The efficacy of X-rays after chest tube removal

The value of chest radiography after chest tube removal in nonventilated trauma patients: A post hoc analysis of a multicenter prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Chest tubes are commonly placed in trauma care to treat life-threatening intrathoracic injuries by evacuating blood or air from the pleural cavity. Currently, it is common practice to routinely obtain chest radiographs between 1 to 8 hours after chest tube removal, while the necessity of it has been questioned. This study describes the "ins-and-outs" of chest tubes and evaluates the value of routine postremoval chest radiography in nonventilated trauma patients.

METHODS

A post hoc analysis of a multicenter observational prospective cohort study was performed in blunt chest trauma patients admitted with multiple rib fractures to two level 1 trauma centers between January 2018 and March 2021 and treated with one or more chest tubes. Exclusion criteria were mechanical ventilation during chest tube removal, missing reports of postremoval chest radiography, transfer to another hospital, or mortality before chest tube removal. Descriptive analyses were performed to calculate the number of findings on postremoval chest radiographs and reinterventions.

RESULTS

A total of 207 patients were included for analysis of whom 14 underwent bilateral chest tube placement, resulting in 221 chest tube removals investigated in this study. The mean ± SD age was 58 ± 17 years, 71% were male, 73% had American Society of Anesthesiologists scores of 1 or 2, and the median Injury Severity Score was 19 (interquartile range, 14-29). In 68 of 221 chest tube removals (31%), postremoval chest radiography showed increased or recurrent intrathoracic pathology (i.e., 13% pneumothorax, 18% pleural fluid, and 8% atelectasis). Only two (3%) of these patients underwent a same-day reintervention based on these findings, of whom one had signs or symptoms of recurrent pathology and one was asymptomatic.

CONCLUSION

It seems safe to omit routine use of postremoval chest radiography in nonventilated blunt chest trauma patients and to selectively use imaging in those patients presenting with clinical signs or symptoms after chest tube removal.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Diagnostic Tests/Criteria; Level IV.

Necessity of Routine Chest Radiograph Following Chest Tube Removal in Pediatric Patients After Cardiovascular Surgery

PURPOSE

Chest tube placement and subsequent removal is a routine step in patient management after cardiovascular surgery. The purpose of this retrospective study is to determine the necessity of routine chest radiography following chest tube removal in order to detect potential complications in pediatric patients after cardiovascular surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the hospital records of all consecutive children up to 5 years of age who had cardiovascular surgery at our hospital between January 2015 and December 2020. Two radiologists independently evaluated routine chest radiographs performed 4 hours following chest tube removal for the presence of potential complications. In all post chest tube removal chest radiographs that demonstrated a complication, the patient's medical record was investigated in order to determine if there was an associated clinical or laboratory test abnormality, and if the radiographically detected complication led to a change in patient management. Inter-rater agreement between the 2 reviewers was evaluated with κ statistics.

RESULTS

We identified 147 children (73 [49.7%] male and 74 [50.3%] female; mean age=13.8 mo old; range 0 to 60 mo) who met the inclusion criteria. Complications were detected on routine chest radiograph after chest tube removal in 10 patients (6.8%) including pneumothorax (n=5, 3.4%), pleural effusion (n=3, 2%), pneumomediastinum (n=1, 0.7%), and pneumopericardium (n=1, 0.7%). No clinical or laboratory abnormalities were present in all children affected with radiographically detected complications on routine chest radiograph 4 hours after chest tube removal, and there was no need for intervention in any affected patients. There was high inter-rater κ agreement between the 2 independent reviewers for detecting complications on chest radiographs after chest tube removal (κ=0.94).

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that routine chest radiograph performed shortly after chest tube removal may not be necessary for the safe management of asymptomatic children after cardiovascular surgery because complications are rare and do not require intervention. In addition, obviating performance of this routine chest radiograph following chest tube removal will lead to a substantial decrease in exposure to unnecessary ionizing radiation in children who undergo frequent radiographs and lower medical costs.

Ultrasound may safely replace chest radiograph after tube thoracostomy removal in trauma patients

INTRODUCTION

A chest radiograph (CXR) is routinely obtained in trauma patients following tube thoracostomy (TT) removal to assess for residual pneumothorax (PTX). New literature supports the deference of a radiograph after routine removal procedure. However, many surgeons have hesitated to adopt this practice due to concern for patient welfare and medicolegal implications. Ultrasound (US) is a portable imaging modality which may be performed rapidly, without radiation exposure, and at minimal cost. We hypothesized that transitioning from CXR to US following TT removal in trauma patients would prove safe and provide superior detection of residual PTX.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A practice management guideline was established calling for the performance of a CXR and bedside US 2 h after TT removal in all adult trauma patients diagnosed with PTX at a level 1 trauma center. Surgical interns completed a 30-minute, US training course utilizing a handheld US device. US findings were interpreted and documented by the surgical interns. CXRs were interpreted by staff radiologists blinded to US findings. Data was retrospectively collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

Eighty-nine patients met inclusion criteria. Thirteen (15%) post removal PTX were identified on both US and CXR. An additional 11 (12%) PTX were identified on CXR, and 5 (6%) were identified via US, for a total of 29 PTX (33%). One patient required re-intervention; the recurrent PTX was detected by both US and CXR. For all patients, using CXR as the standard, US displayed a sensitivity of 54.2%, specificity of 92.3%, negative predictive value of 84.5%, and positive predictive value of 72.2%. The cost of care for the study cohort may have been reduced over $9,000 should US alone have been employed.

CONCLUSION

Bedside US may be an acceptable alternative to CXR to assess for recurrent PTX following trauma TT removal.

