Con: indwelling pleural catheters cause harm to patients.

Abstract

Indwelling pleural catheters (IPCs) have rapidly grown in popularity since their introduction for the management of recurrent pleural effusions. In malignant pleural effusions especially, there has been a shift away from measuring pleurodesis success and towards more patient-centred outcomes. Multiple randomised controlled trials have shown that despite lower rates of pleurodesis, symptom control and quality of life outcomes are comparable when compared to alternatives such as talc pleurodesis. IPCs have the added benefit of minimising inpatient hospital stays and reducing the need for recurrent pleural interventions, key priorities for patients with palliative disease. As a result, IPC treatment is associated with excellent patient satisfaction coupled with acceptably low complication rates. Furthermore, in patients with a short life expectancy they confer a cost benefit for the healthcare system. Far from causing harm, IPCs are now recommended as first-line treatment by current clinical guidelines. In malignant pleural disease, guidance advocates IPCs should be offered as a first-line option with the focus on patient priorities and preferences. Ultimately IPCs provide a safe, effective, ambulatory option for managing recurrent pleural effusions.