Skip to main content
Log in

Role of Pleural Fluid C-Reactive Protein Concentration in Discriminating Uncomplicated Parapneumonic Pleural Effusions from Complicated Parapneumonic Effusion and Empyema

  • Published:
Lung Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine whether pleural fluid C-reactive protein (CRP) is useful in distinguishing complicated parapneumonic pleural effusion (CPPE) and empyema from uncomplicated parapneumonic pleural effusions (UPPE). A total of 69 consecutive patients with parapneumonic effusions were enrolled in the study: 29 with UPPE, 29 with CPPE, and 11 with empyema. Concentrations of standard biochemical parameters together with CRP in the pleural fluid were measured using an immunoturbidimetric assay. Pleural CRP was significantly higher in CPPE (11.6 mg/dl) and in empyema (12.2 mg/dl) than in UPPE (3.9 mg/dl). A cutoff value of 8.7 mg/dl for pleural CRP in the diagnosis of CPPE and empyema resulted in a sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.80, 0.97 and 0.94, respectively. Traditional lactic dehydrogenase (LDH) ≥ 1000 U/L and glucose ≤ 60 mg/dl can differentiate CPPE and empyema from UPPE, with the sensitivity, specificity, and AUC achieving 0.75/0.60.1.00/1.00,0.95/0.22, respectively. However, for the detection of CPPE and empyema, the combination of pleural fluid CRP ≥ 8.7 mg/dl and LDH ≥ 1000 U/L was valuable in achieving a sensitivity, specificity, and AUC of 0.97/1,00/0.95. This study suggests that measurement of pleural CRP can be useful in the workup of patients with a parapneumonic effusion in order to differentiate CPPE from UPPE.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alexandrakis MG, Coulocheri SA, Bouros D, et al. (2000) Evaluation of inflammatory cytokines in malignant and benign pleural effusion. Oncol Rep 7(6):1327–1332

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Castano Vidriales JL, Amores Antequera C (1992) Use of pleural fluid C-reactive protein in laboratory diagnosis of pleural effusions. Eur J Med 4:201–207

    Google Scholar 

  3. Chapman SJ, Davies RJ (2004) The management of pleural space infections. Respirology 9(1):4–11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Colice GL, Curtis A, Deslauriers J, et al. (2000) Medical and surgical treatment of parapneumonic effusions: an evidence-based guideline. Chest 118:1158–1171

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Garcia–Pachon E, Llorca I (2002) Diagnostic value of C-reactive protein in exudative pleural effusion. Eur J Intern Med 13(4):246–249

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Hamm H, Light RW (1997) Parapneumonic effusion and empyema. Eur Respir J 10:1150–1156

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Heffner JE (1999) Indications for draining a parapneumonic effusion: an evidence-based approach. Semin Respir Infect 14:48–58

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Heffner JE, Brown LK, Barbieri C, et al. (1995) Pleural fluid chemical analysis in parapneumonic effusions. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 151:1700–1708

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Hernández L, Romero S (2002) Derrame pleural maligno. In: Porcel JM (ed.) Enfermedades de la pleura. Publisher, City, pp 83–94

  10. José M, Pharm D (2004) Tumor necrosis factor-α in pleural fluid. Chest 125:160–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Light RW (1995) A new classification of parapneumonic effusions and empyema. Chest 108:299–301

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Light RW, Girard WM, Jenkinson SG, et al. (1980) Parapneumonic effusions. Am J Med 69:507–512

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Maskell NA, Gleeson FV, Darby M, Davies RJ (2004) Diagnostically significant variations in pleural fluid pH in loculated parapneumonic effusions. Chest 126(6):2022–2024

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Odeh M, Sabo E, Oliven A, Srugo I (2000) Role of tumor necrosis factor-alpha in the differential diagnosis of parapneumonic effusion. Int J Infect Dis 4(1):38–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Ogawa K, Koga H, Kohno S, et al. (1996) [Differential diagnosis of tuberculous pleurisy by the measurement of cytokine concentration in pleural effusion.] Kekkaku 71(12): 663–669

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Vives M, Porcel JM, Vicente de Vera M, Ribelles E, Rubio M (1996) A study of Light’s criteria and possible modifications for distinguishing exudative from transudative pleural effusions. Chest 109(6):1503–1507

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Vives M, Porcel JM, Gazquez I, Perez B, Rubio M (2000) Pleural SC5b-9: A test for indentifying complicated parapneumonic effusion. Respiration 67:433–438

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Yilmaz Turay U, Yildirim Z, Turkoz Y, et al. (2000) Use of pleural fluid C-reactive protein in diagnosis of pleural effusions. Respir Med 94(5):432–435

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. M. Shih.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chen, S.C., Chen, W., Hsu, W.H. et al. Role of Pleural Fluid C-Reactive Protein Concentration in Discriminating Uncomplicated Parapneumonic Pleural Effusions from Complicated Parapneumonic Effusion and Empyema. Lung 184, 141–145 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00408-005-2573-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00408-005-2573-0

Keywords

Navigation