Chest X-ray imaging after chest tube removal in children undergoing congenital heart surgery: May be life-saving in redo patients

Background/Aim: Parallel to the developments in congenital heart surgery, the number of children undergoing resternotomy (redo) heart surgery is increasing. In this specific group of patients, post-operative pneumothorax (PTX) and atelectasis are preventable respiratory complications. However, in the literature, pediatric data are still limited. In this study, we draw attention to the frequency and importance of PTX, a post-operative respiratory complication in redo patients. We investigate the necessity for routine chest X-rays to detect PTX following chest tube removal after closed or open-heart operations for congenital heart disease. Methodsː A total of 554 consecutive pediatric patients who underwent cardiac surgery were analyzed. The study was designed as a retrospective cohort study. The patient’s demographic data, clinical characteristics with chest tube removal, and pathologies detected by chest X-ray were recorded. Patients were divided into non-redo and redo groups or subgroups. Patients who developed PTX (n = 24) were divided into subgroups: asymptomatic or symptomatic and large or small. Data analysis and statistical comparison between the groups were performed with independent-samples t-test or Mann-Whitney U test. Resultsː In 24 (4.3%) of the 554 patients included in the study, PTX was detected in the post-operative evaluation after chest tube removal. Of the PTX cases, 15 (62.5%) were small, and nine (37.5%) were large. Ten (41.6%) patients were symptomatic, while nine patients had large PTX, and one patient with small PTX was identified. There were significantly more cases of large PTX in redo cases than in non-redo cases (P = 0.038). PTX was significantly more symptomatic in redo patients than non-redo patients (P = 0.031). Conclusionː In patients undergoing cardiac surgery for the first time, a detailed clinical assessment reduces the likelihood of post-procedure PTX and makes routine chest X-ray imaging unnecessary. Conversely, clinical follow-up of these patients in terms of PTX should be essential for possible complications. However, clinical signs of late PTX development in the first 24–48 h after chest tube removal in patients undergoing redo cardiac surgery should be followed carefully by the clinician, and chest X-ray imaging should be routinely performed.

Impact of routine chest radiographs after removal of pigtail chest tubes placed by pediatric interventional radiology

BACKGROUND

Chest radiographs are commonly obtained after chest tube removal to assess for complications. The benefit of this practice in children is uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the clinical impact of a routine chest radiograph following removal of chest tubes placed by pediatric interventional radiology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This single-center retrospective study evaluated 200 chest tube removals in 176 patients (median age: 4 years, interquartile range [IQR]: 1.2-12; median weight: 17.2 kg, IQR: 10.67-37.6), who had a chest tube placed and removed by pediatric interventional radiology over a 16-year period. A chest radiograph obtained on the day of removal was compared to the preceding study. For patients with imaging changes, medical records were reviewed to determine whether clinical actions occurred as a result. All records were reviewed for 7 days after tube removal or hospital discharge, whichever occurred first.

RESULTS

The most common indication for chest tube insertion was simple effusion (53%, 106/200) and the most common tube size was 10.2 French (38.7%, 81/209). The median tube dwell time was 8 days (IQR: 5-17). There was a median of 14 h (IQR: 7-33.5) between imaging before and after tube removal. Imaging changes occurred in 10% (n = 20/200) of chest tube removals. Three of 200 (1.5%) of these were symptomatic after removal and only 0.5% (1/200) required chest tube reinsertion. For the remaining removals resulting in chest radiograph changes, patients were asymptomatic and required no change in clinical management.

CONCLUSION

For chest tubes placed by pediatric interventional radiology, these findings do not support the practice of a routine chest radiograph after removal in asymptomatic children.

Are Routine Chest Radiographs After Chest Tube Removal in Thoracic Surgery Patients Necessary?

INTRODUCTION

The routine use of chest x-ray (CXR) to evaluate the pleural space after chest tube removal is a common practice driven primarily by surgeon preference and institutional protocol. The results of these postpull CXRs frequently lead to additional interventions that serve only to increase health care costs and resource utilization. We investigated the utility of these postpull CXRs in thoracic surgery patients and assessed their effectiveness in predicting the need for tube replacement.

METHODS

Single-institution retrospective study comprising thoracic surgery patients requiring postoperative chest tube drainage over a 3-y period. Demographics and surgical characteristics, including surgical approach, procedure, and procedure type, were recorded. Outcomes included postpull CXR findings, interventions resulting from radiographic abnormalities, and the additional health resource utilization incurred by obtaining these studies on asymptomatic patients.

RESULTS

The study included 433 patients. Postpull CXRs were performed in 87.1% of patients, with 33.2% demonstrating an abnormality compared with the prior study. Among these, 65.7% resulted only in repeat imaging and 25.7% resulted in discharge delay. Overall, a total of 13 patients (3%) required chest tube replacement, three during the index hospitalization and the other 10 requiring readmission. Among those requiring chest tube replacement, 75% had normal postpull imaging, and all were symptomatic.

CONCLUSIONS

Recurrent pneumothorax after chest tube removal requiring immediate tube reinsertion is relatively rare and does not occur in the absence of symptoms. Our study suggests that routine postpull CXRs have limited clinical utility and can be safely omitted in asymptomatic patients with appropriate clinical observation.

Routine chest X-rays after pigtail chest tube removal rarely change management in children

BACKGROUND

The need for chest X-rays (CXR) following large-bore chest tube removal has been questioned; however, the utility of CXRs following removal of small-bore pigtail chest tubes is unknown. We hypothesized that CXRs obtained following removal of pigtail chest tubes would not change management.

