ABSTRACT
Light’s criteria is the standard for determining the etiology of pleural effusions. Test characteristics of Light’s criteria varies in different populations, and Light’s criteria may misclassify effusions in patients with impaired immunity such as in neutropenia. This study evaluates the test characteristics of Light’s criteria and other clinically available pleural fluid tests in a cohort of patients with neutropenia. Cases were defined as a thoracentesis performed with an absolute neutrophil count of less than 1000 cells/µl documented at least 24 hours prior to the procedure. The etiology of the effusion was adjudicated by independent review of the case data and hospital course by two board certified pulmonologists. Categories for final diagnosis included exudate due to infection, exudate due to malignancy, exudate due to other, and transudate. A total of 83 thoracenteses from 80 patients were identified. Comorbidities included hematologic and solid tumor malignancies, recipients of allogeneic stem cell and solid organ transplants, heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and decompensated cirrhosis. Light’s criteria had a sensitivity of 92% and a specificity of 55% for identifying exudates, LR+ 2.07 and LR-0.14. A pleural fluid protein value of >2.9 g/dl had a sensitivity of 42% and a specificity of 96%, LR+11.12 and LR-0.61. When comparing exudative effusions, the percentage of neutrophils in the pleural fluid was significantly higher in infection, despite peripheral neutropenia. Together these results show a reduced specificity of Light’s criteria in neutropenia, and underscore the complexity of pleural effusions in this setting.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Jeffrey Sturek was supported in part by the National Center For Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under Award Numbers UL1TR003015 and KL2TR003016.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Study was approved by UVA Health-Sciences Research IRB with approval number 22067. This study is retrospective with a waiver of patient consent.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Summary conflict of interest statements: The above authors have no conflicts of interest to report.
Funding information: Jeffrey Sturek is supported in part by the National Center For Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under Award Numbers UL1TR003015 and KL2TR003016.
Data Availability
Clinical data, pleural fluid data, serum lab data, and imaging studies were extracted from the electronic medical record and stored in a REDCap database. De-identified data is available upon request and in compliance with IRB protocols and institutional data sharing agreements.
ABBREVIATIONS LIST
- LR
- Likelihood ratio
