Expert Review on Nonsurgical Management of Parapneumonic Effusion: Advances, Controversies, and New Directions

Abstract

Parapneumonic effusion and empyema are rising in incidence worldwide, particularly in association with comorbidities in an aging population. Also driving this change is the widespread uptake of pneumococcal vaccines, leading to the emergence of nonvaccine-type pneumococci and other bacteria. Early treatment with systemic antibiotics is essential but should be guided by local microbial guidelines and antimicrobial resistance patterns due to significant geographical variation. Thoracic ultrasound has emerged as a leading imaging technique in parapneumonic effusion, enabling physicians to characterize effusions, assess the underlying parenchyma, and safely guide pleural procedures. Drainage decisions remain based on longstanding criteria including the size of the effusion and fluid gram stain and biochemistry results. Small-bore chest drains appear to be as effective as large bore and are adequate for the delivery of intrapleural enzyme therapy (IET), which is now supported by a large body of evidence. The IET dosing regimen used in the UK Multicenter Sepsis Trial -2 has the most evidence available but data surrounding alternative dosing, concurrent and once-daily instillations, and novel fibrinolytic agents are promising. Prognostic scores used in pneumonia (e.g., CURB-65) tend to underestimate mortality in parapneumonic effusion/empyema. Scores specifically based on pleural infection have been developed but require validation in prospective cohorts.

 

MissingLinkText

Keywords

parapneumonic effusion - pleural infection - empyema - intrapleural enzyme therapy

Epidemiology

Pleural infection represents a common and often life-threatening condition. Clinical studies show that more than half of the patients with pneumonia develop pleural effusion. The estimated incidence across the United Kingdom and the United States was 80,000 cases per year in 2011.[1] The reported mortality rate was 10.5% at 30 days[2] and 19% at 1 year.[3] [4] Parapneumonic effusion and empyema are also associated with a significant increase in the cost of care,[5] with annual estimates from the United States in 2010 being in excess of US$500 million[1] including costs of pleural interventions and thoracic surgery.[6]

The incidence of empyema began rising worldwide in the early 21st century in both developed and developing countries and across all age groups.[7] [8] The annual empyema-associated hospitalization rates increased approximately 70% between 1997 and 2006 in children in the United States.[8] Similar trends have been found in children in Israel,[9] Taiwan,[10] and New Zealand.[11] As observed in children, increased pleural infection rates were documented in adults after 2000 in developed nations such as Canada,[12] United States[13], France,[14] and England.[15] In France, empyema incidence rose from 7.15 to 7.75 cases per 100 000 inhabitants between 2013 and 2017.[14] Analysis from England found the number of cases of empyema across the National Health System increased significantly from 4,447 in 2008 to 7,268 in 2017.[15] In adults in the United States, hospitalizations for empyema increased by 37.5% between 2007 and 2016.[16] A sixfold rise in empyema mortality rates was also reported in Utah between 1950 and 2004.[7]

The etiology of the increased prevalence of empyema is hypothesized to be multifactorial. The aging population of developed countries increases the prevalence of risk factors for empyema such as older age,[15] chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (particularly when associated with diabetes, cancer, and other comorbidities),[17] and chronic renal and liver failure.[18] [19] The introduction of the 7-valent conjugate pneumococcal vaccine (PCV-7)[20] has led to a serotype shift toward serogroups 1 and 3,[14] [21] [22] which are associated with a greater frequency of empyema. However, the introduction of PCV-13, which has activity against serogroups 1 and 3, has brought a fall in empyema rates in the United States,[23] Scotland,[24] and Spain,[25] although not in Australia.[26] As pneumococcal serotypes continue to evolve in response to changes in conjugate vaccines, the prevalence of empyema will need to be carefully monitored.

 

MissingLinkText

Pathogenesis

A parapneumonic effusion is a pleural effusion secondary to a pulmonary infection of viral or bacterial origin (pneumonia or lung abscess) and is considered complicated when an invasive procedure is required (i.e., chest tube insertion).

In pneumonia, the inflammatory response can extend to the visceral pleura causing the accumulation of inflammatory mediators, such as interleukin-8 and tumor necrosis factor α, the activation of somatic pain receptors responsible for pleuritic pain, and formation of an exudative pleural effusion (exudative stage). In some cases, the inflammatory response can progress to a fibrinopurulent stage characterized by the deposition of fibrin membranes and bacterial migration into the pleural space. The consequent promotion of inflammatory response triggers the extrinsic coagulation cascade and neutrophil activation/phagocytosis.

In some cases, despite antibiotic therapy, the effusion can progress to the organizing phase, characterized by large fibroblastic activation that leads to fibrotic pleural peels and, potentially, to “trapped lung.” This can lead to a variety of complications from severe respiratory failure (reduced gas exchange efficiency) to chronic empyema.

Excessive fibrin deposits should be degraded by plasmin, a serine protease that is derived from plasma plasminogen. Plasminogen can be transformed into its active form by urokinase (uPA) and tissue-type plasminogen activators (t-PA) by binding to specific receptors (e.g., soluble uPA-type plasminogen activator receptor [suPAR]). The proenzyme single chain uPA (scuPA) can also be found in plasma while local mesothelial cells produce t-PA. The plasminogen activator inhibitor (PAI)-1 regulates plasminogen activation by irreversibly inhibiting both uPA and t-PA. Increased PAI-1 expression can be the main cause of pleural fibrosis, as confirmed by different animal models.[27] [28]

The microbiology of parapneumonic effusion differs from pneumonia as it is also influenced by the acidic and hypoxic environment of the infected pleural space. While Streptococcus pneumoniae remains one of the commonest causes of both parenchymal and pleural infections, poor dental hygiene and aspiration of organisms from the oropharynx have classically been associated with pleural infection caused by anaerobic or facultative anaerobic pathogens that rarely cause parenchymal infection.[29] [30] Hematogenous spread of bacteria can induce pleural infection without evidence of pulmonary infiltrates.