METHODS

Patients < 18 years old with pigtail chest tubes placed 2014-2019 at a tertiary children's hospital were reviewed. Exclusion criteria were age < 1 month, death or transfer with a chest tube in place, or pigtail chest tube replacement by large-bore chest tube. The primary outcome was chest tube reinsertion.

RESULTS

111 patients underwent 123 pigtail chest tube insertions; 12 patients had bilateral chest tubes. The median age was 5.8 years old. Indications were pneumothorax (n = 53), pleural effusion (n = 54), chylothorax (n = 6), empyema (n = 5), and hemothorax (n = 3). Post-pull CXRs were obtained in 121/123 cases (98.4%). The two children without post-pull CXRs did not require chest tube reinsertion. Two patients required chest tube reinsertion (1.6%), both for re-accumulation of their chylothorax.

CONCLUSIONS

Post-pull chest X-rays are done nearly universally following pigtail chest tube removal but rarely change management. Providers should obtain post-pull imaging based on symptoms and underlying diagnosis, with higher suspicion for recurrence in children with chylothorax.

Scoping review of traumatic hemothorax: Evidence and knowledge gaps, from diagnosis to chest tube removal

BACKGROUND

Traumatic hemothorax is a common injury that invites diagnostic and management strategy debates. Evidence-based management has been associated with improved care efficiency. However, the literature abounds with long-debated, re-emerging, and new questions. We aimed to consolidate up-to-date evidence on traumatic hemothoraces, focusing on clinical conundra debated in literature.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review of 21 clinical conundra in traumatic hemothorax diagnosis and management according to PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Experimental and observational studies evaluating patients (aged ≥18 years) with traumatic hemothoraces were identified through database searches (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library; database inception to Sep, 26 2020) and bibliography reviews of selected articles. Three reviewers screened and selected articles using standardized forms.

RESULTS

We screened 1,440 articles for eligibility, of which 71 met criteria for synthesis. The review comprises 6 sections: (1) Presumptive antibiotics before tube thoracostomy; (2) Initial diagnostic and intervention decisions; (3) Chest tubes; (4) Retained hemothoraces; (5) Delayed hemothoraces; and (6) Chest tube removal). The 21 conundra across these sections follow the format of a question, our recommendation based on interpretation of available evidence, and succinct rationale. Rationale sections detail knowledge gaps and opportunities for future research.

CONCLUSION

Even practices engrained into surgical dogma, such as obtaining chest x-rays after inserting or removing chest tubes and mandating operation for patients who develop chest tube output above a certain threshold, deserve re-evaluation. Some knowledge gaps require rigorous future investigation; sound clinical judgment can likely supplement others.

Thoracostomy Tube Removal in Pediatric Trauma: Film or No Film?

BACKGROUND

Use of routine chest x-rays (CXR) following thoracostomy tube (TT) removal is highly variable and its utility is debated. We hypothesize that routine post-pull chest x-ray (PP-CXR) findings following TT removal in pediatric trauma would not guide the decision for TT reinsertion.

METHODS

Patients ≤ 18 y who were not mechanically ventilated and undergoing final TT removal for a traumatic hemothorax (HTX) and/or pneumothorax (PTX) at a level I pediatric trauma center from 2010 to 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. The outcomes of interest were rate of PP-CXR and TT reinsertion rate following PP-CXR. Clinical predictors for worsened findings on PP-CXR were also assessed.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine patients were included. A CXR after TT removal was performed in 57 patients (97%), with 28% demonstrating worsened CXR findings compared to the prior film. Except for higher ISS (p = 0.033), there were no demographic or clinical predictors for worsened CXR findings. However, they were more likely to have additional films following the TT removal (p = 0.008) than those with stable or improved PP-CXR findings. One (1.8%) asymptomatic child with worsened PP-CXR findings had TT reinsertion based purely on their worsened PP-CXR findings.

CONCLUSIONS

The vast majority of PP-CXR did not guide TT reinsertion after pediatric thoracic trauma. Treatment algorithms may aid to reduce variability and potentially unnecessary routine films.

Is a chest radiograph indicated after chest tube removal in trauma patients? A systematic review

PURPOSE

The aim of this systematic review was to assess the necessity of routine chest radiographs after chest tube removal in ventilated and nonventilated trauma patients.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and CINAHL on May 15, 2020. Quality assessment was performed using the Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies criteria. Primary outcome measures were abnormalities on postremoval chest radiograph (e.g., recurrence of a pneumothorax, hemothorax, pleural effusion) and reintervention after chest tube removal. Secondary outcome measures were emergence of new clinical symptoms or vital signs after chest tube removal.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included, consisting of seven studies on nonventilated patients and seven studies on combined cohorts of ventilated and nonventilated patients, all together containing 1,855 patients. Nonventilated patients had abnormalities on postremoval chest radiograph in 10% (range across studies, 0-38%) of all chest tubes and 24% (range, 0-78%) of those underwent reintervention. In the studies that reported on clinical symptoms after chest tube removal, all patients who underwent reintervention also had symptoms of recurrent pathology. Combined cohorts of ventilated and nonventilated patients had abnormalities on postremoval chest radiograph in 20% (range, 6-49%) of all chest tubes and 45% (range, 8-63%) of those underwent reintervention.

CONCLUSION

In nonventilated patients, one in ten developed recurrent pathology after chest tube removal and almost a quarter of them underwent reintervention. In two studies that reported on clinical symptoms, all reinterventions were performed in patients with symptoms of recurrent pathology. In these two studies, omission of routine postremoval chest radiograph seemed safe. However, current literature remains insufficient to draw definitive conclusions on this matter, and future studies are needed.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic review study, level IV.

