Thorax

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
[Advanced]

This Article
Right arrow Extract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Add article to my folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Maskell, N A
Right arrow Articles by Butland, R J A
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Maskell, N A
Right arrow Articles by Butland, R J A
Related Collections
Right arrow Other respiratory medicine
Right arrow Guidelines
Right arrowRelated Articles
Thorax 2003;58:ii8
© 2003 BMJ Publishing Group & British Thoracic Society


BTS GUIDELINES

BTS guidelines for the investigation of a unilateral pleural effusion in adults

N A Maskell1, R J A Butland2 on behalf of the British Thoracic Society Pleural Disease Group, a subgroup of the British Thoracic Society Standards of Care Committee

1 Oxford Centre for Respiratory Medicine, Churchill Hospital Site, Oxford Radcliffe Hospital, Headington, Oxford OX3 7LJ, UK
2 Department of Thoracic Medicine, Gloucestershire Royal Hospital, Gloucester GL1 3NN, UK

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
Dr N A Maskell, Oxford Centre for Respiratory Medicine, Churchill Hospital Site, Oxford Radcliffe Hospital, Headington, Oxford OX3 7LJ, UK;
nickmaskell{at}doctors.org.uk

Keywords: BTS guidelines; unilateral pleural effusion


1 INTRODUCTION
Pleural effusions, the result of the accumulation of fluid in the pleural space, are a common medical problem. They can be caused by several mechanisms including increased permeability of the pleural membrane, increased pulmonary capillary pressure, decreased negative intrapleural pressure, decreased oncotic pressure, and obstructed lymphatic flow. The pathophysiology of pleural effusions is discussed in more detail in the guideline on malignant effusions (page ii29).

Pleural effusions indicate the presence of disease which may be pulmonary, pleural, or extrapulmonary. As the differential diagnosis is wide, a systematic approach to investigation is necessary. The aim is to establish a diagnosis swiftly while minimising unnecessary invasive investigation. This is particularly important as the differential diagnosis includes malignant mesothelioma in which 40% of needle incisions for investigation are invaded by tumour.1 A minimum number of interventions is therefore appropriate.

A diagnostic algorithm for the investigation of a pleural effusion is shown in fig 1Go.



View larger version (29K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 1 Flow diagram of the investigation pathway for a unilateral pleural effusion of unknown aetiology.

 

2 CLINICAL ASSESSMENT AND HISTORY

The initial step in assessing a pleural effusion is to ascertain whether it is a transudate or exudate. Initially this is through the history and physical examination. The biochemical analysis of pleural fluid is considered later (section 5).

Clinical assessment alone is often capable of identifying transudative effusions. In a series of 33 cases, all 17 transudates were correctly predicted by clinical assessment, blind of the results of pleural fluid analysis.2 Therefore, in an appropriate clinical setting such as left ventricular failure with a confirmatory chest radiograph, these effusions do not need to be sampled unless there are atypical features or they fail to respond to treatment.

Approximately 75% of patients with pulmonary embolism and pleural effusion have a history of pleuritic pain. These effusions tend to occupy less than a third of the hemithorax and the dyspnoea is often out of proportion to its size. As tests on the pleural fluid are unhelpful in diagnosing pulmonary embolism, a high index of suspicion is required to avoid missing the diagnosis.3

The patient’s drug history is also important. Although uncommon, a number of medications have been reported to cause exudative pleural effusions. These are shown in box 1Go, together with their frequencies. Useful resources for more detailed information include the British National Formulary and the website pneumotox.com.


Box 1 Drugs known to cause pleural effusions

Over 100 reported cases globally*

  • Amiodarone
  • Nitrofurantoin
  • Phenytoin
  • Methotrexate

20–100 reported cases globally*

  • Carbamazepine
  • Procainamide
  • Propylthiouracil
  • Penicillamine
  • GCSF
  • Cyclophosphamide
  • Bromocriptine

*pneumotox.com (2001)

 


3 CAUSES OF A PLEURAL EFFUSION
Pleural effusions are classified into transudates and exudates. A transudative pleural effusion occurs when the balance of hydrostatic forces influencing the formation and absorption of pleural fluid is altered to favour pleural fluid accumulation. The permeability of the capillaries to proteins is normal.4 In contrast, an exudative pleural effusion develops when the pleural surface and/or the local capillary permeability are altered.5 There are a multitude of causes of transudates and exudates and these are shown in boxes 2Go and 3Go, together with a guide to their frequency.


Box 2 Causes of transudative pleural effusions

Very common causes

  • Left ventricular failure
  • Liver cirrhosis
  • Hypoalbuminaemia
  • Peritoneal dialysis

Less common causes

  • Hypothyroidism
  • Nephrotic syndrome
  • Mitral stenosis
  • Pulmonary embolism

Rare causes

  • Constrictive pericarditis
  • Urinothorax
  • Superior vena cava obstruction
  • Ovarian hyperstimulation
  • Meigs’ syndrome

 


Box 3 Causes of exudative pleural effusions

Common causes

  • Malignancy
  • Parapneumonic effusions

Less common causes

  • Pulmonary infarction
  • Rheumatoid arthritis
  • Autoimmune diseases
  • Benign asbestos effusion
  • Pancreatitis
  • Post-myocardial infarction syndrome

Rare causes

  • Yellow nail syndrome
  • Drugs (see box 1Go)
  • Fungal infections

 


4 PLEURAL ASPIRATION

This is the primary means of evaluating pleural fluid and its findings are used to guide further investigation. Diagnostic taps are often performed in the clinic or by the bedside, although small

effusions often require radiological guidance. A green needle (21G) and 50 ml syringe are adequate for diagnostic pleural taps. The 50 ml sample should be split into three sterile pots to be sent directly for microbiological, biochemical, and cytological analysis.

