Sensitivity of lung ultrasound for the detection of pneumothorax one day after pulmonary resection—a prospective observational study

<jats:title>Summary</jats:title><jats:sec> <jats:title>Background</jats:title> <jats:p>Chest X‑ray (CXR) after thoracic surgery contributes to patient discomfort and costs and is of limited therapeutic value. Lung ultrasound (LU) for pneumothorax may be an alternative to CXR, but diagnostic accuracy data are heterogeneous and biased by insufficient sonographic technique and patient selection. Reported sensitivities range from 0.21 to 1.0. We evaluated the sensitivity of LU on the first day after thoracic surgery under routine conditions.</jats:p> </jats:sec><jats:sec> <jats:title>Methods</jats:title> <jats:p>We performed a prospective observational study (trial-ID DRKS00014557). Consecutive patients undergoing lung resection received standardized LU in addition to routine CXR on the first postoperative day. Ultrasound examiner and radiologist were blinded to corresponding X‑ray and ultrasound findings. CXR was used as reference to determine diagnostic test performance of ultrasound. The conformity of sonography- and routine-based therapeutic decisions was evaluated.</jats:p> </jats:sec><jats:sec> <jats:title>Results</jats:title> <jats:p>A total of 68 patients were examined. The mean duration of ultrasound was 145 ± 64 s. CXR identified 23 patients with pneumothorax with a mean apex-to-cupola size of 1.5 ± 1.0 cm. Ultrasound detected 18 patients with pneumothorax. The computed sensitivity of LU was 0.48 (95% confidence interval [0.36; 0.60]). Specificity was between 0.81 and 1.0, the negative predictive value 0.76 [0.66; 0.86]. The sensitivity of CXR was 0.56 [0.44; 0.68]. Air leakage via chest tube correlated weakly with CXR (spearman’s rho = 0.26) and moderately with LU (rho = 0.43). The conformity between sonographically based recommendations and the actual therapy based on routine diagnostics was 96%.</jats:p> </jats:sec><jats:sec> <jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title> <jats:p>Sensitivity of ultrasound for pneumothorax detection nearly reached CXR and resulted in equally safe patient management. Our data can serve as a pilot study for upcoming larger-scaled controlled trials.</jats:p> </jats:sec&gt

Guidelines on analgosedation, monitoring, and recovery time for flexible bronchoscopy: a systematic review

Abstract Background Patients undergoing bronchoscopy in spontaneous breathing are prone to hypoxaemia and hypercapnia. Sedation, airway obstruction, and lung diseases impair respiration and gas exchange. The restitution of normal respiration takes place in the recovery room. Nonetheless, there is no evidence on the necessary observation time. We systematically reviewed current guidelines on bronchoscopy regarding sedation, monitoring and recovery. Methods This review was registered at the PROSPERO database (CRD42020197476). MEDLINE and awmf.org were double-searched for official guidelines, recommendation or consensus statements on bronchoscopy from 2010 to 2020. The PICO-process focussed on adults (Patients), bronchoscopy with maintained spontaneous breathing (Interventions), and recommendations regarding the intra- and postprocedural monitoring and sedation (O). The guideline quality was graded. A catalogue of 54 questions was answered. Strength of recommendation and evidence levels were recorded for each recommendation. Results Six guidelines on general bronchoscopy and three expert statements on special bronchoscopic procedures were identified. Four guidelines were evidence-based. Most guidelines recommend sedation to improve the patient’s tolerance. Midazolam combined with an opioid is preferred. The standard monitoring consists of non-invasive blood pressure, and pulse oximetry, furthermore electrocardiogram in cardiac patients. Only one guideline discusses hypercapnia and capnometry, but without consensus. Two guidelines discuss a recovery time of two hours, but a recommendation was not given because of lack of evidence. Conclusion Evidence for most issues is low to moderate. Lung-diseased patients are not represented by current guidelines. Capnometry and recovery time lack evidence. More primary research in these fields is needed so that future guidelines may address these issues, too

Rationale and design of PASSAT — patients’ satisfaction with local or general anaesthesia in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial with a non-randomised side arm

Abstract Background Although general anaesthesia (GA) with one-lung ventilation is the current standard of care, minor thoracoscopic surgery, i.e. treatment of pleural effusions, biopsies and small peripheral pulmonary wedge resections, can also be performed using local anaesthesia (LA), analgosedation and spontaneous breathing. Whilst the feasibility and safety of LA have been demonstrated, its impact on patient satisfaction remains unclear. Most studies evaluating patient satisfaction lack control groups or do not meet psychometric criteria. We report the design of the PASSAT trial (PAtientS’ SATisfaction in thoracic surgery – general vs. local anaesthesia), a randomised controlled trial with a non-randomised side arm. Methods Patients presenting for minor thoracoscopic surgery and physical eligibility for GA and LA are randomised to surgery under GA (control group) or LA (intervention group). Those who refuse to be randomised are asked to attend the study on the basis of their own choice of anaesthesia (preference arm) and will be analysed separately. The primary endpoint is patient satisfaction according to a psychometrically validated questionnaire; secondary endpoints are complication rates, capnometry, actual costs and cost effectiveness. The study ends after inclusion of 54 patients in each of the two randomised study groups. Discussion The PASSAT study is the first randomised controlled trial to systematically assess patients’ satisfaction depending on LA or GA. The study follows an interdisciplinary approach, and its results may also be applicable to other surgical disciplines. It is also the first cost study based on randomised samples. Comparison of the randomised and the non-randomised groups may contribute to satisfaction research. Trial registration German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00013661. Registered on 23 March 2018