Is a chest radiograph after thoracostomy tube removal necessary? A cost-effective analysis

BACKGROUND

Following placement of tube thoracostomy (TT) for evacuation of traumatic hemopneumothorax (HPTX), controversy persists over the need for routine post-TT removal chest radiograph (CXR). Current research demonstrates routine CXR may offer no advantage over clinical observation alone while simultaneously increasing hospital resource utilization. As such, we hypothesized that in resolved traumatic HPTXs routine post-TT removal CXR to assess recurrent PTX compared to clinical observation is not cost-effective.

METHODS

We performed a decision-analytic model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of routine CXR compared to clinical observation following TT removal. Our base case was a patient that sustained thoracic trauma with radiographic and clinical resolution of HPTX following TT evacuation. Cost, utility and probability estimates were generated from published literature, with costs represented in 2019 US dollars and utilities in Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Decision-analytic model identified that clinical observation after TT removal was the dominant strategy with increased benefit at less cost, when compared to routine CXR, with a net cost of $194.92, QALYs of 0.44. In comparison, routine CXR demonstrated an increase of $821.42 in cost with 0.43 QALYs. On probabilistic sensitivity analysis the clinical observation strategy was found cost-effective in 99.5% of 10,000 iterations.

CONCLUSION

In trauma patients with clinical and radiographic evidence of a resolved HPTX, the adoption of clinical observation in lieu of post-TT removal CXR is cost-effective. Routine CXR following TT removal accrues more cost without additional benefit. The practice of routinely obtaining a CXR following TT removal should be scrutinized.

Are Chest Radiographs Routinely Indicated After Chest Tubes Placed for Non-Surgical Reasons Are Removed?

Background

The insertion and subsequent removal of chest tubes are frequently performed procedures for the management of pneumothoraces, pleural effusions, and cardio-thoracic surgical interventions. A chest radiograph is commonly obtained after the removal of a chest tube to rule out the interval development of a pneumothorax. This practice has been questioned in various retrospective and prospective studies conducted on surgical patient populations, showing little to no benefits in performing routine chest X-rays (CXRs) after chest tube removal unless clinical symptoms such as worsening respiratory status and hemodynamic compromise are present.

Material and Methods

A four-year retrospective study was conducted using the Cleveland Clinic Foundation database. A chart review was performed, and 1,032 patients were screened, with 200 patients meeting inclusion criteria. The inclusion criteria included patients who underwent chest tube insertion for non-surgical reasons. The primary outcome was the percentage of clinically significant pneumothoraces detected by routine CXR after chest tube removal.

Results

Out of the 200 patients included in the study, 53 had a CXR after chest tube removal showing a residual pneumothorax. Out of the 53 patients, 50 ended up not needing chest tube re-insertion, as the patients were asymptomatic and hemodynamically stable. Only three patients required chest tube re-insertion due to respiratory symptoms and significant hemodynamic changes after the chest tubes were removed. In all three cases, the symptoms manifested prior to the CXRs being obtained; therefore, the decision to reinsert each chest tubes was made based on clinical signs rather than imaging. As expected, the practice of repeating CXRs after removal of the chest tubes resulted in delayed discharges despite patients reporting no symptoms and being hemodynamically stable.

Conclusions

Our study findings correlate with prior smaller studies on surgical patients. Symptoms and hemodynamic data seem to be a better predictor of whether a patient will require chest tube re-insertion or not. Routine CXR after chest tube removal also leads to prolonged hospital stay.

Is a Chest Radiograph Required After Removal of Chest Tubes in Children?

Our objective was to determine the clinical value of obtaining a chest radiograph after removal of a chest tube. We conducted a retrospective chart review of pediatric general surgical patients with a chest tube in place after a thoracic procedure over a 3-year time period. Postremoval films were considered to be of value if they led to a change in clinical management. Of 468 patients who had a thoracic procedure, 281 patients had a chest tube and a postremoval film. In 263 patients (93.6%) there was no change in the postremoval film result compared with baseline. Only two patients (0.7%) required an intervention based on symptoms, not based on the postremoval film. Eliminating routine postremoval radiographs after chest tube removal in pediatric patients will lessen radiation exposure and provide cost savings with no adverse impact on outcome.

Chest drains – An overview

Chest drains are used in a number of circumstances for the treatment of specific conditions and also for symptomatic relief, and hence insertion of a chest drain can be a life-saving intervention. Therefore, it is imperative that every hospital doctor is familiar with the indications and the principles of safe chest drain insertion. The knowledge of chest drain management following insertion is equally essential. Appropriate chest drain insertion and management underpins the management of chest trauma. Appropriate chest drain management will allow for resolution and management of the underlying clinical condition. This review article outlines the indications, contraindications, and principles of chest drain insertion. Furthermore, it provides an overview of chest drain management and associated complications. Although this review refers to a surgically placed chest drain, the same principles can be applied to a chest drain that is inserted percutaneously.