Microscopic examination of Gram stained pleural fluid sediment is necessary for all fluids and particularly when a parapneumonic effusion is suspected. If some of the microbiological specimen is sent in blood culture bottles the yield is greater, especially for anaerobic organisms.6

20 ml of pleural fluid is adequate for cytological examination and the fresher the sample when it arrives at the laboratory the better. If part of the sample has clotted, the cytologist must fix and section this and treat it as a histological section as it will increase the yield. Sending the cytology sample in a citrate bottle will prevent clots and is preferred by some cytologists. If delay is anticipated, the specimen can be stored at 4°C for up to 4 days.7


5 PLEURAL FLUID ANALYSIS
5.1 Typical characteristics of the pleural fluid

After performing pleural aspiration, the appearance and odour of the pleural fluid should be noted. The unpleasant aroma of anaerobic infection may guide antibiotic choice. The appearance can be divided into serous, blood tinged, frankly bloody, or purulent. If the pleural fluid is turbid or milky it should be centrifuged. If the supernatant is clear, the turbid fluid was due to cell debris and empyema is likely. If it is still turbid, this is because of a high lipid content and a chylothorax or pseudochylothorax are likely.8 Table 1Go lists the characteristics of the pleural fluid in certain pleural diseases.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 1 Appearance of pleural fluid
 

Box 4 Key facts when investigating undiagnosed pleural effusions

  • If the pleural fluid protein is between 25 and 35 g/l, then Light’s criteria are advised to differentiate accurately exudates from transudates.
  • Pleural fluid pH should be performed in all non-purulent effusions if infection is suspected.
  • When sending a pleural fluid specimen for microbiological examination, it should be sent in both a sterile tube (for Gram stain, AAFB and TB culture) and in blood culture bottles to increase the diagnostic yield.
  • Only 60% of malignant effusions can be diagnosed by cytological examination.
  • A contrast enhanced CT scan of the thorax is best performed with the fluid present. This will enable better visualisation of pleura and can identify the best site for pleural biopsy if cytological examination is unhelpful.

 

If the pleural fluid appears bloody, a haematocrit can be obtained if there is doubt as to whether it is a haemothorax. If the haematocrit of the pleural fluid is more than half of the patient’s peripheral blood haematocrit, the patient has a haemothorax. If the haematocrit on the pleural fluid is less than 1%, the blood in the pleural fluid is not significant.9 Grossly bloody pleural fluid is usually due to malignancy, pulmonary embolus with infarction, trauma, benign asbestos pleural effusions, or post-cardiac injury syndrome (PCIS).9

5.2 Differentiating between a pleural fluid exudate and transudate


Box 5 Light’s criteria

The pleural fluid is an exudate if one or more of the following criteria are met:

  • Pleural fluid protein divided by serum protein >0.5
  • Pleural fluid LDH divided by serum LDH >0.6
  • Pleural fluid LDH more than two-thirds the upper limits of normal serum LDH

 

The classical way of separating a transudate from an exudate is by pleural fluid protein, with exudates having a protein level of >30 g/l and transudates a protein level of <30 g/l. Care should be taken in interpreting this result if the serum total protein is abnormal. Unfortunately, the protein level often lies very close to the 30 g/l cut off point, making clear differentiation difficult. In these cases, measurement of serum and pleural fluid lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and total protein levels will allow the use of Light’s criteria to distinguish between these two more accurately (box 5Go).10

A considerable number of other biochemical markers have been compared with Light’s criteria. These include measuring pleural fluid cholesterol, albumin gradient, and serum/pleural fluid bilirubin ratio.11–15 The accuracy of these different indices in differentiating exudates and transudates has been examined in a meta-analysis of 1448 patients from eight studies.15 Light’s criteria performed best with excellent discriminative properties. Further analysis suggests a cut off value of LDH levels in pleural fluid of >0.66, the upper limits of the laboratory normal might be a better discriminator ("modified Light’s criteria").16

In summary, Light’s criteria appear to be the most accurate way of differentiating between transudates and exudates. The weakness of these criteria is that they occasionally identify an effusion in a patient with left ventricular failure on diuretics as an exudate. In this circumstance, clinical judgement should be used.

5.3 Differential cell counts on the pleural fluid

When polymorphonuclear cells predominate, the patient has an acute process affecting the pleural surfaces. If there is concomitant parenchymal shadowing, the most likely diagnoses are parapneumonic effusion and pulmonary embolism with infarction. If there is no parenchymal shadowing, more frequent diagnoses are pulmonary embolism, viral infection, acute tuberculosis, or benign asbestos pleural effusion.9,17

An eosinophilic pleural effusion is defined as the presence of 10% or more eosinophils in the pleural fluid. The presence of pleural fluid eosinophilia is of little use in the differential diagnosis of pleural effusions.9 Benign aetiologies include parapneumonic effusions, tuberculosis, drug induced pleurisy, benign asbestos pleural effusions, Churg-Strauss syndrome, pulmonary infarction, and parasitic disease.18–20 It is often the result of air or blood in the pleural cavity.19 However, malignancy is also a common cause; 11 of a series of 45 eosinophilic effusions were due to cancer.20

If the pleural fluid differential cell count shows a predominant lymphocytosis, the most likely diagnoses are tuberculosis and malignancy. Although high lymphocyte counts in pleural fluid raise the possibility of tuberculous pleurisy,9 as many as 10% of tuberculous pleural effusions are predominantly neutrophilic.21 Lymphoma, sarcoidosis, rheumatoid disease, and chylothorax can cause a lymphocytic pleural effusion.22

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) often causes pleural effusions which can usually be treated conservatively. Large symptomatic effusions can occur in up to 1% of patients in the postoperative period. These are predominantly left sided and the differential cell count can help to clarify the situation. Bloody effusions are usually eosinophilic, occur early, and are related to bleeding into the pleural cavity from the time of surgery. Non-bloody effusions tend to have small lymphocytes as their predominant cell type, occur later, and are generally more difficult to treat.23

5.4 pH

A pleural fluid pH of <7.2 with a normal blood pH is found in the same diagnoses as a low pleural fluid glucose.24 A pH of <7.2 represents a substantial accumulation of hydrogen ions, as normal pleural pH is about 7.6 because of bicarbonate accumulation in the pleural cavity. The main clinical use for the measurement of pleural pH is the identification of pleural infection.25,26 This is covered in detail in the guideline on pleural infection (page ii18). Other diseases causing an exudative pleural effusion with a low pH are collagen vascular diseases (particularly rheumatoid arthritis), oesophageal rupture, and malignancy.24

A prospective study of the value of pH in malignant pleural effusions by Rodriguez and Lopez27 in 77 patients undergoing thoracoscopy showed that a pH of <7.3 was associated with more extensive malignancy, a 90% chance of positive cytology, and a 50% chance of failed pleurodesis. Sahn and Good showed that a reduced pH (<7.3) predicted poor survival in malignant pleural disease (pH >7.3, median survival 9.8 months; pH <7.3, survival 2.1 months).28

