for an A-pattern, 0.73 for pathological B‑lines, 0.94 for condensations, 0.89 for pleural-effusion, 0.63 for wheezes, 0.38 for rhonchi, 0.68 for fine crackles, 0.18 for coarse crackles, and 0.29 for a normal LA. Conclusions: There is a greater interobserver agreement in the interpretation of LUS-findings compared to that of LA-noises, their combined use improves diagnostic performance in all diseases examined.

No abstract