Apex-to-Cupola Distance Following VATS Predicts Recurrence in Patients With Primary Spontaneous Pneumothorax

Our study sought to determine whether the size of the residual apical pleural space in young patients with primary spontaneous pneumothorax (PSP) following video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery is associated with the risk of recurrence. We retrospectively reviewed patients (≤30 years' old) with primary spontaneous pneumothorax following thoracoscopic surgery (2002-2010) in a university-affiliated hospital. The size of residual apical pleural space was estimated by measuring the apex-to-cupola distance on a postoperative chest radiograph at 2 time windows: first between postoperative day (POD) 0 and 3, and second between POD 4 and 14. A total of 149 patients were enrolled with a median follow-up of 11.2 months (interquartile range, 0.95-29.5 months), of whom 141 (94.6%) were male with a mean age of 20 years. The postoperative recurrence rate was 11.4%. Comparing the characteristics between the patients with and without recurrent pneumothorax, the patients with recurrence were younger (18.2 + 2.4 vs 20.7 + 3.7 years, P = 0.008), with a lower rate of pleurodesis (35% vs1 69%, P = 0.037), longer apex-to-cupola distance at POD 0 to 3 (22.41 ± 19.56 vs 10.07 ± 10.83 mm, P < 0.001) and POD 4 to 14 (11.82 ± 9.75 vs 5.54 ± 8.38 mm, P = 0.005) than the patients without recurrence. In a multivariate logistic regression model for recurrent pneumothorax, age <18 years (P = 0.026, odds ratio [OR]: 4.694), apex-to-cupola distance at POD 0 to 3 >10 mm (P = 0.027, OR: 5.319), and no pleurodesis during VATS (P = 0.022, OR: 5.042) were independent risk factors for recurrent pneumothorax. The recurrence rate was not low (11.4%) in young patients with PSP following VATS. Residual apical pleural space with apex-to-cupola distance of 10 mm or greater at POD 0 to 3, younger age, and no pleurodesis would increase postoperative recurrence of primary spontaneous pneumothorax.

Defining indications for selective chest radiography in the first 24 hours after cardiac surgery

OBJECTIVE

In the intensive-care unit (ICU), chest radiographs (CXRs) are frequently obtained routinely for postoperative cardiac surgery patients, despite the fact that the efficacy of routine CXRs is known to be low. We investigated the efficacy and safety of CXRs performed after cardiac surgery for specified indications only.

METHODS

In this observational cohort study, we prospectively included all patients who underwent conventional major cardiac surgery by median sternotomy in the year 2012. On-demand CXRs could be obtained during the first postoperative period for specified indications only. A routine control CXR was performed on the morning of the first postoperative day for all patients who had not undergone a CXR before that time. The diagnostic and therapeutic efficacy values were calculated for all CXRs. Differences were tested using Fisher's exact test or χ(2) analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 1102 consecutive cardiac surgery patients were included in this study. The diagnostic efficacy of CXRs for major abnormalities was higher for the postoperative on-demand CXRs (n = 301; 27%) than for the routine CXRs taken the morning after surgery (n = 801; 73%) (6.6% vs 2.7%, P = .004). The therapeutic efficacy was higher for the on-demand CXRs, whereas the need for intervention after the next-morning, routine CXRs was limited to 5 patients (4.0% vs 0.6%, P < .001). None of these patients experienced a major adverse event.

CONCLUSIONS

Defining clear indications for selective CXRs after cardiac surgery is effective and seems to be safe. This approach may significantly reduce the total number of CXRs performed, and will increase their efficacy.

The value of routine chest radiographs after minimally invasive cardiac surgery: an observational cohort study

Background

Chest radiographs (CXRs) are obtained frequently in postoperative cardiac surgery patients. The diagnostic and therapeutic efficacy of routine CXRs is known to be low and the discussion regarding the safety of abandoning these CXRs after cardiac surgery is still ongoing. We investigated the value of routine CXRs directly after minimally invasive cardiac surgery.

Methods

We prospectively included all patients who underwent minimally invasive cardiac surgery by port access, ministernotomy or bilateral video-assisted thoracoscopy (VATS) in the year 2012. A direct postoperative CXR was performed on all patients at ICU arrival. All CXR findings were noted, including whether they led to an intervention or not. The results were compared to the postoperative CXR results in patients who underwent conventional cardiac surgery by full median sternotomy over the same period.

Main results

A total of 249 consecutive patients were included. Most of these patients underwent valve surgery, rhythm surgery or a combination of both. The diagnostic efficacy for minor findings was highest in the port access and bilateral VATS groups (56% and 63% versus 28% and 45%) (p < 0.005). The diagnostic efficacy for major findings was also higher in these groups (8.9% and 11% versus 4.3% and 3.8%) (p = 0.010). The need for an intervention was most common after minimally invasive surgery by port access, although this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.056).

Conclusions

The diagnostic efficacy of routine CXRs performed after minimally invasive cardiac surgery by port access or bilateral VATS is higher than the efficacy of CXRs performed after conventional cardiac surgery. A routine CXR after these procedures should still be considered.

Is routine chest radiograph necessary after chest tube removal?

BACKGROUND

Obtaining a chest radiograph (CXR) after chest tube (CT) removal to rule out a pneumothorax is a universal practice. However, the yield of this CXR has not been well documented. Additionally, most iatrogenic pneumothoraces resulting from CT removal are atmospheric in origin, asymptomatic, and can be observed. Recently, we have begun to discontinue routine CXR for CT removal. We evaluated our experience with CT removal to clarify the usefulness of routine post CT removal CXR.

METHODS

After IRB approval, a retrospective study was conducted on patients who had a CT placed in the past decade. Cardiac patients requiring a CT were excluded. Patient demographics, diagnosis, treatments, and outcomes were collected. Patients were divided into two groups, those with a CXR after CT removal (Group 1) and those without (Group 2). Percentages were compared with Chi square with Yates correction.

RESULTS

462 patients were identified (group 1=327, group 2=135). Indications for CT included; empyema (n=176), lung resection (n=146), pneumothorax (n=71), pleural effusion (n=26), spinal fusion (n=20), trauma (n=16), and miscellaneous (n=7). Seven patients (2.1%) in group 1 required reinsertion for pneumothorax (n=4), empyema (n=2), and pleural effusion (n=1) compared to 1 patient (0.7%) in group 2 who required reinsertion for pleural effusion. This difference was not significant (P=0.2).