5.5 Glucose
A pleural glucose level of less than 3.3 mmol/l is found in exudative pleural effusions secondary to empyema, rheumatoid disease, lupus, tuberculosis, malignancy, or oesophageal rupture.29 The lowest glucose concentrations are found in rheumatoid effusions and empyema.29–32 In pleural infection, pH discriminates better than glucose.26,33 Rheumatoid arthritis is unlikely to be the cause of an effusion if the glucose level in the fluid is above 1.6 mmol/l (see section 8.6.1).30

5.6 Amylase

Pleural fluid amylase levels can be useful in the evaluation of an exudative effusion. Pleural fluid amylase levels are elevated if they are higher than the upper limits of normal for serum or the pleural fluid/serum ratio is >1.0.31 This suggests acute pancreatitis, pancreatic pseudocyst, rupture of the oesophagus, ruptured ectopic pregnancy, or pleural malignancy (especially adenocarcinoma).9 Approximately 10% of malignant effusions have raised pleural amylase levels.34

Iso-enzyme analysis can be useful in suspected cases of oesophageal rupture as this will show the amylase is of salivary origin.35 If the salivary amylase is raised and oesophageal rupture is not suspected, malignancy is most likely. Pleural effusions associated with pancreatic disease usually contain pancreatic amylase.36

In a prospective study of 176 patients, 10 had an amylase rich effusion. Of these, four had pancreatitis which had not previously been suspected. The rest were due to non-pancreatic diseases of which lung cancer was predominant.37 The incidence of pleural effusion with acute pancreatitis exceeds 50%. Patients with acute pancreatitis and a pleural effusion tend to have more severe disease and a higher likelihood of subsequently developing a pseudocyst than those without effusions.38

5.7 Cytology

If malignancy is suspected, cytological examination of the pleural fluid is a quick and minimally invasive way to obtain a diagnosis. The results of the major series reporting the sensitivity of pleural cytology are shown in table 2Go.39–42 These sensitivities vary from 40% to 87%, with a mean of about 60%. Of 55 cases where malignancy was diagnosed on the basis of cytological examination, Garcia et al found 65% were established from the first specimen, a further 27% from the second, and only 5% from the third.43


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 2 Sensitivity of pleural fluid cytology in malignant pleural effusion
 
A retrospective review of 414 patients between 1973 and 1982 compared the diagnostic efficacy of cytology alone and in combination with pleural biopsy.42 The final causes of the effusion were malignancy in 281 patients (68%). The presence of pleural malignancy was established by cytology in 162 patients (58%) and, with the addition of a blind pleural biopsy, a further 20 patients (7%) were classified as having malignancy. The yield depends on the skill and interest of the cytologist and on tumour type, with a higher diagnostic rate for adenocarcinoma than for mesothelioma, squamous cell carcinoma, lymphoma and sarcoma. The yield increases if both cell blocks and smears are prepared.44

Immunocytochemistry, as an adjunct to cell morphology, is becoming increasingly helpful in distinguishing benign from malignant mesothelial cells and mesothelioma from adenocarcinoma.45,46 Epithelial membrane antigen (EMA) is widely used to confirm a cytological diagnosis of epithelial malignancy.46,47 When malignant cells are identified, the glandular markers for CEA, B72.3 and Leu-M1 together with calretinin and cytokeratin 5/6 will often help to distinguish adenocarcinoma from mesothelioma.46–48


6 DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING
6.1 Plain radiography

The plain chest radiographic features of pleural effusion are usually characteristic. The PA chest radiograph is abnormal in the presence of about 200 ml pleural fluid. However, only 50 ml of pleural fluid can produce detectable posterior costophrenic angle blunting on a lateral chest radiograph.49 Lateral decubitus films are occasionally useful as free fluid gravitates to the most dependent part of the chest wall, differentiating between pleural thickening and free fluid.50

In the intensive care setting, patients are often imaged supine where free pleural fluid will layer out posteriorly. Pleural fluid is often represented as a hazy opacity of one hemithorax with preserved vascular shadows on the supine radiograph. Other signs include the loss of the sharp silhouette of the ipsilateral hemidiaphragm and thickening of the minor fissure. The supine chest radiograph will often underestimate the volume of pleural fluid.51

Subpulmonic effusions occur when pleural fluid accumulates in a subpulmonic location. They are often transudates and can be difficult to diagnose on the PA radiograph and may require a lateral decubitus view or ultrasound. The PA radiograph will often show a lateral peaking of an apparently raised hemidiaphragm which has a steep lateral slope with gradual medial slope. The lateral radiograph may have a flat appearance of the posterior aspect of the hemidiaphragm with a steep downward slope at the major fissure.52

6.2 Ultrasound findings

Ultrasound is more accurate than plain chest radiography for estimating pleural fluid volume and aids thoracentesis.53,54 After unsuccessful thoracentesis or in a loculated pleural effusion, ultrasound guided aspiration yields fluid in 97% of cases.50 In a series of 320 patients, Yang et al55 found that pleural effusions with complex septated, complex non-septated, or homogeneously echogenic patterns are always exudates, whereas hypoechoic effusions can be either transudates or exudates. Ultrasound is also useful in demonstrating fibrinous loculation and readily differentiates between pleural fluid and pleural thickening.56,57 Ultrasound also has the added advantage of often being portable, allowing imaging at the bedside with the patient sitting or in the recumbent position.58,59

6.3 CT findings

There are features of contrast enhanced thoracic CT scanning which can help differentiate between benign and malignant disease (fig 2Go). In a study of 74 patients, 39 of whom had malignant disease, Leung et al60 showed that malignant disease is favoured by nodular pleural thickening, mediastinal pleural thickening, parietal pleural thickening greater than 1 cm, and circumferential pleural thickening. These features have specificities of 94%, 94%, 88%, and 100%, respectively, and sensitivities of 51%, 36%, 56% and 41%. Scott et al61 evaluated these criteria in 42 patients with pleural thickening; 32 of the 33 cases of pleural malignancy were identified correctly on the basis of the presence of one or more of Leung’s criteria. When investigating a pleural effusion a contrast enhanced thoracic CT scan should be performed before full drainage of the fluid as pleural abnormalities will be better visualised.62





View larger version (170K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 2 (A) Computed tomographic scan of the thorax without contrast enhancement showing a large undiagnosed cytologically negative pleural effusion. (B) The same patient after administration of intravenous contrast which reveals malignant nodular pleural thickening. This illustrates the value of contrast enhancement for the definition of pleural nodularity. The performance of imaging before complete drainage of the pleural fluid allows the identification of pleural nodularity and retains the opportunity for low risk image guided needle biopsy. (C) Image of the pleural abnormality being biopsied with a cutting needle. Histological examination showed this to be due to a mesothelioma.