Etiology

The prevalence of causative organisms of pleural infection varies depending on the source of infection (community vs. hospital-acquired empyema), host factors (patient age and immune status), and geographic region ([Table 1]).[31] The UK Multicenter Intrapleural Sepsis Trial (MIST)-1 confirmed streptococcal species as the most prevalent organisms isolated in adult community-acquired cases of pleural infection, with the Streptococcus milleri group accounting for one-third of cases.[32] Streptococcus pneumoniae is the second most common pathogen in community-acquired adult empyema and the most common in pediatric empyema.[29] [31] [33] Other commonly occurring microbes include anaerobes and Staphylococci, the latter accounting for 46% of hospital-acquired cases.[32] Conversely, Klebsiella pneumoniae was the most frequent cause of community-acquired empyema or complicated parapneumonic effusion in Taiwanese adults treated during the period 2001–2008.[34] Mycobacterium tuberculosis is also an important cause of pleural infection in the developing world but is very uncommon in developed economies.[4] [31] [35] [36] Fungal pathogens, most commonly Candida species, are rare causes of empyema, typically seen in patients with significant immune compromise.[37] Detection of microbes especially anaerobes has been enhanced with the guideline-endorsed practice of direct inoculation of pleural fluid into blood culture bottles.[38] [39] [40] Further improvements in culture positivity rates occur when a pleural biopsy is performed at the time of drain insertion.[41]

Table 1 Common causes of empyema by group (subject to geographical differences)

Pediatric	Community-acquired adult	Nosocomial
Streptococcus pneumoniae	Viridans streptococci[a]	Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA > MSSA)
Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA > MRSA)	Streptococcus pneumoniae	Enterobacteria
Streptococcus pyogenes	Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA > MRSA)	Enterococci
Viridans streptococci[a]	Enterobacteria	Viridans streptococci[a]
Mycobacterium tuberculosis	Klebsiella species	Pseudomonas species
	Pseudomonas species	Klebsiella species
	Mycobacterium tuberculosis

Abbreviations: MRSA, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; MSSA, methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus.

^a Streptococcus milleri being the most common pathogen in this group.

 

MissingLinkText

Radiology in Parapneumonic Effusion

Radiography

Chest radiography (CXR) is typically performed in suspected pneumonia and can detect small-volume parapneumonic effusions.[42] However, CXR is inaccurate in separating lung consolidation and pleural effusions and is insensitive to the detection of small effusions.[43] Patients with pneumonia who have ongoing fever or fail to respond to therapy, therefore, need additional imaging modalities such as computed tomography (CT) or thoracic ultrasound (TUS).

 

MissingLinkText

Computed Tomography

Cross-sectional imaging with CT can identify collections that are not visible on CXR or TUS (e.g., paramediastinal or fissural locules). CT can also evaluate the lung parenchyma and may identify an unexpected alternative etiology such as esophageal perforation. A CT scoring system for parapneumonic effusions, incorporating the presence of the split pleura sign, visible microbubbles, increased extrapleural fat attenuation, and fluid volume greater than 400 mL (3 cm), has an 81% diagnostic accuracy for complicated effusions, although clinical utility of the score has not been prospectively proven ([Fig. 1]).[44]

Fig. 1 CT thorax showing a loculated pleural effusion with pleural enhancement, the split pleura sign (broad white arrow), and increased extra-pleural fat attenuation (thin white arrow). Pleural phase CT demonstrates visceral and parietal pleural enhancement, resulting in the “split pleura” sign. CT, computed tomography.

 

MissingLinkText

Thoracic Ultrasound

TUS is an increasingly useful imaging modality for the identification of pleural effusion at any volume.[45] [46] TUS can evaluate effusion characteristics that can assist with prognostication and management decisions (e.g., echogenicity[47] [48] and septations[49]) and the underlying etiology (e.g., lung consolidation/abscess). The sensitivity of TUS in the identification of septations far exceeds CT (44 vs. 6%).[49] Although neither TUS nor CT findings of septations predicted the need for surgery in one study, all included patients were aggressively managed with chest tube drainage and intrapleural fibrinolytics.[49] Whether the presence of septations predicts the need for fibrinolytics warrants further investigation.

Patients with complex septations on TUS have increased requirements for ICU and a lower likelihood of survival.[50] Furthermore, routine use of ultrasonography in critically ill patients decreases the number of radiographic and CT investigations, reducing patient and staff exposure to ionizing radiation.[51] Its increasing use as a point-of-care bedside investigation has resulted in its recommendation as the first-line imaging modality in cases of suspected pleural infection where available.[52]

Pediatric studies have demonstrated the superiority of MRI over CXR in the identification of empyema[53] and excellent correlation with findings on CT[54] but is unlikely to surpass TUS from practicality and cost-effectiveness standpoints.

 

MissingLinkText

 

MissingLinkText

Systemic Therapies for Parapneumonic Effusion

Systemic Antibiotic Therapy

Early administration of antibiotics is advised in suspected pleural infection, and adequacy of antimicrobial therapy independently correlates with mortality.[7] [55] The appropriate choice of empiric antibiotic therapy depends on several factors such as community- versus hospital-acquired infection,[4] [29] host characteristics, pathogens identified, and local antimicrobial resistance patterns due to the significant geographical variation described above. Initial empiric therapy may need to be adjusted according to the results of microbiological testing that is mandatory in all patients with pleural effusion.

Patient characteristics, for instance, age, comorbidities, and previous hospitalization and/or antibiotic treatments, can influence choice, as well as the risk of intolerance to antibiotics (side effects, pharmaceutical interactions), and the risk of multidrug-resistant (MDR) pathogens or unusual pathogens such as anaerobic or fungal infections.