CONCLUSIONS

In non-cardiac patients with a CT, tube reinsertion is uncommon and tube replacement is secondary to symptoms. Therefore, routine post CT removal CXR is not necessary. CXR in these patients should be obtained based upon clinical indications after CT removal.

Significant changes in the practice of chest radiography in Dutch intensive care units: a web-based survey

Background

ICU patients frequently undergo chest radiographs (CXRs). The diagnostic and therapeutic efficacy of routine CXRs are now known to be low, but the discussion regarding specific indications for CXRs in critically ill patients and the safety of abandoning routine CXRs is still ongoing. We performed a survey of Dutch intensivists on the current practice of chest radiography in their departments.

Methods

Web-based questionnaires, containing questions regarding ICU characteristics, ICU patients, daily CXR strategies, indications for routine CXRs and the practice of radiologic evaluation, were sent to the medical directors of all adult ICUs in the Netherlands. CXR strategies were compared between all academic and non-academic hospitals and between ICUs of different sizes. A comparison was made between the survey results obtained in 2006 and 2013.

Results

Of the 83 ICUs that were contacted, 69 (83%) responded to the survey. Only 7% of responding ICUs were currently performing daily routine CXRs for all patients, and 61% of the responding ICUs were said never to perform CXRs on a routine basis. A daily meeting with a radiologist is an established practice in 72% of the responding ICUs and is judged to be important or even essential by those ICUs. The therapeutic efficacy of routine CXRs was assumed by intensivists to be lower than 10% or to be between 10 and 20%. The efficacy of ‘on-demand’ CXRs was assumed to be between 10 and 60%. There is a consensus between intensivists to perform a routine CXR after endotracheal intubation, chest tube placement or central venous catheterization.

Conclusion

The strategy of daily routine CXRs for critically ill and mechanically ventilated patients has turned from being a common practice in 2006 to a rare current practice. Other routine strategies and an ‘on-demand only’ strategy have become more popular. Intensivists still assume the value of CXRs to be higher than the efficacy that is reported in the literature.

Diagnosis and treatment of pneumothorax

Many diagnostic and therapeutic options exist for the evaluation and treatment of patients with pneumothorax. Guidelines from US and European professional societies and individual expert opinions differ in the approach to patient care. Advances in diagnostic techniques, such as real-time thoracic ultrasound, have added to the evaluation strategy. It is important for medical trainees and providers to become familiar with techniques utilized worldwide as they may be encountered in clinical practice. We review current evidence, expert recommendations, and compare professional society guidelines discussing the various diagnostic and management options for patients with pneumothorax to assist physicians and trainees involved in the care of hospitalized and outpatient adults who have primary, secondary, and traumatic iatrogenic pneumothorax. Management of traumatic non-iatrogenic pneumothorax is beyond the scope of this article, thus, not reviewed here.

The routine use of chest radiographs after chest tube removal in children who have had cardiac surgery

BACKGROUND

It is routine to obtain a chest radiograph (CXR) after removal of a chest tube (CT) to assess for pneumothorax. Retrospective studies have shown that clinical signs were present in most children with pneumothorax and were an indication for a CXR.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to determine if clinical indicators of pneumothorax are sufficient predictors of the need for CT reinsertion in children who have had a CT removed after cardiac surgery.

METHODS

The prospective study included a physical assessment before CT removal, using a two-person technique, which was repeated 2 hours after CT removal. Based on assessment findings, a decision was made regarding whether a CXR was indicated. The routine CXR was then obtained and read by a pediatric intensivist who was blinded to the decision of the investigator.

RESULTS

Sixty CTs were removed in 53 children. No false-positive predictions were made, because none of the children was predicted to have a pneumothorax requiring chest tube reinsertion, and none developed a significant pneumothorax (95% confidence interval: 0, 5%).

CONCLUSIONS

The low rate of pneumothoraces in this study may be been related to how the CT was placed in surgery, the type of CT used, or the method of removal. In this study the risk of developing a pneumothorax requiring CT reinsertion after CT removal was at most 5% and therefore low enough to consider obtaining a CXR for symptomatic children only.

Volume threshold for chest tube removal: a randomized controlled trial

Background:

Despite importance of chest tube insertion in chest trauma, there is no general agreement on the level of daily volume drainage from chest tube. This study was conducted to compare the effectiveness and safety of chest tube removal at the levels of 150 ml/day and 200 ml/day.

Methods:

Eligible patients (138) who needed replacement of chest tube (because of trauma or malignancy) were randomized into two groups; control (removal of chest tube when drainage reached to 150 ml/day) and trial (removal of chest tube at the level of 200 ml/day). All patients received standard care during hospital admission and a follow-up visit after 7days of discharge from hospital. Patients were then compared in terms of major clinical outcomes using chisquared and t-test.

Results:

From the total of 138 patients, 70 and 68 patients were randomized to control (G150) and trial (G200) group, respectively. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups. Although the trial group had a shorter mean for length of hospital stay (LOS) (4.1 compared to 4.8, p=0.04), their differences in drainage time did not reach to the level of statistical significance (p=0.1). Analysis of data showed no statistically significant differences between the rate of radiological reaccumulation, thoracentesis and decrease in pulmonary sounds (auscultatory), one week after discharge from hospital.

Conclusions:

Compared to a daily volume drainage of 150 ml, removal of chest tube when there is 200 ml/day is safe and will even result in a shorter hospital stay. This in turn leads to a lower cost.