 
CT scanning has been shown to be superior to plain radiographs in the differentiation of pleural from parenchymal disease. It is particularly helpful in the assessment and management of loculated pleural effusions. Loculated effusions on CT scans tend to have a lenticular shape with smooth margins and relatively homogeneous attenuation.63

The role of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is currently evolving, but generally does not provide better imaging than CT scanning.59,64,65


7 INVASIVE INVESTIGATIONS
7.1 Percutaneous pleural biopsy

Percutaneous pleural biopsies are of greatest value in the diagnosis of granulomatous and malignant disease of the pleura. They are performed on patients with undiagnosed exudative effusions, with non-diagnostic cytology, and a clinical suspicion of tuberculosis or malignancy. Occasionally, a blind pleural biopsy may be performed at the same time as the first pleural aspiration if clinical suspicion of tuberculosis is high.

All aspiration and biopsy sites should be marked with Indian ink as the site(s) will need local radiotherapy within 1 month if the final diagnosis is mesothelioma. This is based on a small randomised study showing tumour seeding in the biopsy track in about 40% of the patients who did not receive local radiotherapy.1 Other clinical trials continue to recruit to clarify this area.

7.1.1 Blind percutaneous pleural biopsies

The Abrams’ pleural biopsy needle is most commonly used in the UK with the Cope needle being less prevalent. Morrone et al66 compared these two needles in a small randomised study of 24 patients; the diagnostic yield was similar but samples were larger with an Abrams’ needle. The yield compared with pleural fluid cytology alone is increased by only 7–27% for malignancy.40–42 At least four samples need to be taken to optimise diagnostic accuracy,67 and these should be taken from one site as dual biopsy sites do not increase positivity.68 The biopsy specimens should be placed in 10% formaldehyde for histological examination and sterile saline for tuberculosis culture. A review of the pleural biopsy yield from 2893 examinations performed between 1958 and 1985 (published in 14 papers) showed a diagnostic rate of 75% for tuberculosis and 57% for carcinoma.69 In tuberculous effusions, when fluid AAFB smear, culture, biopsy histology, and culture are performed in concert, the diagnostic yield is 80–90%.21,70–72

Complications of Abrams’ pleural biopsy include site pain (1–15%), pneumothorax (3–15%), vasovagal reaction (1–5%), haemothorax (<2%), site haematoma (<1%), transient fever (<1%) and, very rarely, death secondary to haemorrhage. If a pneumothorax is caused, only 1% require chest drainage.69,70,72–75

7.1.2 Image guided cutting needle pleural biopsies

The contrast enhanced thoracic CT scan of a patient with a pleural effusion will often show a focal area of abnormal pleura. An image guided cutting needle biopsy allows that focal area of abnormality to be biopsied. It has a higher yield than that of blind pleural biopsy in the diagnosis of malignancy.76 This technique is particularly useful in patients who are unsuitable for thoracoscopy.

Pleural malignant deposits tend to predominate close to the midline and diaphragm, which are areas best avoided when performing an Abrams’ biopsy. However, it is possible to take biopsy specimens safely from these anatomical regions under radiological imaging.76–78 In a recent prospective study 33 patients with a pleural effusion and pleural thickening, demonstrated on contract enhanced CT scanning, underwent percutaneous image guided pleural biopsy. Correct histological diagnosis was made in 21 of 24 patients (sensitivity 88%, specificity 100%) including 13 of 14 patients with mesothelioma (sensitivity 93%).77 In a larger retrospective review of image guided pleural biopsy in one department by a single radiologist, 18 of 21 mesothelioma cases were correctly identified (sensitivity 86%, specificity 100%).78 The only published complications to date are local haematoma and minor haemoptysis.

7.2 Thoracoscopy

Thoracoscopy is usually used when less invasive techniques (thoracentesis and percutaneous closed pleural biopsy) have not been diagnostic. Harris et al79 described 182 consecutive patients who underwent thoracoscopy over a 5 year period and showed it to have a diagnostic sensitivity of 95% for malignancy. Malignancy was shown by thoracoscopy in 66% of patients who had previously had a non-diagnostic closed pleural biopsy and in 69% of patients who had had two negative pleural cytological specimens. A similar sensitivity for malignant disease was described by Page80 in 121 patients with undiagnosed effusion.

In addition to obtaining a tissue diagnosis, several litres of fluid can be removed during the procedure and the opportunity is also provided for talc pleurodesis. Thoracoscopy may therefore be therapeutic as well as diagnostic.81

Complications of this procedure appear to be few. The most serious, but rare, is severe haemorrhage caused by blood vessel trauma.81 In a series of 566 examinations by Viskum and Enk82 the most common side effect was subcutaneous emphysema (6.9%), with cardiac dysrhythmia occurring in 0.35%, one air embolism, and no deaths.

7.3 Bronchoscopy

Heaton and Roberts83 reviewed the case records of 32 patients who had bronchoscopy for undiagnosed pleural effusion. In only six did it yield a diagnosis and in four of these the diagnosis was also established by less invasive means. The other two had radiographic abnormalities suggestive of bronchial neoplasm. Upham et al84 studied 245 patients over 2 years and Feinsilver et al85 studied 70. Both also found positive yields of <5% in patients with a pleural effusion, but no haemoptysis or pulmonary abnormality on the chest radiograph. Chang et al86 performed bronchoscopy, thoracentesis, and pleural biopsy on 140 consecutive patients with pleural effusion. In the patient group with an isolated pleural effusion, with no haemoptysis or pulmonary abnormality on the chest radiograph, the yield from bronchoscopy was only 16% whereas pleural investigation yielded a positive diagnosis in 61%. If bronchoscopy is deemed necessary, it should be performed after pleural drainage in order to perform adequate bronchoscopy without extrinsic airway compression by pleural fluid.

In summary, bronchoscopy has a limited role in patients with an undiagnosed pleural effusion. It should be reserved for patients whose radiology suggests the presence of a mass, loss of volume or when there is a history of haemoptysis or possible aspiration of a foreign body.