MDR pathogens are frequent causes of pleural effusion. Towe et al found that 37% of isolates in community-acquired infections and 77% of isolates in hospital-acquired infections were resistant to at least one antibiotic commonly used to treat respiratory infections.[56] The factors that significantly increase the risk of MDR infections are chronic renal disease, cancer, diabetes mellitus, cerebrovascular diseases, and recent antibiotic therapy.[57] Immunosuppression is associated with an increased risk of unusual pathogens. For instance, uncontrolled HIV infection is associated with a higher risk of Pneumocystis jirovecii, Toxoplasma gondii, or Nocardia species.[58] [59] [60]

Multiple studies have demonstrated that many cases of pleural effusion are polymicrobial and, therefore, require broad-spectrum antibiotics.[29] [61] Empirical antibiotics can be recommended based on currently available pathogen data from large comprehensively assessed cohorts such as the MIST-1 trial population ([Fig. 2]).[29] [32] Atypical organisms are rarely associated with pleural infection, and routine use of macrolides is not recommended.[52] Fungal infections, although rare (approximately 3%), are usually caused by candida and aspergillus species and require specific coverage if confirmed.[37] [62] [63]

Fig. 2 Suggested empirical antibiotics for (A) community-acquired infections aiming to cover gram positive, gram negative, and anaerobic infections and (B) hospital-acquired infections aiming to include cover for pseudomonas ± methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).[52] [63] [64] Modifications may be required depending on local microbiology guidelines and resistance patterns.

Antibiotic cessation or deescalation can be considered after 2 to 3 weeks.[64] [65] The Optimal Duration of Antibiotics in Parapneumonic Effusion study demonstrated noninferiority of a 2-week (vs. 3-week) course of coamoxiclav in non-ICU cases who had achieved clinical stability at Day 14 of treatment,[66] but a longer duration of treatment (3–6 weeks) is usually recommended in nosocomial or postsurgical infections.[67] [68]

 

MissingLinkText

Corticosteroids in Parapneumonic Effusion

Considering evidence for the significant role inflammation plays in the generation of pleural fluid, corticosteroids have been suggested as an adjunct treatment. In a large cohort of patients presenting with CAP, those who were prescribed regular inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) preadmission were less likely to develop a parapneumonic effusion and when an effusion occurred, it was smaller and less inflammatory than those not using ICS. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 60 children with parapneumonic effusions demonstrated that intravenous dexamethasone shortened the time to clinical stability (median [95% confidence interval] 109 [37–180] versus 177 [115–238] hours, p = 0.037),[69] especially for those who had simple (rather than complex) parapneumonic effusions.

The Steroid Therapy and Outcome in Parapneumonic Pleural Effusion placebo-controlled RCT, however, did not find benefits with intravenous dexamethasone in adults with community-acquired parapneumonic effusion.[70]

 

MissingLinkText

 

MissingLinkText

Drainage of Pleural Fluid

Pleural fluid drainage is usually critical to the resolution of complicated parapneumonic effusion. Delays in drainage are associated with increased mortality[71] and clinical guidelines mandate timely drainage where possible.[52] [72] [73] However, determining whether an effusion is complicated and requires drainage is not always straightforward. A free-flowing but large effusion may require drainage for symptom relief alone.[52] [72] [73] Loculations and septations seen on chest X-ray or ultrasound are associated with poorer outcomes[50] [74] [75] [76] and are considered an indication for chest tube insertion in all guidelines.[52] [72] [73]

Purulent fluid should be drained as it is associated with increased failure of medical management and risk of death.[52] [77] Pleural fluid gram stain or culture positivity, or pH of <7.2, also indicates the need for chest tube drainage.[52] [74] [78] Pleural fluid pH is only reliable if sampled in a manner that prevents exposure to lignocaine or air and analyzed with a blood gas analyzer.[79] [80]

Although a large meta-analysis did not find that lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) improved diagnosis of pleural infection over pH alone,[78] LDH >1,000 IU/L can be a useful indicator of complexity and, hence, indicate drainage requirement.[73] Furthermore, pleural fluid glucose <3.3 mmol/L is the consensus value believed to equate to a pH of <7.2 and can be of value when pH is unavailable or unreliable. In a large cohort of well-phenotyped effusions, pH and glucose were concordant in more than 90% of cases.[81]

Increased concentrations of suPAR are associated with loculated pleural effusions and the need for chest tube drainage, intrapleural fibrinolytics, and surgery.[82] Furthermore, elevated levels of PAI-1, the major inhibitor of fibrinolysis in the inflamed/infected pleural space, appear to be associated with the development of septations and their severity, length of hospital stay, and mortality.[83] PAI-1 is known to inhibit the activity of uPA and t-PA; it is possible that levels of PAI-1 rise over time and reduce the efficacy of intrapleural enzyme therapy (IET).[84] In the future, it may be that baseline levels of PAI-1 could be used to guide the need for drainage, the procedure chosen, and choice and dose of fibrinolytic agents (see below).[84]

The optimal approach to drainage of a parapneumonic effusion has not been empirically defined.[85] Therapeutic thoracentesis (TT) may be performed at the time of the diagnostic aspirate in small free-flowing effusion as fluid may not always reaccumulate.[86] The Aspiration versus Chest Tube (ACTion) trial demonstrated the feasibility of TT in 10 patients with complicated parapneumonic effusion without significant loculations.[87] This approach will need evaluation in larger studies.

Controversy regarding the choice of catheter size for drainage in pleural infection persists. Early studies of Seldinger chest drains inserted for effusions of varying etiologies demonstrated a higher incidence of tube blockage and failure in empyema cases.[88] [89] A post-hoc analysis of patients from the MIST-1 study, however, demonstrated that small-bore chest tubes (<16 Fr) were as effective as large-bore ones, with no difference in clinical outcomes (radiographic resolution, LOS, progression to surgery, or mortality) but caused significantly less pain, particularly in comparison to those inserted using blunt dissection.[90] Regular flushing is advised to maintain the patency of small-bore tubes.[52] Specific position of the tube in the chest is not likely to significantly impair drainage.[91] Often US- or CT-guided placement of several catheters for the drainage of noncommunicating collections is necessary.[92] Cases of indwelling pleural catheter (IPC) use for chronic empyema in patients unfit for surgery have been reported.[93]

 

MissingLinkText

Intrapleural Enzyme Therapy

The presence of loculations can preclude adequate drainage. Fibrinolytic agents can breakdown fibrinous septations allowing fluid drainage. Recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rtPA and alteplase) combined with deoxyribonuclease (dornase α and DNase) reduces the need for surgical referrals for pleural infection in comparison to either therapy alone or placebo.[94] This approach has revolutionized the management of pleural infection worldwide. Numerous studies have demonstrated real-world success[95] and trialed various methods of administration (e.g., combined vs. sequential instillation, once daily dosing), with generally high rates of success.[96] [97] [98] Long-term follow-up studies assessing the radiological (CXR), physiological (spirometry), and functional (quality of life) effects of tPA/DNase treatment, revealed no significant adverse effects.[99] Novel fibrinolytic agents such as scuPA plasminogen activator, resistant to the endogenously produced PAI-1, are under investigation.[100] In consideration of the positive results of phase I clinical trial, a phase II trial is currently evaluating the fibrinolytic efficacy of scuPA in patients with loculated pleural infection (identifier: NCT04159831).

