Paracentesis

Rationale: Parapneumonic effusions have a wide clinical spectrum. The majority settle with conservative management but some progress to complex collections requiring intervention. For decades, physicians have relied on pleural fluid pH to determine the need for chest tube drainage despite a lack of prospective validation and no ability to predict the requirement for fibrinolytics or thoracic surgery.Objectives: To study the ability of suPAR (soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor), a potential biomarker of pleural fluid loculation, to predict the need for invasive management compared with conventional fluid biomarkers (pH, glucose, and lactate dehydrogenase) in parapneumonic effusions.Methods: Patients presenting with pleural effusions were prospectively recruited to an observational study with biological samples stored at presentation. Pleural fluid and serum suPAR levels were measured using the suPARnostic double-monoclonal antibody sandwich ELISA on 93 patients with parapneumonic effusions and 47 control subjects (benign and malignant effusions).Measurements and Main Results: Pleural suPAR levels were significantly higher in effusions that were loculated versus nonloculated parapneumonic effusions (median, 132 ng/ml vs. 22 ng/ml; P Conclusions: Raised pleural suPAR was predictive of patients receiving more invasive management of parapneumonic effusions and added value to conventional biomarkers. These results need validation in a prospective multicenter trial.

IntroductionUltrasonic aspiration (UA) devices are commonly used for resecting intracranial tumors, as they allow for internal debulking of large tumors, hereby avoiding damage to adjacent brain tissue during the dissection. Little is known about their comparative safety profiles.Methods and materialsWe analyzed data from a prospective patient registry. Procedures using one of the following UA models were included: Integra® CUSA, Söring®, and Stryker® Sonopet. The primary endpoint was morbidity at discharge, defined as significant worsening on the Karnofsky Performance Scale. Secondary endpoints included morbidity and mortality until 3 months postoperative (M3), occurrence, type, and etiology of complications.ResultsOf n = 1028 procedures, the CUSA was used in n = 354 (34.4 %), the Söring in n = 461 (44.8 %), and the Sonopet in n = 213 (20.7 %). There was some heterogeneity of study groups. In multivariable analysis, patients in the Söring (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.29; 95 % confidence interval (CI), 0.80-2.08; p = 0.299), and Sonopet group (aOR, 0.86; 95 % CI, 0.46-1.61; p = 0.645) were as likely as patients in the CUSA group to experience discharge morbidity. At M3, patients in the Söring (aOR, 1.20; 95 % CI, 0.78-1.86; p = 0.415) and Sonopet group (aOR, 0.53; 95 % CI, 0.26-1.08; p = 0.080) were as likely as patients in the CUSA group to experience morbidity. There were also no differences for M3 morbidity in subgroup analyses for gliomas, meningiomas, and metastases. The grade (p = 0.608) and etiology (p = 0.849) of postoperative complications were similar.ConclusionsNeurosurgeons select UA types with regard to certain case-specific characteristics. The safety profiles of three commonly used UA types appear mostly similar.

Sophisticated screening protocols for genetic abnormalities constitute an important component of current prenatal care, aiming to identify high-risk pregnancies and offer appropriate counseling to parents regarding their options. Definite prenatal diagnosis is only possible by invasive prenatal diagnostic testing (IPDT), mainly including amniocentesis and chorionic villous sampling (CVS). The aim of this comparative review was to summarize and compare the existing recommendations on IPDT from the most influential guidelines. All the reviewed guidelines highlight that IPDT is indicated based on a positive screening test rather than maternal age alone. Other indications arise from medical history and sonography, with significant variations identified between the guidelines. The earlier time for amniocentesis is unequivocally set at ≥15 gestational weeks, whereas for CVS, the earlier limit varies from ≥10 to ≥11 weeks. Certain technical aspects and the overall approach demonstrate significant differences. Periprocedural management regarding Rhesus alloimmunization, virologic status and use of anesthesia or antibiotics are either inconsistent or insufficiently addressed. The synthesis of an evidence-based algorithm for IPDT is of crucial importance to healthcare professionals implicated in prenatal care to avoid unnecessary interventions without compromising optimal prenatal care.

Background and Objectives: Cardiac tamponade is managed through echo- or fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous pericardiocentesis. The European Society of Cardiology's Working Group on Myocardial and Pericardial Diseases proposed a triage strategy for these patients. This study evaluated the triage score and compared the safety and efficacy of fluoroscopy- versus echo-guided procedures without additional visualization control. Materials and Methods: This prospective observational study included 71 patients with cardiac tamponade from February 2021 to June 2022. Pericardiocentesis was performed using fluoroscopy or echo guidance based on clinical assessment and catheterization laboratory availability, without the additional control of needle/guidewire position or ECG monitoring. Patients were followed for three months. Results: The study included 71 patients (52.1% female, mean age 59.7 ± 15.7 years). Malignancy was the most common comorbidity (59.2%). Echo criteria led to urgent procedures in 47.9%, with subcostal access used most often (60.6%), particularly in fluoroscopy-guided procedures (93.8%, p = 0.003). The success rate was 97.1%, with minor complications in 14% of patients. Diabetes and malignancy predicted complications regardless of access site or guiding method. The triage score did not affect complication rates or short-term mortality. Conclusions: Fluoroscopy- and echo-guided pericardiocentesis without additional visualization control showed no difference in safety or efficacy. Delaying the procedure for patients with a triage score ≥6, or performing it early for those with a low score, did not impact complication rates or mortality, which were more influenced by the progression of the underlying disease.