8 SPECIAL TESTS
8.1 Chylothorax and pseudochylothorax

True chylous effusions result from disruption of the thoracic duct or its tributaries. This leads to the presence of chyle in the pleural space. Approximately 50% are due to malignancy (particularly lymphoma), 25% trauma (especially during surgery), and the rest are miscellaneous causes such as tuberculosis, sarcoidosis, and amyloidosis (box 6Go).87,88


Box 6 Causes of chylothorax and pseudochylothorax

Chylothorax

  • Neoplasm: lymphoma, metastatic carcinoma
  • Trauma: operative, penetrating injuries
  • Miscellaneous: tuberculosis, sarcoidosis, lymphangioleiomyomatosis, cirrhosis, obstruction of central veins, amyloidosis

Pseudochylothorax

  • Tuberculosis
  • Rheumatoid arthritis
  • Poorly treated empyema

 

Chylothorax must be distinguished from pseudochylothorax or "cholesterol pleurisy" which results from the accumulation of cholesterol crystals in a long standing pleural effusion. In these cases the pleura is usually markedly thickened and fibrotic.89 In the past, the most common causes of a pseudochylous effusion were tuberculosis and artificial pneumothorax. Chronic rheumatoid pleurisy is now the usual cause.90,91

Chylothorax and pseudochylothorax can be discriminated by lipid analysis of the fluid. A true chylothorax will usually have a high triglyceride level, usually >1.24 mmol/l (110 mg/dl), and can usually be excluded if the triglyceride level is <0.56 mmol/l (50 mg/dl). The biochemistry laboratory should be asked to look for the presence of chylomicrons between these values. In a pseudochylothorax the cholesterol level is >5.18 mmol/l (200 mg/dl), chylomicrons are not found, and cholesterol crystals are often seen at microscopy (table 3Go).89,92


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 3 Laboratory differentiation of chylothorax and pseudochylothorax
 
Occasionally an empyema can be unusually milky and confused with chylothorax. They can be distinguished by bench centrifugation which leaves a clear supernatant in empyema as the cell debris is separated. The chylous effusion remains milky.

8.2 Urinothorax

Urinothorax is a rare complication of an obstructed kidney. The urine is thought to move through the retroperitoneum to enter the pleural space, with the effusion occurring on the same side as the obstructed kidney.93 The pleural fluid smells like urine and resolves when the obstruction is removed.94 The diagnosis can be confirmed by demonstrating that the pleural fluid creatinine level is greater than the serum creatinine level. The pleural fluid is a transudate and has a low pH.95,96

8.3 Tuberculous pleurisy

Smears for acid fast bacilli are only positive in 10–20% of tuberculous effusions and are only 25–50% positive on pleural fluid culture.97,98 The addition of pleural biopsy histology and culture improves the diagnostic rate to about 90%.21,98

The adenosine deaminase (ADA) level in pleural fluid tends to be higher with tuberculosis than in other exudates.100–102 However, ADA levels are also raised in empyema, rheumatoid pleurisy, and malignancy, which makes the test less useful in countries with a low prevalence of tuberculosis. Importantly, ADA levels may not be raised if the patient has HIV and tuberculosis.103

8.4 Pleural effusion due to pulmonary embolism

Small pleural effusions are present in up to 40% of cases of pulmonary embolism. Of these, 80% are exudates and 20% transudates; 80% are bloodstained.3,22 A pleural fluid red blood cell count of more than 100 000/mm3 is suggestive of malignancy, pulmonary infarction, or trauma.9 Lower counts are unhelpful.3 Effusions associated with pulmonary embolism have no specific characteristics and the diagnosis should therefore be pursued on clinical grounds with the physician retaining a high index of suspicion for the diagnosis.22

8.5 Benign asbestos pleural effusion
Benign asbestos pleural effusions are commonly diagnosed in the first two decades after asbestos exposure. The prevalence is dose related with a shorter latency period than other asbestos related disorders.104 The effusion is usually small and asymptomatic, often with pleural fluid which is haemorrhagic.105,106 There is a propensity for the effusion to resolve within 6 months, leaving behind residual diffuse pleural thickening.105,106 As there are no definitive tests, the diagnosis can only be made with certainty after a prolonged period of follow up.

8.6 Connective tissue diseases
8.6.1 Rheumatoid arthritis associated pleural effusions

Pleural involvement occurs in 5% of patients with rheumatoid arthritis.107 The majority of patients with rheumatoid pleural effusions are men, even though the disease generally affects more women.108 Pleural fluid can be serous, turbid, yellow green, milky, or haemorrhagic.109 Rheumatoid arthritis is unlikely to be the cause of an effusion if the glucose level in the fluid is above 1.6 mmol/l, so this serves as a useful screening test.30 80% of rheumatoid pleural effusions have a pleural fluid glucose to serum ratio of <0.5 and a pH <7.30.109,110 However, in acute rheumatoid pleurisy the glucose level and pH may by normal.107 Measurement of C4 complement in pleural fluid may be of additional help, with levels below 0.04 g/l in all cases of rheumatoid pleural disease and in only two of 118 controls reported in one study.108 Rheumatoid factor can be measured on the pleural fluid and often has a titre of >1:320. However, it can be present in effusions of other aetiology and often mirrors the serum value, adding little diagnostically.108,111

8.6.2 Systemic lupus erythematosus

Up to 50% of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) will have pleural disease at some time in the course of their disease.107 The presence of LE cells in pleural fluid is diagnostic of SLE.107,112 Khare et al111 measured ANA levels in 82 consecutive pleural effusions. Six of the eight samples collected from patients with SLE were ANA positive with a homogenous staining pattern; the two effusions that were negative for ANA had other reasons for their effusions (pulmonary embolism and left ventricular failure). However, eight (10%) of the effusions where the patients had no clinical evidence of SLE were ANA positive. In five of these eight patients the underlying cause of the effusion was malignancy. Other studies have shown similar results and, as the pleural ANA levels often mirror serum levels, the test is of limited diagnostic value.108,112,113

8.7 Pleural effusions in HIV infection

A pleural effusion is seen in 7–27% of hospitalised patients with HIV infection. Its three leading causes are Kaposi’s sarcoma, parapneumonic effusions, and tuberculosis.114 In one prospective study of 58 consecutive patients with HIV infection and radiographic evidence of a pleural effusion, the causes of the effusion were Kaposi’s sarcoma in one third of the cases, parapneumonic effusion in 28%, tuberculosis in 14%, Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia in 10%, and lymphoma in a further 7%.115

In a large prospective series of 599 HIV infected patients over 3 years, 160 had a pleural effusion during an inpatient admission; 65% were small effusions, 23% moderate, and 13% large. In this series the most common cause was bacterial pneumonia and the overall in-hospital mortality was high at 10%.116


9 MANAGEMENT OF PERSISTENT UNDIAGNOSED PLEURAL EFFUSION

The cause of the pleural effusion is undetermined after repeated cytology and pleural biopsy in around 15% of cases.39 It is sensible to reconsider diagnoses with a specific treatment—for example, tuberculosis, pulmonary embolism, fungal infection.87 A tuberculin skin test is positive in about 70% of patients with tuberculous pleurisy and the combination of a positive tuberculin skin test and an exudative pleural effusion containing predominantly lymphocytes is sufficient to justify empirical antituberculous therapy.22 There are no specific pleural fluid tests for pulmonary embolism so, if there is a clinical suspicion of the diagnosis, imaging for embolism should be undertaken. Many undiagnosed pleural effusions are eventually proved to be due to malignancy. If this possibility is to be pursued after routine tests have failed, thoracoscopy is advised.


