Protocol of the Australasian Malignant Pleural Effusion (AMPLE) trial: a multicentre randomised study comparing indwelling pleural catheter versus talc pleurodesis

INTRODUCTION: Malignant pleural effusion can complicate most cancers. It causes breathlessness and requires hospitalisation for invasive pleural drainages. Malignant effusions often herald advanced cancers and limited prognosis. Minimising time spent in hospital is of high priority to patients and their families. Various treatment strategies exist for the management of malignant effusions, though there is no consensus governing the best choice. Talc pleurodesis is the conventional management but requires hospitalisation (and substantial healthcare resources), can cause significant side effects, and has a suboptimal success rate. Indwelling pleural catheters (IPCs) allow ambulatory fluid drainage without hospitalisation, and are increasingly employed for management of malignant effusions. Previous studies have only investigated the length of hospital care immediately related to IPC insertion. Whether IPC management reduces time spent in hospital in the patients' remaining lifespan is unknown. A strategy of malignant effusion management that reduces hospital admission days will allow patients to spend more time outside hospital, reduce costs and save healthcare resources. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Australasian Malignant Pleural Effusion (AMPLE) trial is a multicentred, randomised trial designed to compare IPC with talc pleurodesis for the management of malignant pleural effusion. This study will randomise 146 adults with malignant pleural effusions (1:1) to IPC management or talc slurry pleurodesis. The primary end point is the total number of days spent in hospital (for any admissions) from treatment procedure to death or end of study follow-up. Secondary end points include hospital days specific to pleural effusion management, adverse events, self-reported symptom and quality-of-life scores. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Sir Charles Gairdner Group Human Research Ethics Committee has approved the study as have the ethics boards of all the participating hospitals. The trial results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry-ACTRN12611000567921; National Institutes of Health-NCT02045121.published_or_final_versio

Management of indwelling tunneled pleural catheters: a modified Delphi consensus statement

Background: The management of recurrent pleural effusions remains a challenging issue for clinicians. Advances in management have led to increased use of indwelling tunneled pleural catheters (IPC) because of their effectiveness and ease of outpatient placement. However, with the increase in IPC placement there have also been increasing reports of complications, including infections. Currently there is minimal guidance in IPC-related management issues after placement. Research Question: Our objective was to formulate clinical consensus statements related to perioperative and long-term IPC catheter management based on a modified Delphi process from experts in pleural disease management. Study Design and Methods: Expert panel members used a modified Delphi process to reach consensus on common perioperative and long-term management options related to IPC use. Members were identified from multiple countries, specialties, and practice settings. A series of meetings and anonymous online surveys were completed. Responses were used to formulate consensus statements among panel experts, using a modified Delphi process. Consensus was defined a priori as greater than 80% agreement among panel constituents. Results: A total of 25 physicians participated in this project. The following topics were addressed during the process: definition of an IPC infection, management of IPC-related infectious complications, interventions to prevent IPC infections, IPC-related obstruction/malfunction management, assessment of IPC removal, and instructions regarding IPC management by patients and caregivers. Strong consensus was obtained on 36 statements. No consensus was obtained on 29 statements. Interpretation: The management of recurrent pleural disease with IPC remains complex and challenging. This statement offers statements for care in numerous areas related to IPC management based on expert consensus and identifies areas that lack consensus. Further studies related to long-term management of IPC are warranted.</p