Omission of routine chest x-ray after chest tube removal is safe in selected trauma patients

BACKGROUND

Definitive practice guidelines regarding the utility of chest x-ray (CXR) following chest tube removal in trauma patients have not been established. The authors hypothesized that the selective use of CXR following chest tube removal is safe and cost effective.

METHODS

A retrospective review of chest tube insertions performed at a level I trauma center was conducted.

RESULTS

Patients who underwent chest tube removal without subsequent CXR had a lower mean Injury Severity Score and were less likely to have suffered penetrating thoracic injuries. These patients received fewer total CXRs and had shorter durations of chest tube therapy and shorter lengths of stay following tube removal. Subsequent reinterventions were performed more frequently in the CXR group. The annual decrease in hospital charges by foregoing a CXR was $16,280.

CONCLUSIONS

The selective omission of CXR following chest tube removal in less severely injured, nonventilated patients does not adversely affect outcomes or increase reintervention rates. Avoiding unnecessary routine CXR after chest tube removal could provide a significant reduction in total hospital charges.

Impact of positive pressure ventilation on thoracostomy tube removal

BACKGROUND

Little data exist examining the impact of positive pressure ventilation on safe thoracostomy tube removal. We sought to evaluate the impact of positive-pressure ventilation (PPV) on recurrent pneumothoraces (PTX) after removal of thoracostomy tubes (TT).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort analysis was performed evaluating all trauma patients requiring TT drainage of PTX or hemothoraces during a 3-year period. All chest radiographs before and after TT removal were reviewed to identify PTX recurrence. The principle outcome was recurrent PTX after TT removal. The 95% confidence intervals were calculated to assess for significance.

RESULTS

We studied 234 TT removals in 190 patients. One hundred thirty-six (58%) TTs were removed under PPV. PTX recurred in 15 (11%) and 6 (4%) required reinsertion. In 10 patients (7.4%), there was a radiographically stable small PTX before and after removal not requiring TT reinsertion. In comparison, 98 (42%) TTs were removed under spontaneous ventilation. PTX recurred in 16 (16%) and 3 (3%) required reinsertion. There were 25 (25.5%) stable small PTXs before and after removal. The overall recurrence rate difference was -5.3% (confidence interval: -14.8 to 3.5) and reinsertion rate difference was 1.35% (confidence interval: -4.7 to 6.6).

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of recurrent PTX or TT replacement after removal is not associated with PPV status. The slightly lower recurrence rate on PPV combined with the smaller proportion of patients with stable small PTX before removal may reflect more careful clinician selection of ideal patients or technique of TT removal among patients on PPV. Prospective data are needed to clarify these associations.

Chest radiographs after removal of chest drains in neonates: clinical benefit or common practice?

BACKGROUND

Chest drain insertion is a common procedure in neonatal care. Routine radiography after removal of chest drains increases radiation exposure, handling and cost, but there are few data proving clinical benefit.

OBJECTIVES

To review current practice and determine the yield of routinely obtained chest radiographs (CXR).

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of all infants undergoing removal of chest tubes in a single tertiary neonatal unit in New Zealand between January 1998 and July 2004 was performed.

RESULTS

In total, 119 infants were identified, from the database, to have a chest drainage performed. In 19 cases, the procedure was needle aspiration or the drain was removed outside of our unit, hence these were excluded. The remaining 100 patients with 110 episodes of chest drain removal after 174 chest tube insertions were analysed. In asymptomatic infants, routine radiography showed some reaccumulation of air in nine of 35 cases of pneumothorax or of fluid in two of the five cases of pleural effusion, but chest tube reinsertion was not required. In the 12 clinically symptomatic infants, chest tubes were reinserted in five cases (four reaccumulations of pneumothorax and one pleural effusion), and one infant had symptomatic right upper lobe collapse. In the remaining infants, there were no abnormalities on CXR accounting for deterioration.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the low yield for routine radiography after chest drain removal, we suggest that close observation is likely to detect clinically relevant recurrence of pneumothorax.

[Failures and complications of thoracic drainage]

BACKGROUND/AIM

Thoracic drainage is a surgical procedure for introducing a drain into the pleural space to drain its contents. Using this method, the pleura is discharged and set to the physiological state which enables the reexpansion of the lungs. The aim of the study was to prove that the use of modern principles and protocols of thoracic drainage significantly reduces the occurrence of failures and complications, rendering the treatment more efficient.

METHODS

The study included 967 patients treated by thoracic drainage within the period from January 1, 1989 to June 1, 2000. The studied patients were divided into 2 groups: group A of 463 patients treated in the period from january 1, 1989 to December 31, 1994 in whom 386 pleural drainage (83.36%) were performed, and group B of 602 patients treated form January 1, 1995 to June 1, 2000 in whom 581 pleural drainage (96.51%) were performed. The patients of the group A were drained using the classical standards of thoracic drainage by the general surgeons. The patents of the group B, however, were drained using the modern standards of thoracic drainage by the thoracic surgeons, and the general surgeons trained for this kind of the surgery.

RESULTS

The study showed that better results were achieved in the treatment of the patients from the group B. The total incidence of the failures and complications of thoracic drainage decreased from 36.52% (group A) to 12.73% (group B). The mean length of hospitalization of the patients without complications in the group A was 19.5 days versus 10 days in the group B. The mean length of the treatment of the patients with failures and complications of the drainage in the group A was 33.5 days versus 17.5 days in the group B.

CONCLUSION

The shorter length of hospitalization and the lower morbidity of the studied patients were considered to be the result of the correct treatment using modern principles of thoracic drainage, a suitable surgical technique, and a careful follow-up of the patients.