Audit points

  • The gross appearance of the pleural fluid and its odour should always be recorded.
  • Pleural fluid pH should be performed in every case of suspected parapneumonic effusion.
  • The diagnostic rate of pleural cytology should be audited.
  • If the first pleural fluid cytology specimen is non-diagnostic, a second sample should be taken to increase the diagnostic yield.
  • Pleural biopsy specimens should be placed in both saline and formalin and sent for histological examination and culture.
  • Diagnostic bronchoscopy is not indicated in the assessment of an undiagnosed effusion unless the patient has haemoptysis or features suggestive of bronchial obstruction.

 


REFERENCES

  1. Boutin C, Rey F, Viallat JR. Prevention of malignant seeding after invasive diagnostic procedures in patients with pleural mesothelioma. A randomized trial of local radiotherapy. Chest 1995;108:754–8. [Ib][Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Scheurich JW, Keuer SP, Graham DY. Pleural effusion: comparison of clinical judgment and Light’s criteria in determining the cause. South Med J 1989;82:1487–91. [IIb][Medline]
  3. Light RW. Pleural effusion due to pulmonary emboli. Curr Opin Pulm Med 2001;7:198–201. [IV][CrossRef][Medline]
  4. Chetty KG. Transudative pleural effusions. Clin Chest Med 1985;6:49–54. [IV][Medline]
  5. Light RW. Diagnostic principles in pleural disease. Eur Respir J 1997;10:476–81. [IV][Abstract]
  6. Ferrer A, Osset J, Alegre J, et al. Prospective clinical and microbiological study of pleural effusions. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1999;18:237–41. [IIb][CrossRef][Medline]
  7. Boddington M. Serous effusions. In: Coleman DV, ed. Clinical cytotechnology. London: Butterworths, 1989: 271–5. [IV]
  8. Sahn S. Pleural fluid analysis: narrowing the differential diagnosis. Semin Respir Med 1987;9:22–9. [IV]
  9. Light RW, Erozan YS, Ball WCJ. Cells in pleural fluid. Their value in differential diagnosis. Arch Intern Med 1973;132:854–60. [III][CrossRef][Medline]
  10. Light RW, MacGregor MI, Luchsinger PC, et al. Pleural effusions: the diagnostic separation of transudates and exudates. Ann Intern Med 1972;77:507–13. [III]
  11. Gil S, Martinez M, Cases V, et al. Pleural cholesterol in differentiating transudates and exudates. A prospective study of 232 cases. Respiration 1995;62:57–63. [III][Medline]
  12. Hamm H, Brohan U, Bohmer R, et al. Cholesterol in pleural effusions. A diagnostic aid. Chest 1987;92:296–302. [IV][Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Ortega L, Heredia JL, Armengol R, et al. The differential diagnosis between pleural exudates and transudates: the value of cholesterol. Med Clin (Barc) 1991;96:367–70. [III]
  14. Roth B. The serum-effusion albumin gradient. Chest 1990;98:546–9. [IV][Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Heffner JE, Brown LK, Barbieri CA. Diagnostic value of tests that discriminate between exudative and transudative pleural effusions. Primary Study Investigators. Chest 1997;111:970–80. [IIa][Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Heffner JE. Evaluating diagnostic tests in the pleural space. Differentiating transudates from exudates as a model. Clin Chest Med 1998;19:277–93. [IV][CrossRef][Medline]
  17. Light RW. Pleural diseases. 3rd ed. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1995. [III]
  18. Wysenbeek AJ, Lahav M, Aelion JA, et al. Eosinophilic pleural effusion: a review of 36 cases. Respiration 1985;48:73–6. [III][Medline]
  19. Adelman M, Albelda SM, Gottlieb J, et al. Diagnostic utility of pleural fluid eosinophilia. Am J Med 1984;77:915–20. [III][CrossRef][Medline]
  20. Martinez-Garcia MA, Cases-Viedma E, Cordero-Rodriguez PJ, et al. Diagnostic utility of eosinophils in the pleural fluid. Eur Respir J 2000;15:166–9. [III][Abstract]
  21. Levine H, Metzger W, Lacera D, et al. Diagnosis of tuberculous pleurisy by culture of pleural biopsy specimen. Arch Intern Med 1970;126:269–71. [III][CrossRef][Medline]
  22. Ansari T, Idell S. Management of undiagnosed persistent pleural effusions. Clin Chest Med 1998;19:407–7. [IV][CrossRef][Medline]
  23. Light RW, Rogers JT, Cheng D, et al. Large pleural effusions occurring after coronary artery bypass grafting. Cardiovascular Surgery Associates, PC. Ann Intern Med 1999;130:891–6. [III][Abstract/Free Full Text]
  24. Good JT Jr, Taryle DA, Maulitz RM, et al. The diagnostic value of pleural fluid pH. Chest 1980;78:55–9. [III][Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Hamm H, Light RW. Parapneumonic effusion and empyema. Eur Respir J 1997;10:1150–6. [IV][Abstract]
  26. Heffner JE, Brown LK, Barbieri C, et al. Pleural fluid chemical analysis in parapneumonic effusions. A meta-analysis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1995;151:1700–8. [IIb][Abstract]
  27. Rodriguez P, Lopez M. Low glucose and pH levels in malignant pleural effusions. Diagnostic significance and prognostic value in respect to pleurodesis. Am Rev Respir Dis 1989;139:663–7. [IIb][Medline]
  28. Sahn SA, Good JTJ. Pleural fluid pH in malignant effusions. Diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic implications. Ann Intern Med 1988;108:345–9. [IIb]
  29. Sahn SA. Pathogenesis and clinical features of disease associated with a low pleural fluid glucose. In: The pleura in health and disease. New York, 1985: 267–85. [IV]