Complications of IET are rare; however, the risk of pleural bleeding remains a concern. A large retrospective study found an overall bleeding rate of 4.1%.[101] Bleeding rates were significantly higher in patients who were therapeutically anticoagulated, had low platelets (<100 × 109), or elevated urea levels.[101] Dosing of tPA in the original trials (10 mg/instillation) was arbitrary and the usual dose escalation studies, to which novel drugs are subjected, were not performed. The Alteplase Dose Assessment for Pleural Infection Therapy project assessed lower doses of tPA (5 and 2.5 mg) and demonstrated similar success rates, although dose escalation to 10 mg was required in 12 and 24%, respectively.[102] Case reports of ultralow dose tPA (1 mg) have been published.[103] Overall bleeding risk was not reduced using lower doses when compared with standard 10 mg regimens.[101] Consensus expert opinion is that anticoagulants should be withheld before and during intrapleural therapy where possible. If withholding these medications is not possible, a lower dose tPA should be considered.[63]

The increased drainage of fluid following the administration of tPA occurs in part due to the induction of exudative fluid generation by the drug itself. Animal models have demonstrated that this fluid generation is monocyte chemotactic protein-1 dependent[104] and may additionally provide a lavage effect to clear the pleural space. Similarly, saline irrigation of the infected pleural cavity showed some benefits in a small trial[105] and may be of benefit in those for whom tPA poses an unacceptable bleeding risk.

The recent upsurge in the use of IPCs has given rise to a novel challenge of IPC-related pleural infection. Compared with de novo parapneumonic effusion, the complexity of the pleural environment, in which malignant pleural infiltration of the pleura has occurred, is much greater. Expert consensus recommends keeping the catheter in situ while treating the infection with systemic antibiotics.[106] If the effusion becomes loculated and drainage ceases, intrapleural administration of tPA/DNase via the IPC itself has been successful and safe in retrospective studies.[107] [108]

 

MissingLinkText

Clinical Scoring Systems

Several scoring tools have been published and validated in pleural infection. Currently, these remain largely used as research tools with limited clinical application.

Unsurprisingly scores that pick up on frailty such as the Charlson comorbidity index do predict worse outcomes in the setting of empyema.[109] The RAPID score,[110] a 0 to 7 scale based on renal function, age, purulence of the pleural fluid, the infection source (community or nosocomial), and serum albumin (diet), was shown to be useful in identifying patients at increased risk of mortality and prolonged hospitalization both retrospectively[111] and prospectively.[3] This is largely driven by identifying elderly patients with significant comorbidity and/or frailty.

Commonly used in sepsis, the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA)[112] [113] and quick SOFA (qSOFA)[114] indices also help identify patients with empyema at a high risk of death.[115] Notably, a score ≥2 in either index indicated a much higher risk of a pathogen resistant to common empiric antibiotics.[115] It is important to note that the performance of SOFA or qSOFA to predict antibiotic-resistant pathogens will be highly dependent on the overall prevalence of these resistant pathogens.

Comparison of the utility of the pneumonia severity index, CURB-65, CRB-65, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II, and standardized early warning score in a large population with community-acquired pneumonia (n = 1269) found none of these scores useful in predicting the development of complicated parapneumonic effusion or empyema.[116] In fact, evidence suggests the CURB-65 score dramatically underestimated mortality in pneumonia complicated by parapneumonic effusion.[117] However, multivariate analysis of the 1,269 patients did allow the development of a 6-point scoring system (Chalmer's score) based on serum albumin, sodium, platelet count, c-reactive protein, and a history of alcohol or illicit drug use that achieved a receiver operator characteristic curve of 0.84 for these outcomes.[116] This requires prospective evaluation before inclusion in clinical guidelines but if validated is likely to be of clinical value.

 

MissingLinkText

 

MissingLinkText

Conclusion

The incidence of pleural infection complicating community-acquired pneumonia is increasing, predominantly due to the aging, increasingly comorbid population at higher risk of empyema and likely in part the emergence of nonvaccine-type pneumococci and other bacteria. Early identification of complicated parapneumonic effusion requiring drainage is essential. Application of novel scores can allow us to identify those at risk earlier and, in combination with improved imaging with TUS, allows for the rapid institution of nonsurgical interventions that are proving to be efficacious and safe in both the short- and long-term.

Future directions include further investigation of causative bacteria in different settings, particularly in the context of novel genetic sequencing, which will assist with choosing appropriate antibiotic therapy. Individualization of treatment such as specific choice and dosing of intrapleural fibrinolytic therapy based on TUS findings and novel biomarkers predictive of loculations may become possible. A prospective comparison of these nonsurgical interventions and surgery for pleural infection is ongoing (ISRCTN18192121), and the results will further improve our management of this high morbidity and mortality condition.

 

MissingLinkText

 

MissingLinkText

Conflict of Interest

None declared.

