Revue des maladies respiratoires · 2026
[Efficacy and safety of intrapleural fibrinolysis in pleural infection. Real-life study over 10 years in a university hospital].
Аннотация на английскомСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Roy V, Bironneau V, Guerin L, Dufay P, Charron M, Luque-Paz D, Jouneau S, Jayle C, Caron F, Meurice J-C, Jutant E-M
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Intrapleural fibrinolysis has proved effective in reducing the length of hospital stay and the need for surgery in pleural infection. However, it carries risks, and its use in France remains unsystematic. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of pleural infection drainage with or without intrapleural fibrinolysis.
METHOD: A single-center retrospective non-interventional study at Poitiers University Hospital (2012-2022) including patients drained for complicated pleural infection or at risk of complication and divided into two groups according to whether intrapleural fibrinolysis was or was not performed.
RESULTS: Out of 85 patients drained for pleural infection, 23 (27 %) received fibrinolysis. The two groups (with or without fibrinolysis) were similar in terms of initial characteristics. The duration of oxygen therapy and fever did not differ. However, the fibrinolysis group had more iatrogenic bleeding (26 % versus 5 %, P=0.01) and a longer hospital stay (18days versus 14days, P=0.03). Survival at one month and one year was comparable, but residual effusion was more frequent in the group without fibrinolysis.
CONCLUSION: Intrapleural fibrinolysis remains a therapeutic option requiring regular reassessment due to difficult-to-prove benefits and marked risks in real-world practice.
METHOD: A single-center retrospective non-interventional study at Poitiers University Hospital (2012-2022) including patients drained for complicated pleural infection or at risk of complication and divided into two groups according to whether intrapleural fibrinolysis was or was not performed.
RESULTS: Out of 85 patients drained for pleural infection, 23 (27 %) received fibrinolysis. The two groups (with or without fibrinolysis) were similar in terms of initial characteristics. The duration of oxygen therapy and fever did not differ. However, the fibrinolysis group had more iatrogenic bleeding (26 % versus 5 %, P=0.01) and a longer hospital stay (18days versus 14days, P=0.03). Survival at one month and one year was comparable, but residual effusion was more frequent in the group without fibrinolysis.
CONCLUSION: Intrapleural fibrinolysis remains a therapeutic option requiring regular reassessment due to difficult-to-prove benefits and marked risks in real-world practice.