  30. Light RW, Ball WCJ. Glucose and amylase in pleural effusions. JAMA 1973;225:257–9. [III][CrossRef][Medline]
  31. Sahn SA. The pleura. Am Rev Respir Dis 1988;138:184–234. [IV][Medline]
  32. Houston MC. Pleural fluid pH: diagnostic, therapeutic, and prognostic value. Am J Surg 1987;154:333–7. [IV][CrossRef][Medline]
  33. Potts DE, Willcox MA, Good JT Jr, et al. The acidosis of low-glucose pleural effusions. Am Rev Respir Dis 1978;117:665–71. [IV][Medline]
  34. Ende N. Studies of amylase activity in pleural effusions and ascites. Cancer 1960;13:283–7. [III]
  35. Sherr HP, Light RW, Merson MH, et al. Origin of pleural fluid amylase in esophageal rupture. Ann Intern Med 1972;76:985–6. [IV]
  36. Kramer M. High amylase levels in neoplasm-related pleural effusion. Ann Intern Med 1989;110:567–9. [IV]
  37. Light RW. Pleural effusions. Med Clin North Am 1977;61:1339–52. [IV][Medline]
  38. Lankisch PG, Droge M, Becher R. Pleural effusions: a new negative prognostic parameter for acute pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol 1994;89:1849–51. [IV][Medline]
  39. Hirsch A. Pleural effusion: laboratory tests in 300 cases. Thorax 1979;34:106–12. [III][Abstract]
  40. Salyer WR, Eggleston JC, Erozan YS. Efficacy of pleural needle biopsy and pleural fluid cytopathology in the diagnosis of malignant neoplasm involving the pleura. Chest 1975;67:536–9. [IV][Abstract/Free Full Text]
  41. Nance KV, Shermer RW, Askin FB. Diagnostic efficacy of pleural biopsy as compared with that of pleural fluid examination. Mod Pathol 1991;4:320–4. [III][Medline]
  42. Prakash UB, Reiman HM. Comparison of needle biopsy with cytologic analysis for the evaluation of pleural effusion: analysis of 414 cases. Mayo Clin Proc 1985;60:158–64. [IV][Medline]
  43. Garcia L. The value of multiple fluid specimens in the cytological diagnosis of malignancy. Mod Pathol 1994;7:665–8. [III][Medline]
  44. Dekker A, Bupp PA. Cytology of serous effusions. An investigation into the usefulness of cell blocks versus smears. Am J Clin Pathol 1978;70:855–60. [III][Medline]
  45. Pettersson T, Froseth B, Riska H, et al. Concentration of hyaluronic acid in pleural fluid as a diagnostic aid for malignant mesothelioma. Chest 1988;94:1037–9. [III][Abstract/Free Full Text]
  46. Whitaker D. The cytology of malignant mesothelioma. Cytopathology 2000;11:139–51. [IV][CrossRef][Medline]
  47. Dejmek A, Hjerpe A. Reactivity of six antibodies in effusions of mesothelioma, adenocarcinoma and mesotheliosis: stepwise logistic regression analysis. Cytopathology 2000;11:8–17. [IIb][CrossRef][Medline]
  48. Brown RW, Clark GM, Tandon AK, et al. Multiple-marker immunohistochemical phenotypes distinguishing malignant pleural mesothelioma from pulmonary adenocarcinoma. Hum Pathol 1993;24:4–54. [III][CrossRef][Medline]
  49. Blackmore CC, Black WC, Dallas RV, et al. Pleural fluid volume estimation: a chest radiograph prediction rule. Acad Radiol 1996;3:103–9. [IV][CrossRef][Medline]
  50. O’Moore PV, Mueller PR, Simeone JF, et al. Sonographic guidance in diagnostic and therapeutic interventions in the pleural space. AJR 1987;149:1–5. [IV][Abstract/Free Full Text]
  51. Ruskin JA, Gurney JW, Thorsen MK, et al. Detection of pleural effusions on supine chest radiographs. AJR 1987;148:681–3. [III][Abstract/Free Full Text]
  52. Armstrong P, Wilson AG, Dee P, et al. Imaging of diseases of the chest. 3rd ed. Mosby, 2001. [IV]
  53. Eibenberger KL, Dock WI, Ammann ME, et al. Quantification of pleural effusions: sonography versus radiography. Radiology 1994;191:681–4. [III][Abstract]
  54. Gryminski J, Krakowka P, Lypacewicz G. The diagnosis of pleural effusion by ultrasonic and radiologic techniques. Chest 1976;70:33–7. [IV]
  55. Yang PC, Luh KT, Chang DB, et al. Value of sonography in determining the nature of pleural effusion: analysis of 320 cases. AJR 1992;159:29–33. [IV][Abstract/Free Full Text]
  56. Wu RG, Yang PC, Kuo SH, et al. "Fluid color" sign: a useful indicator for discrimination between pleural thickening and pleural effusion. J Ultrasound Med 1995;14:767–9. [III][Abstract]
  57. Wu RG, Yuan A, Liaw YS, et al. Image comparison of real-time gray-scale ultrasound and color Doppler ultrasound for use in diagnosis of minimal pleural effusion. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1994;150:510–4. [IIb][Abstract]
  58. Lipscomb DJ, Flower CD, Hadfield JW. Ultrasound of the pleura: an assessment of its clinical value. Clin Radiol 1981;32:289–90. [IV][CrossRef][Medline]
  59. McLoud TC. CT and MR in pleural disease. Clin Chest Med 1998;19:261–76. [IV][CrossRef][Medline]
  60. Leung AN, Muller NL, Miller RR. CT in differential diagnosis of diffuse pleural disease. AJR 1990;154:3–92. [III]
  61. Scott EM. Diffuse pleural thickening: percutaneous CT-guided cutting needle biopsy. Radiology 1995;194:867–70. [III][Abstract]
  62. Traill ZC, Davies RJ, Gleeson FV. Thoracic computed tomography in patients with suspected malignant pleural effusions. Clin Radiol 2001;56:193–6. [III][CrossRef][Medline]
  63. Muller NL. Imaging of the pleura. Radiology 1993;186:297–309. [IV][Medline]
  64. McLoud TC, Flower CD. Imaging the pleura: sonography, CT, and MR imaging. AJR 1991;156:1145–53. [IV][Abstract/Free Full Text]