• References

• 1 Grijalva CG, Zhu Y, Nuorti JP, Griffin MR. Emergence of parapneumonic empyema in the USA. Thorax 2011; 66 (08) 663-668
• 2 Søgaard M, Nielsen RB, Nørgaard M, Kornum JB, Schønheyder HC, Thomsen RW. Incidence, length of stay, and prognosis of hospitalized patients with pleural empyema: a 15-year Danish nationwide cohort study. Chest 2014; 145 (01) 189-192
• 3 Corcoran JP, Psallidas I, Gerry S. et al. Prospective validation of the RAPID clinical risk prediction score in adult patients with pleural infection: the PILOT study. Eur Respir J 2020; 56 (05) 2000130
• 4 Brims F, Popowicz N, Rosenstengel A. et al. Bacteriology and clinical outcomes of patients with culture-positive pleural infection in Western Australia: a 6-year analysis. Respirology 2019; 24 (02) 171-178
• 5 Cargill TN, Hassan M, Corcoran JP. et al. A systematic review of comorbidities and outcomes of adult patients with pleural infection. Eur Respir J 2019; 54 (03) 54
• 6 Shipe ME, Maiga AW, Deppen SA. et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of fibrinolysis vs thoracoscopic decortication for early empyema. Ann Thorac Surg 2021; 112 (05) 1632-1638
• 7 Bender JM, Ampofo K, Sheng X, Pavia AT, Cannon-Albright L, Byington CL. Parapneumonic empyema deaths during past century, Utah. Emerg Infect Dis 2009; 15 (01) 44-48
• 8 Li ST, Tancredi DJ. Empyema hospitalizations increased in US children despite pneumococcal conjugate vaccine. Pediatrics 2010; 125 (01) 26-33
• 9 Goldbart AD, Leibovitz E, Porat N. et al. Complicated community acquired pneumonia in children prior to the introduction of the pneumococcal conjugated vaccine. Scand J Infect Dis 2009; 41 (03) 182-187
• 10 Wu PS, Huang LM, Chang IS. et al. The epidemiology of hospitalized children with pneumococcal/lobar pneumonia and empyema from 1997 to 2004 in Taiwan. Eur J Pediatr 2010; 169 (07) 861-866
• 11 Mahon C, Walker W, Drage A, Best E. Incidence, aetiology and outcome of pleural empyema and parapneumonic effusion from 1998 to 2012 in a population of New Zealand children. J Paediatr Child Health 2016; 52 (06) 662-668
• 12 Finley C, Clifton J, Fitzgerald JM, Yee J. Empyema: an increasing concern in Canada. Can Respir J 2008; 15 (02) 85-89
• 13 Farjah F, Symons RG, Krishnadasan B, Wood DE, Flum DR. Management of pleural space infections: a population-based analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2007; 133 (02) 346-351
• 14 Bobbio A, Bouam S, Frenkiel J. et al. Epidemiology and prognostic factors of pleural empyema. Thorax 2021; 76 (11) 1117-1123
• 15 Arnold DT, Hamilton FW, Morris TT. et al. Epidemiology of pleural empyema in English hospitals and the impact of influenza. Eur Respir J 2021; 57 (06) 57
• 16 Mummadi SR, Stoller JK, Lopez R, Kailasam K, Gillespie CT, Hahn PY. Epidemiology of adult pleural disease in the United States. Chest 2021; 160 (04) 1534-1551
• 17 Lu HY, Liao KM. Risk of empyema in patients with COPD. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis 2018; 13: 317-324
• 18 Shen TC, Chen CH, Wang IK. et al. Risk of empyema in patients with end-stage renal disease: a nationwide propensity-matched cohort study. QJM 2017; 110 (07) 425-430
• 19 Shen TC, Chen CH, Lai HC. et al. Risk of empyema in patients with chronic liver disease and cirrhosis: a nationwide, population-based cohort study. Liver Int 2017; 37 (06) 862-870
• 20 Feikin DR, Kagucia EW, Loo JD. et al; Serotype Replacement Study Group. Serotype-specific changes in invasive pneumococcal disease after pneumococcal conjugate vaccine introduction: a pooled analysis of multiple surveillance sites. PLoS Med 2013; 10 (09) e1001517
• 21 Byington CL, Hulten KG, Ampofo K. et al. Molecular epidemiology of pediatric pneumococcal empyema from 2001 to 2007 in Utah. J Clin Microbiol 2010; 48 (02) 520-525
• 22 Obando I, Muñoz-Almagro C, Arroyo LA. et al. Pediatric parapneumonic empyema, Spain. Emerg Infect Dis 2008; 14 (09) 1390-1397
• 23 Wiese AD, Griffin MR, Zhu Y, Mitchel Jr. EF, Grijalva CG. Changes in empyema among U.S. children in the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine era. Vaccine 2016; 34 (50) 6243-6249
• 24 Nath S, Thomas M, Spencer D, Turner S. Has the incidence of empyema in Scottish children continued to increase beyond 2005?. Arch Dis Child 2015; 100 (03) 255-258
• 25 Díaz-Conradi A, Hernández S, García-García JJ. et al. Complicated pneumococcal pneumonia with pleural effusion or empyema in the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine era. Pediatr Pulmonol 2019; 54 (05) 517-524
• 26 Strachan R, Homaira N, Beggs S. et al. Assessing the impact of the 13 valent pneumococcal vaccine on childhood empyema in Australia. Thorax 2021; 76 (05) 487-493
• 27 Karandashova S, Florova G, Azghani AO. et al. Intrapleural adenoviral delivery of human plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 exacerbates tetracycline-induced pleural injury in rabbits. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol 2013; 48 (01) 44-52
• 28 Tucker TA, Jeffers A, Alvarez A. et al. Plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 deficiency augments visceral mesothelial organization, intrapleural coagulation, and lung restriction in mice with carbon black/bleomycin-induced pleural injury. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol 2014; 50 (02) 316-327
• 29 Maskell NA, Batt S, Hedley EL, Davies CW, Gillespie SH, Davies RJ. The bacteriology of pleural infection by genetic and standard methods and its mortality significance. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2006; 174 (07) 817-823
• 30 Brook I, Frazier EH. Aerobic and anaerobic microbiology of empyema. A retrospective review in two military hospitals. Chest 1993; 103 (05) 1502-1507
• 31 Hassan M, Cargill T, Harriss E. et al. The microbiology of pleural infection in adults: a systematic review. Eur Respir J 2019; 54 (03) 54
