Background Primary spontaneous pneumothorax occurs in otherwise healthy young patients. Optimal management is not defined and often results in prolonged hospitalisation. Data on efficacy of ambulatory options are poor. We aimed to describe the duration of hospitalisation and safety of ambulatory management compared with standard care.Methods In this open-label, randomised controlled trial, adults (aged 16-55 years) with symptomatic primary spontaneous pneumothorax were recruited from 24 UK hospitals during a period of 3 years. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to treatment with either an ambulatory device or standard guideline-based management (aspiration, standard chest tube insertion, or both). The primary outcome was total length of hospital stay including re-admission up to 30 days after randomisation. Patients with available data were included in the primary analysis and all assigned patients were included in the safety analysis. The trial was prospectively registered with the International Standard Randomised Clinical Trials Number, ISRCTN79151659. Findings Of 776 patients screened between July, 2015, and March, 2019, 236 (30%) were randomly assigned to ambulatory care (n=117) and standard care (n=119). At day 30, the median hospitalisation was significantly shorter in the 114 patients with available data who received ambulatory treatment (0 days [IQR 0-3]) than in the 113 with available data who received standard care (4 days [IQR 0-8]; p<0•0001; median difference 2 days [95% CI 1-3]). 110 (47%) of 236 patients had adverse events, including 64 (55%) of 117 patients in the ambulatory care arm and 46 (39%) of 119 in the standard care arm. All 14 serious adverse events occurred in patients who received ambulatory care, eight (57%) of which were related to the intervention, including an enlarging pneumothorax, asymptomatic pulmonary oedema, and the device malfunctioning, leaking, or dislodging.Interpretation Ambulatory management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax significantly reduced the duration of hospitalisation including re-admissions in the first 30 days, but at the expense of increased adverse events. This data suggests that primary spontaneous pneumothorax can be managed for outpatients, using ambulatory devices in those who require intervention.

Background: Malignant pleural effusion (MPE) is a common, serious problem predominantly seen in metastatic lung and breast cancer and malignant pleural mesothelioma. Recurrence of malignant pleural effusion is common, and symptoms significantly impair people's daily lives. Numerous treatment options exist, yet choosing the most suitable depends on many factors and making decisions can be challenging in pressured, time-sensitive clinical environments. Clinicians identified a need to develop a decision support tool. This paper reports the process of coproducing an initial prototype tool. Methods: Creative co-design methods were used. Three pleural teams from three disparate clinical sites in the UK were involved. To overcome the geographical distance between sites and the ill-health of service users, novel distributed methods of creative co-design were used. Local workshops were designed and structured, including video clips of activities. These were run on each site with clinicians, patients and carers. A joint national workshop was then conducted with representatives from all stakeholder groups to consider the findings and outputs from local meetings. The design team worked with participants to develop outputs, including patient timelines and personas. These were used as the basis to develop and test prototype ideas. Results: Key messages from the workshops informed prototype development. These messages were as follows. Understanding and managing the pleural effusion was the priority for patients, not their overall cancer journey. Preferred methods for receiving information were varied but visual and graphic approaches were favoured. The main influences on people's decisions about their MPE treatment were personal aspects of their lives, for example, how active they are, what support they have at home. The findings informed the development of a first prototype/service visualisation (a video representing a web-based support tool) to help people identify personal priorities and to guide shared treatment decisions.

Non-traumatic chylothorax refers to accumulation of chyle in the pleural space in the absence of any traumatic disruption to the thoracic duct. Chyle originates from the intestines and is transported via the thoracic duct into systemic circulation. The anatomical course of the thoracic duct is complex with considerable variation; therefore, development of chylothorax is dependent on the site and level of the thoracic duct defect. Non-traumatic chylothorax is associated with a wide range of medical disorders, but malignancy accounts for three-quarters of cases. In up to 9% of cases, the aetiology remains unknown (termed idiopathic chylothorax). Gross appearance of pleural fluid is neither sensitive nor specific enough to diagnose chylothorax; therefore, biochemical analysis of the pleural fluid is required. Pleural fluid triglyceride level >1.24 mmol·L−1 (110 mg·dL−1) with a cholesterol level <5.18 mmol·L−1 (200 mg·dL−1) is diagnostic of chylothorax. In borderline cases, lipoprotein electrophoresis can help confirm the diagnosis by detecting chylomicrons in the pleural fluid.Once the diagnosis of chylothorax is confirmed, the next step is to find the cause and identify the leakage point, for which various lymphatic specific radiological investigations may have an important role. There is paucity of data on the most suitable approach to manage non-traumatic chylothoraces and treatment often depends on the underlying cause. In general, conservative treatment is tried first, usually for a limited time, before considering more invasive measures. A multidisciplinary approach is recommended with close liaison among the respiratory physicians, thoracic surgeons, oncologists, interventional radiologists, dietitians and pharmacists.Educational aimsTo review the pathophysiology, aetiology, and epidemiology of non-traumatic chylothorax.To discuss diagnostic and therapeutic strategies in the management of non-traumatic chylothorax.

A pfADA level <30 IU/l makes a diagnosis of TB highly unlikely in the South London population. Its high sensitivity and negative predictive values make pfADA a valuable screening test for excluding suspected pleural TB.

IntroductionThe development of malignant pleural effusion (MPE) results in disabling breathlessness, pain and reduced physical capability with treatment a palliative strategy. Ambulatory management of MPE has the potential to improve quality of life (QoL). The OPTIMUM trial is designed to determine whether full outpatient management of MPE with an indwelling pleural catheter (IPC) and pleurodesis improves QoL compared with traditional inpatient care with a chest drain and talc pleurodesis. OPTIMUM is currently open for any centres interested in collaborating in this study.Methods and analysisOPTIMUM is a multicentre non-blinded randomised controlled trial. Patients with a diagnosis of MPE will be identified and screened for eligibility. Consenting participants will be randomised 1:1 either to an outpatient ambulatory pathway using IPCs and talc pleurodesis or standard inpatient treatment with chest drain and talc pleurodesis as per British Thoracic Society guidelines. The primary outcome measure is global health-related QoL at 30 days measured using the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire. Secondary outcome measures include breathlessness and pain measured using a 100 mm Visual Analogue Scale and health-related QoL at 60 and 90 days. A sample size of 142 patients is needed to demonstrate a clinically significant difference of 8 points in global health status at 30 days, for an 80% power and a 5% significance level.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been approved by the NRES Committee South East Coast—Brighton and Sussex (reference 15/LO/1018). The trial results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific conferences.Trial registration numbersUKCRN19615 and ISRCTN15503522; Pre-results.