  65. Falaschi F, Battolla L, Mascalchi M, et al. Usefulness of MR signal intensity in distinguishing benign from malignant pleural disease. AJR 1996;166:963–8. [IIb][Abstract/Free Full Text]
  66. Morrone N, Algranti E, Barreto E. Pleural biopsy with Cope and Abrams needles. Chest 1987;92:1050–2. [IIb][Abstract/Free Full Text]
  67. Mungall IP, Cowen PN, Cooke NT, et al. Multiple pleural biopsy with the Abrams needle. Thorax 1980;35:600–2. [IV][Abstract]
  68. Tomlinson JR. Closed pleural biopsy. A prospective study of dual biopsy sites. Am Rev Respir Dis 1900;133:56A. [III]
  69. Tomlinson JR. Invasive procedures in the diagnosis of pleural disease. Semin Respir Med 1987;9:30– 6. [IIb]
  70. Sahn SA. Pleural manifestations of pulmonary disease. Hosp Pract Hosp Ed 1981;16:73–9, 83. [IV]
  71. Escudero BC, Garcia CM, Cuesta CB, et al. Cytologic and bacteriologic analysis of fluid and pleural biopsy specimens with Cope’s needle. Study of 414 patients. Arch Intern Med 1990;150:1190–4. [III][Abstract]
  72. Poe RH, Israel RH, Utell MJ, et al. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of closed pleural biopsy. Arch Intern Med 1984;144:325–8. [III][Abstract]
  73. Chertien J. Needle pleural biopsy. The pleura in health and disease. New York: Marcel Dekker, 1985: 631–42. [IV]
  74. McAleer JJ, Murphy GJ, Quinn RJ. Needle biopsy of the pleura in the diagnosis of pleural effusion. Ulster Med J 1987;56:54–7. [III][Medline]
  75. Canto A, Rivas J, Saumench J, et al. Points to consider when choosing a biopsy method in cases of pleurisy of unknown origin. Chest 1983;84:176–9. [IV][Abstract/Free Full Text]
  76. Maskell NA, Gleeson FV, Davies RJO. Standard pleural biopsy versus CT-guided cutting-needle biopsy for the diagnosis of pleural malignancy in pleural effusions: A randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2003 (in press). [IIa]
  77. Adams RF, Gleeson FV. Percutaneous image-guided cutting needle biopsy of the pleura in the diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma. Chest 2001;120:1798–802. [III][Abstract/Free Full Text]
  78. Adams RF, Gleeson FV. Percutaneous image-guided cutting-needle biopsy of the pleura in the presence of a suspected malignant effusion. Radiology 2001;219:510–4. [III][Abstract/Free Full Text]
  79. Harris RJ, Kavuru MS, Rice TW, et al. The diagnostic and therapeutic utility of thoracoscopy. A review. Chest 1995;108:828–41. [IV][Free Full Text]
  80. Page RD. Thoracosopy: a review of 121 consecutive surgical procedures. Ann Thorac Surg 1989;48:66–8. [IV][Abstract]
  81. Loddenkemper R. Thoracoscopy: state of the art. Eur Respir J 1998;11:213–21. [IV][Abstract/Free Full Text]
  82. Viskum K, Enk B. Complications of thoracoscopy. Poumon Coeur 1981;37:25–8. [IV][Medline]
  83. Heaton RW, Roberts CM. The role of fibreoptic bronchoscopy in the investigation of pleural effusion. Postgrad Med J 1988;64:581–2. [IV][Abstract]
  84. Upham JW, Mitchell CA, Armstrong JG, et al. Investigation of pleural effusion: the role of bronchoscopy. Aust N Z J Med 1992;22:41–3. [III][Medline]
  85. Feinsilver SH, Barrows AA, Braman SS. Fiberoptic bronchoscopy and pleural effusion of unknown origin. Chest 1986;90:516–9. [III][Abstract/Free Full Text]
  86. Chang SC, Perng RP. The role of fiberoptic bronchoscopy in evaluating the causes of pleural effusions. Arch Intern Med 1989;149:855–7. [IIb][Abstract]
  87. Turton CW. Troublesome pleural fluid. Br J Dis Chest 1987;81:217–24. [IV][CrossRef][Medline]
  88. Ferrer S. Pleural tuberculosis: incidence, pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment. Curr Opin Pulm Med 1996;2:327–34. [IV][Medline]
  89. Hillerdal G. Chylothorax and pseudochylothorax. Eur Respir J 1997;10:1150–6. [IV]
  90. Ferguson GC. Cholesterol pleural effusion in rheumatoid lung disease. Thorax 1966;21:577–82. [IV][Medline]
  91. Hillerdal G. Chyliform (cholesterol) pleural effusion. Chest 1985;88:426–8. [IV][Abstract/Free Full Text]
  92. Romero S, Martin C, Hernandez L, et al. Chylothorax in cirrhosis of the liver: analysis of its frequency and clinical characteristics. Chest 1998;114:154–9. [IV][Abstract/Free Full Text]
  93. Berkman N, Liss H, Kramer MR. Pyelonephritis as a cause of pleural effusion. Respiration 1996;63:384–6. [IV][Medline]
  94. Miller KS, Wooten S, Sahn SA. Urinothorax: a cause of low pH transudative pleural effusions. Am J Med 1988;85:448–9. [IV][CrossRef][Medline]
  95. Stark DD, Shanes JG, Baron RL, et al. Biochemical features of urinothorax. Arch Intern Med 1982;142:1509–11. [IV][Abstract]
  96. Garcia-Pachon E, Padilla-Navas I. Pleural effusion due to pyelonephritis or urinothorax? Respiration 1997;64:392. [IV][Medline]
  97. Berger HW, Mejia E. Tuberculous pleurisy. Chest 1973;63:88–92. [IV][Abstract/Free Full Text]
  98. Idell S. Evaluation of perplexing pleural effusions. Ann Intern Med 1994;110:567–9. [IV]
  99. Gakis C. Adenosine deaminase (ADA) isoenzymes ADA1 and ADA2: diagnostic and biological role. Eur Respir J 1996;9:632–3. [IV][CrossRef][Medline]
  100. Valdes L, Alvarez D, San Jose E, et al. Tuberculous pleurisy: a study of 254 patients. Arch Intern Med 1998;158:2017–21. [III][Abstract/Free Full Text]
  101. Burgess LJ, Maritz FJ, Le Roux I, et al. Use of adenosine deaminase as a diagnostic tool for tuberculous pleurisy. Thorax 1995;50:672–4. [IV]<