• 32 Maskell NA, Davies CW, Nunn AJ. et al; First Multicenter Intrapleural Sepsis Trial (MIST1) Group. U.K. Controlled trial of intrapleural streptokinase for pleural infection. N Engl J Med 2005; 352 (09) 865-874
• 33 Byington CL, Spencer LY, Johnson TA. et al. An epidemiological investigation of a sustained high rate of pediatric parapneumonic empyema: risk factors and microbiological associations. Clin Infect Dis 2002; 34 (04) 434-440
• 34 Lin YT, Chen TL, Siu LK, Hsu SF, Fung CP. Clinical and microbiological characteristics of community-acquired thoracic empyema or complicated parapneumonic effusion caused by Klebsiella pneumoniae in Taiwan. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2010; 29 (08) 1003-1010
• 35 Bai KJ, Wu IH, Yu MC. et al. Tuberculous empyema. Respirology 1998; 3 (04) 261-266
• 36 Strachan R, Jaffé A. Australian Research Network in Empyema. Assessment of the burden of paediatric empyema in Australia. J Paediatr Child Health 2009; 45 (7-8): 431-436
• 37 Nigo M, Vial MR, Munita JM. et al. Fungal empyema thoracis in cancer patients. J Infect 2016; 72 (05) 615-621
• 38 Menzies SM, Rahman NM, Wrightson JM. et al. Blood culture bottle culture of pleural fluid in pleural infection. Thorax 2011; 66 (08) 658-662
• 39 Charoentunyarak S, Kananuraks S, Chindaprasirt J, Limpawattana P, Sawanyawisuth K. Blood culture bottle and standard culture bottle methods for detection of bacterial pathogens in parapneumonic pleural effusion. Jundishapur J Microbiol 2015; 8 (10) e24893
• 40 Ferrer A, Osset J, Alegre J. et al. Prospective clinical and microbiological study of pleural effusions. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1999; 18 (04) 237-241
• 41 Psallidas I, Kanellakis NI, Bhatnagar R. et al. A pilot feasibility study in establishing the role of ultrasound-guided pleural biopsies in pleural infection (The AUDIO study). Chest 2018; 154 (04) 766-772
• 42 Blackmore CC, Black WC, Dallas RV, Crow HC. Pleural fluid volume estimation: a chest radiograph prediction rule. Acad Radiol 1996; 3 (02) 103-109
• 43 Brixey AG, Luo Y, Skouras V, Awdankiewicz A, Light RW. The efficacy of chest radiographs in detecting parapneumonic effusions. Respirology 2011; 16 (06) 1000-1004
• 44 Porcel JM, Pardina M, Alemán C, Pallisa E, Light RW, Bielsa S. Computed tomography scoring system for discriminating between parapneumonic effusions eventually drained and those cured only with antibiotics. Respirology 2017; 22 (06) 1199-1204
• 45 Xirouchaki N, Magkanas E, Vaporidi K. et al. Lung ultrasound in critically ill patients: comparison with bedside chest radiography. Intensive Care Med 2011; 37 (09) 1488-1493
• 46 Lichtenstein D, Goldstein I, Mourgeon E, Cluzel P, Grenier P, Rouby JJ. Comparative diagnostic performances of auscultation, chest radiography, and lung ultrasonography in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Anesthesiology 2004; 100 (01) 9-15
• 47 Yang PC, Luh KT, Chang DB, Wu HD, Yu CJ, Kuo SH. Value of sonography in determining the nature of pleural effusion: analysis of 320 cases. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1992; 159 (01) 29-33
• 48 Asciak R, Hassan M, Mercer RM. et al. Prospective analysis of the predictive value of sonographic pleural fluid echogenicity for the diagnosis of exudative effusion. Respiration 2019; 97 (05) 451-456
• 49 Kearney SE, Davies CW, Davies RJ, Gleeson FV. Computed tomography and ultrasound in parapneumonic effusions and empyema. Clin Radiol 2000; 55 (07) 542-547
• 50 Chen CH, Chen W, Chen HJ. et al. Transthoracic ultrasonography in predicting the outcome of small-bore catheter drainage in empyemas or complicated parapneumonic effusions. Ultrasound Med Biol 2009; 35 (09) 1468-1474
• 51 Peris A, Tutino L, Zagli G. et al. The use of point-of-care bedside lung ultrasound significantly reduces the number of radiographs and computed tomography scans in critically ill patients. Anesth Analg 2010; 111 (03) 687-692
• 52 Davies HE, Davies RJ, Davies CW. BTS Pleural Disease Guideline Group. Management of pleural infection in adults: British Thoracic Society Pleural Disease Guideline 2010. Thorax 2010; 65 (Suppl. 02) ii41-ii53
• 53 Sodhi KS, Bhatia A, Nichat V. et al. Chest MRI as an emerging modality in the evaluation of empyema in children with specific indications: pilot study. Pediatr Pulmonol 2021; 56 (08) 2668-2675
• 54 Konietzke P, Mueller J, Wuennemann F. et al. The value of chest magnetic resonance imaging compared to chest radiographs with and without additional lung ultrasound in children with complicated pneumonia. PLoS One 2020; 15 (03) e0230252
• 55 Meyer CN, Rosenlund S, Nielsen J, Friis-Møller A. Bacteriological aetiology and antimicrobial treatment of pleural empyema. Scand J Infect Dis 2011; 43 (03) 165-169
• 56 Towe CW, Srinivasan S, Ho VP. et al. Antibiotic resistance is associated with morbidity and mortality after decortication for empyema. Ann Thorac Surg 2021; 111 (01) 206-213
• 57 Iliopoulou M, Skouras V, Psaroudaki Z. et al. Bacteriology, antibiotic resistance and risk stratification of patients with culture-positive, community-acquired pleural infection. J Thorac Dis 2021; 13 (02) 521-532
• 58 Horowitz ML, Schiff M, Samuels J, Russo R, Schnader J. Pneumocystis carinii pleural effusion. Pathogenesis and pleural fluid analysis. Am Rev Respir Dis 1993; 148 (01) 232-234
• 59 Uttamchandani RB, Daikos GL, Reyes RR. et al. Nocardiosis in 30 patients with advanced human immunodeficiency virus infection: clinical features and outcome. Clin Infect Dis 1994; 18 (03) 348-353
• 60 Schnapp LM, Geaghan SM, Campagna A. et al. Toxoplasma gondii pneumonitis in patients infected with the human immunodeficiency virus. Arch Intern Med 1992; 152 (05) 1073-1077