The use of routine chest X-ray films after chest tube removal in postoperative cardiac patients

BACKGROUND

The use of routine postoperative chest x-ray films (CXRs) for postoperative cardiac patients has been challenged, suggesting that only clinically indicated CXRs be obtained. The removal of chest tubes has been used as an indication for CXRs. Our hypothesis is that routine postoperative chest tube removal CXRs are not indicated in the asymptomatic postoperative cardiac patient.

METHODS

Charts of 1,021 consecutive postoperative median sternotomy patients were reviewed, focusing on postoperative findings of CXRs, clinical evaluations, and interventions. Those who died prior to tube removal were excluded from the study.

RESULTS

Tubes were removed on postoperative days 1 to 7 (average, 1.45 days). The two groups of patients were comparable in age, gender, procedure, and co-morbidity (p > .01). Seven hundred three patients underwent routine postoperative tube removal CXRs. Abnormal findings were present in 282 patients. Resultant therapeutic intervention was undertaken in 13 patients and 9 were symptomatic. No imaging after routine postoperative CXRs was conducted in 283 patients. These patients remained asymptomatic and required no intervention. Fourteen patients had clinically indicated CXRs after chest tube removal. Two of these patients had additional tubes placed, and 1 patient had follow-up films. In total, there was a 1.5% incidence of therapeutic intervention after chest tube removal. All patients were discharged without further sequelae of their tubes.

CONCLUSIONS

Omission of routine postoperative chest tube removal CXRs in postoperative cardiac patients is safe. The removal of chest tubes in these patients is not an indication for CXRs.

When should a chest radiograph be obtained after chest tube removal in mechanically ventilated patients? A prospective study

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to determine the appropriate time interval between the removal of a chest tube and the chest radiograph (CXR). We hypothesized that a CXR obtained 1 hour after chest tube removal would exclude the presence of a recurrent pneumothorax.

METHODS

Of 214 trauma intensive care unit patients with a chest tube during a 1-year period, 75 met entry criteria and underwent chest tube removal according to an institutional review board-approved prospective study protocol. Patients were undergoing positive-pressure ventilation, with an existing solitary chest tube, and had less than 150 mL of drainage on water seal over the previous day. After chest tube removal, serial CXRs were obtained at approximately 1, 10, and 36 hours. Demographic, chest tube, and ventilator data were collected.

RESULTS

None of the patients experienced hemodynamic or respiratory deterioration after chest tube removal. There were nine pneumothoraces (12%). All pneumothoraces were present on the initial CXR after chest tube removal. Two patients (3%) required intervention for pneumothorax. Of the remaining seven small pneumothoraces, three resolved and four were unchanged on the third CXR.

CONCLUSION

A CXR obtained within 1 to 3 hours after chest tube removal effectively identifies pneumothorax in mechanically ventilated patients.

When to remove a chest tube? A randomized study with subsequent prospective consecutive validation

BACKGROUND

Operative procedures on the pleural space are usually managed by chest tube drainage. Timing for removing the tube is empirically established, with wide variation among surgeons. Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of establishing a volume of 200 mL/d of uninfected drainage as a threshold for removal of chest tube, as compared with more frequently used volumes of 100 and 150 mL/d.

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective randomized study was performed in a single institution. Patients (n = 139) submitting to pleural drainage after surgical procedures were randomized to one of three groups, defined by the planned timing of chest tube removal (depending on the threshold volume per day of pleural fluid drained): G-100 (< or = 100 mL/d, n = 44); G-150 (< or =150 mL/d, n = 58); and G-200 (< or = 200 mL/d, n = 37). Subsequently, another 91 consecutive patients had chest tubes removed when drainage was less than 200 mL/d (G-val, prospective validation group). All patients had similar discharge and 60-day followup. Drainage time, hospital stay, and reaccumulation rate were registered.

RESULTS

Drainage time (median days: 3.5 for G-100, 3 for G-150, 3 for G-200, 3 for G-val) and hospital stay (median days: 4 for G-100, 3 for G-150, 3 for G-200, 3 for G-val) were not statistically different among groups. Radiologic reaccumulation rates were 9.1% for G-100, 13.1% for G-150, 5.4% for G-200, and 10.9% for G-val, and the thoracenteses rates were 2.3%, 0.8%, 2.7%, and 3.3%, respectively, with no major differences among groups (G-100 versus G-150 versus G-200; G-200 versus G-val).

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing the threshold of daily drainage to 200 mL before removing the chest tube did not markedly affect drainage, hospitalization time, or overall costs, nor did it increase the likelihood of major pleural fluid reaccumulation. This volume (200 mL/d) could be recommended for chest tube withdrawal decision for uninfected pleural fluid with no evidence of air leaks.

The Thoracic Surgical Patient: Initial Postoperative Care

Thoracic surgery patients require complex perioperative care. Accurate preoperative screening of pulmonary conditions can only partially predict the requirement of postoperative mechanical ventilation. In general, extensive lung resections are associated with significant gas exchange abnormalities. In this group of patients, a mechanical ventilation strategy protective from barotrauma and volutrauma and a conservative use of intraoperative and postoperative fluid limit the inevitable increase of extravascular lung water and gas exchange impairment. A wise use of pulmonary vasodilatatory and bronchodilating drugs and airway manipulation including suctioning and bronchoscopy can also significantly affect postoperative respiratory dysfunction and hospital stay. A number of acute postoperative complications have been described specifically related to the type of surgery or pleural space suctioning devices. The role of the intensivist is to maintain a low index of suspicion for such complications, when acute hemodynamic or pulmonary deterioration occurs and be prepared to immediately correct them or alert the thoracic surgeon. In general, when these roles are observed, thoracic surgery can be safely performed with a low perioperative mortality.