BackgroundMalignant pleural effusions continue to be a common problem in patients with metastatic disease, leading to a significant reduction in quality of life with progressive dyspnea, dry cough, chest pain and reduced physical activity. This study was conducted to compare the efficacy, safety, and outcome of Talc Powder Pleurodesis (TPP) with Povidone-iodine Pleurodesis (PIP) through a chest drain as a palliative preventive treatment of recurrent malignant pleural effusion.MethodsA total of 39 neoplastic patients with recurrent malignant pleural effusion were enrolled in a prospective randomized trial. Twenty-one patients received Talc pleurodesis (group A), and eighteen patients (group B) received Povidone-iodine pleurodesis. The continuous variables were expressed as mean values ± standard deviation (SD) and compared using the unpaired t-test. The discrete variables were expressed as percentage and compared using the chi-square test (χ2) test. p-values of less than 0.05 were considered significant.ResultsOur study included 11 males and 28 females, the mean age was (71.0 ± 5.0) years for group A and (70.9 ± 5.1) years for group B (non-significant). Post-procedure analgesic requirements were recorded in both groups. Four patients in each group had fever (>38°C) within 48 hours of the procedure. Both groups achieved good symptomatic relief. There were no in-hospital deaths. The mean post-procedure hospital stay was (4.7 ± 1.2) days for group A and (4.2 ± 1.0) for group B (non-significant). At follow-up recurrence of significant pleural effusion requiring intervention was noted in four and five patients in group A and group B, respectively (non-significant difference).ConclusionPovidone-iodine pleurodesis can be considered as a good alternative to Talc pleurodesis for recurrent malignant pleural effusion. The drug is available, cost effective, safe and can be administered through an intercostal drain and repeated if necessary.
Background: Mitral valve diseases are commonly associated with pulmonary hypertension. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of preoperative administration of sildenafil on the outcome after mitral valve replacement in patients with pulmonary hypertension.
Methods: This prospective randomized study was carried out on 67 patients who had a mitral valve replacement and associated high systolic pulmonary artery pressure more than 50 mmHg. Patients were randomized into three groups: group A (n= 20) received preoperative sildenafil for one week, group B (n=22) received sildenafil for one month, and group C (n= 25) did not receive sildenafil. All patients had transthoracic echocardiography preoperatively, one week and one month postoperatively.
Results: There was no difference in preoperative and operative variables among groups. Dobutamine support was required in 15 patients (60%) in group C vs. 6 patients (30%) in group A and 5 patients (22.5%) in group B (p= 0.012). Duration of mechanical ventilation was significantly longer in group C (389.2 ± 48.79 minutes) compared to group A and B (295.5 ± 17.01 and 281.4 ± 39.44 minutes, respectively, p<0.001). ICU stay was longer in group C (61.72 ± 13.69 hours) compared to groups A and B (53.55 ± 14.49 and 45.64 ± 13.43 hours, respectively, p=0001). The hospital stay was longer in group C (8.0 ± 1.80 days) compared to group A and B (6.05 ± 0.94 and 6.27 ± 1.24 days, respectively; p< 0.001). The transthoracic echocardiographic study one month after the operation showed that pulmonary artery systolic pressure significantly lower in groups A and B (28.30 ± 3.3 and 28.2 ± 4.98 mmHg, respectively) compared to group C (43.12 ± 4.99 mmHg) (p <0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between groups A and B regarding PASP after five days (p= 0.287) or one month (p= 0.939).
Conclusion: We found that preoperative administration of oral sildenafil in patients with pulmonary hypertension undergoing mitral valve replacement may reduce pulmonary hypertension postoperatively. We could not find a difference in the administration of sildenafil for either one week or one month preoperatively.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.