• 61 Kanellakis NI, Wrightson JM, Gerry S. et al. The bacteriology of pleural infection (TORPIDS): an exploratory metagenomics analysis through next generation sequencing. Lancet Microbe 2022; 3 (04) e294-e302
• 62 Ko SC, Chen KY, Hsueh PR, Luh KT, Yang PC. Fungal empyema thoracis: an emerging clinical entity. Chest 2000; 117 (06) 1672-1678
• 63 Bedawi EO, Ricciardi S, Hassan M. et al. ERS/ESTS statement on the management of pleural infection in adults. Eur Respir J 2023; 61 (02) 2201062
• 64 Botana Rial M, Pérez Pallarés J, Cases Viedma E. et al. Diagnosis and treatment of pleural effusion. Recommendations of the Spanish Society of Pulmonology and Thoracic Surgery. Update 2022. Arch Bronconeumol 2023; 59 (01) 27-35
• 65 Birkenkamp K, O'Horo JC, Kashyap R. et al. Empyema management: a cohort study evaluating antimicrobial therapy. J Infect 2016; 72 (05) 537-543
• 66 Porcel JM, Ferreiro L, Rumi L. et al. Two vs. three weeks of treatment with amoxicillin-clavulanate for stabilized community-acquired complicated parapneumonic effusions. A preliminary non-inferiority, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Pleura Peritoneum 2020; 5 (01) 20190027
• 67 Meyer CN, Armbruster K, Kemp M, Thomsen TR, Dessau RB. Danish Pleural Empyema group. Pleural infection: a retrospective study of clinical outcome and the correlation to known etiology, co-morbidity and treatment factors. BMC Pulm Med 2018; 18 (01) 160
• 68 Stern JB, Fournel L, Wyplosz B. et al. Early and delayed post-pneumonectomy empyemas: microbiology, management and prognosis. Clin Respir J 2018; 12 (04) 1753-1761
• 69 Tagarro A, Otheo E, Baquero-Artigao F. et al; CORTEEC Study Group. Dexamethasone for parapneumonic pleural effusion: a randomized, double-blind, clinical trial. J Pediatr 2017; 185: 117-123.e6
• 70 Fitzgerald DB, Waterer GW, Budgeon C. et al. Steroid Therapy and Outcome of Parapneumonic Pleural Effusions (STOPPE): a pilot randomized clinical trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2022; 205 (09) 1093-1101
• 71 Ashbaugh DG. Empyema thoracis. Factors influencing morbidity and mortality. Chest 1991; 99 (05) 1162-1165
• 72 Colice GL, Curtis A, Deslauriers J. et al. Medical and surgical treatment of parapneumonic effusions: an evidence-based guideline. Chest 2000; 118 (04) 1158-1171
• 73 Shen KR, Bribriesco A, Crabtree T. et al. The American Association for Thoracic Surgery consensus guidelines for the management of empyema. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2017; 153 (06) e129-e146
• 74 Potts DE, Levin DC, Sahn SA. Pleural fluid pH in parapneumonic effusions. Chest 1976; 70 (03) 328-331
• 75 Himelman RB, Callen PW. The prognostic value of loculations in parapneumonic pleural effusions. Chest 1986; 90 (06) 852-856
• 76 Huang HC, Chang HY, Chen CW, Lee CH, Hsiue TR. Predicting factors for outcome of tube thoracostomy in complicated parapneumonic effusion for empyema. Chest 1999; 115 (03) 751-756
• 77 Davies CW, Kearney SE, Gleeson FV, Davies RJ. Predictors of outcome and long-term survival in patients with pleural infection. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1999; 160 (5 Pt 1): 1682-1687
• 78 Heffner JE, Brown LK, Barbieri C, DeLeo JM. Pleural fluid chemical analysis in parapneumonic effusions. A meta-analysis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1995; 151 (06) 1700-1708
• 79 Rahman NM, Mishra EK, Davies HE, Davies RJ, Lee YC. Clinically important factors influencing the diagnostic measurement of pleural fluid pH and glucose. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2008; 178 (05) 483-490
• 80 Cheng DS, Rodriguez RM, Rogers J, Wagster M, Starnes DL, Light RW. Comparison of pleural fluid pH values obtained using blood gas machine, pH meter, and pH indicator strip. Chest 1998; 114 (05) 1368-1372
• 81 Fitzgerald DB, Leong SL, Budgeon CA. et al. Relationship of pleural fluid pH and glucose: a multi-centre study of 2,971 cases. J Thorac Dis 2019; 11 (01) 123-130
• 82 Arnold DT, Hamilton FW, Elvers KT. et al. Pleural fluid suPAR levels predict the need for invasive management in parapneumonic effusions. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2020; 201 (12) 1545-1553
• 83 Bedawi EO, Kanellakis NI, Corcoran JP. et al. The biological role of pleural fluid PAI-1 and sonographic septations in pleural infection: analysis of a prospectively collected clinical outcome study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2023; 207 (06) 731-739
• 84 Komissarov AA, Idell S. PAI-1 drives septation and clinical outcomes in pleural infection. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2023; 207 (06) 653-655
• 85 Fitzgerald DB, Lee YCG. Pleural infection: to drain or not to drain?. Respirology 2017; 22 (06) 1055-1056
• 86 Letheulle J, Tattevin P, Saunders L. et al. Iterative thoracentesis as first-line treatment of complicated parapneumonic effusion. PLoS One 2014; 9 (01) e84788
• 87 Arnold DT, Tucker E, Morley A. et al. A feasibility randomised trial comparing therapeutic thoracentesis to chest tube insertion for the management of pleural infection: results from the ACTion trial. BMC Pulm Med 2022; 22 (01) 330
• 88 Horsley A, Jones L, White J, Henry M. Efficacy and complications of small-bore, wire-guided chest drains. Chest 2006; 130 (06) 1857-1863
• 89 Cafarotti S, Dall'Armi V, Cusumano G. et al. Small-bore wire-guided chest drains: safety, tolerability, and effectiveness in pneumothorax, malignant effusions, and pleural empyema. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2011; 141 (03) 683-687
• 90 Rahman NM, Maskell NA, Davies CW. et al. The relationship between chest tube size and clinical outcome in pleural infection. Chest 2010; 137 (03) 536-543
• 91 Taniguchi J, Nakashima K, Matsui H. et al. The relationship between chest tube position in the thoracic cavity and treatment failure in patients with pleural infection: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Pulm Med 2022; 22 (01) 358
• 92 Akhan O, Ozkan O, Akinci D, Hassan A, Ozmen M. Image-guided catheter drainage of infected pleural effusions. Diagn Interv Radiol 2007; 13 (04) 204-209
• 93 Davies HE, Rahman NM, Parker RJ, Davies RJ. Use of indwelling pleural catheters for chronic pleural infection. Chest 2008; 133 (02) 546-549
• 94 Rahman NM, Maskell NA, West A. et al. Intrapleural use of tissue plasminogen activator and DNase in pleural infection. N Engl J Med 2011; 365 (06) 518-526
• 95 Piccolo F, Pitman N, Bhatnagar R. et al. Intrapleural tissue plasminogen activator and deoxyribonuclease for pleural infection. An effective and safe alternative to surgery. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2014; 11 (09) 1419-1425
• 96 Kheir F, Cheng G, Rivera E. et al. Concurrent versus sequential intrapleural instillation of tissue plasminogen activator and deoxyribonuclease for pleural infection. J Bronchology Interv Pulmonol 2018; 25 (02) 125-131
• 97 Majid A, Kheir F, Folch A. et al. Concurrent intrapleural instillation of tissue plasminogen activator and DNase for pleural infection. A single-center experience. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2016; 13 (09) 1512-1518
• 98 Mehta HJ, Biswas A, Penley AM, Cope J, Barnes M, Jantz MA. Management of intrapleural sepsis with once daily use of tissue plasminogen activator and deoxyribonuclease. Respiration 2016; 91 (02) 101-106
• 99 Popowicz ND, Piccolo F, Yap E. et al. Long-term follow-up after intrapleural tPA/DNase therapy for pleural infection. Respirology 2021; 26 (04) 388-391
• 100 Beckert L, Brockway B, Simpson G. et al. Phase 1 trial of intrapleural LTI-01; single chain urokinase in complicated parapneumonic effusions or empyema. JCI Insight 2019; 5 (10) 5
• 101 Akulian J, Bedawi EO, Abbas H. et al; Interventional Pulmonary Outcomes Group. Bleeding risk with combination intrapleural fibrinolytic and enzyme therapy in pleural infection—an international, multicenter, retrospective cohort study. Chest 2022; 162 (06) 1384-1392
• 102 Popowicz N, Bintcliffe O, De Fonseka D. et al. Dose de-escalation of intrapleural tissue plasminogen activator therapy for pleural infection. The alteplase dose assessment for pleural infection therapy project. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2017; 14 (06) 929-936
• 103 Hart JA, Badiei A, Lee YCG. Successful management of pleural infection with very low dose intrapleural tissue plasminogen activator/deoxyribonuclease regime. Respirol Case Rep 2019; 7 (03) e00408
• 104 Lansley SM, Cheah HM, Varano Della Vergiliana JF, Chakera A, Lee YC. Tissue plasminogen activator potently stimulates pleural effusion via a monocyte chemotactic protein-1-dependent mechanism. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol 2015; 53 (01) 105-112
• 105 Hooper CE, Edey AJ, Wallis A. et al. Pleural irrigation trial (PIT): a randomised controlled trial of pleural irrigation with normal saline versus standard care in patients with pleural infection. Eur Respir J 2015; 46 (02) 456-463
• 106 Tremblay A, Stather DR, Maceachern P. How should we manage empyema complicating tunneled pleural catheter placement?. J Bronchology Interv Pulmonol 2010; 17 (02) 106-108
• 107 Fitzgerald DB, Muruganandan S, Tsim S. et al. Intrapleural fibrinolytics and deoxyribonuclease for treatment of indwelling pleural catheter-related pleural infection: a multi-center observational study. Respiration 2021; 100 (05) 452-460
• 108 Fysh ETH, Tremblay A, Feller-Kopman D. et al. Clinical outcomes of indwelling pleural catheter-related pleural infections: an international multicenter study. Chest 2013; 144 (05) 1597-1602
• 109 Wu J, Liu C, Lee S, Kuo Y, Hsieh T. Assessment of the Charlson comorbidity index score, CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc scores in predicting death in patients with thoracic empyema. Heart Lung 2018; 47 (02) 157-161
• 110 Rahman NM, Kahan BC, Miller RF, Gleeson FV, Nunn AJ, Maskell NA. A clinical score (RAPID) to identify those at risk for poor outcome at presentation in patients with pleural infection. Chest 2014; 145 (04) 848-855
• 111 Touray S, Sood RN, Lindstrom D. et al. Risk stratification in patients with complicated parapneumonic effusions and empyema using the RAPID score. Lung 2018; 196 (05) 623-629
• 112 Vincent JL, de Mendonça A, Cantraine F. et al. Use of the SOFA score to assess the incidence of organ dysfunction/failure in intensive care units: results of a multicenter, prospective study. Working group on “sepsis-related problems” of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Crit Care Med 1998; 26 (11) 1793-1800
• 113 Vincent JL, Moreno R, Takala J. et al. The SOFA (Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment) score to describe organ dysfunction/failure. On behalf of the working group on sepsis-related problems of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med 1996; 22 (07) 707-710
• 114 Seymour CW, Liu VX, Iwashyna TJ. et al. Assessment of clinical criteria for sepsis: for the third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA 2016; 315 (08) 762-774
• 115 Asai N, Shibata Y, Hirai J. et al. Could quick SOFA and SOFA score be a predictive tool for 30-day and in-hospital mortality in acute empyema?. J Infect Chemother 2022; 28 (12) 1687-1692
• 116 Chalmers JD, Singanayagam A, Murray MP, Scally C, Fawzi A, Hill AT. Risk factors for complicated parapneumonic effusion and empyema on presentation to hospital with community-acquired pneumonia. Thorax 2009; 64 (07) 592-597
• 117 Dean NC, Griffith PP, Sorensen JS, McCauley L, Jones BE, Lee YC. Pleural effusions at first ED encounter predict worse clinical outcomes in patients with pneumonia. Chest 2016; 149 (06) 1509-1515

Publication History

Article published online:
10 July 2023