Prehospital Decompression of Pneumothorax: A Systematic Review of Recent Evidence

Clinical outcomes of traumatic pneumothoraces undergoing conservative management following detection by prehospital physicians

OBJECTIVE

To describe the clinical and transport characteristics of patients diagnosed with a suspected traumatic pneumothorax and managed conservatively by prehospital medical teams including secondary deterioration during transfer and the subsequent rate of in-hospital tube thoracostomy.

METHODS

Retrospective observational study of all adult trauma patients diagnosed with a suspected pneumothorax on ultrasound and managed conservatively by their treating prehospital medical team between 2018 and 2020. Descriptive analysis was performed comparing patients who did and did not receive in-hospital tube thoracostomy.

RESULTS

In total, 181 patients were diagnosed with suspected traumatic pneumothoraces on prehospital ultrasound of which 75 (41.4%) were managed conservatively by their treating medical team whilst 106 (58.6%) underwent pleural decompression. There were no recorded cases of emergent pleural decompression required in transit. Of the 75 conservatively managed patients, 42 (56%) had an intercostal catheter (ICC) placed within four hours of hospital arrival and another nine (17.6%) had an ICC placed between four- and 24-hours post-hospital arrival. There was no significant difference in prehospital clinical characteristics between patients who did and did not receive an in-hospital ICC. The detection of a pneumothorax on the initial chest x-ray and larger pneumothorax volume visualised on computed tomography imaging were significantly more common in patients receiving in-hospital ICCs. Aviation factors including flight altitude and duration of flight were not associated with subsequent in-hospital tube thoracostomy.

CONCLUSION

Prehospital medical teams can safely identify patients who have a traumatic pneumothorax and can be transported to hospital without pleural decompression. Patient characteristics at the time of hospital arrival combined with the size of pneumothorax identified on imaging appear most likely to influence subsequent urgent in-hospital tube thoracostomy placement.

To Watch Before or Listen While Doing? A Randomized Pilot of Video-Modelling versus Telementored Tube Thoracostomy

BACKGROUND

New care paradigms are required to enable remote life-saving interventions (RLSIs) in extreme environments such as disaster settings. Informatics may assist through just-in-time expert remote-telementoring (RTM) or video-modelling (VM). Currently, RTM relies on real-time communication that may not be reliable in some locations, especially if communications fail. Neither technique has been extensively developed however, and both may be required to be performed by inexperienced providers to save lives. A pilot comparison was thus conducted.

METHODS

Procedure-naïve Search-and-Rescue Technicians (SAR-Techs) performed a tube-thoracostomy (TT) on a surgical simulator, randomly allocated to RTM or VM. The VM group watched a pre-prepared video illustrating TT immediately prior, while the RTM group were remotely guided by an expert in real-time. Standard outcomes included success, safety, and tube-security for the TT procedure.

RESULTS

There were no differences in experience between the groups. Of the 13 SAR-Techs randomized to VM, 12/13 (92%) placed the TT successfully, safely, and secured it properly, while 100% (11/11) of the TT placed by the RTM group were successful, safe, and secure. Statistically, there was no difference (P = 1.000) between RTM or VM in safety, success, or tube security. However, with VM, one subject cut himself, one did not puncture the pleura, and one had barely adequate placement. There were no such issues in the mentored group. Total time was significantly faster using RTM (P = .02). However, if time-to-watch was discounted, VM was quicker (P = .000).

CONCLUSIONS

Random evaluation revealed both paradigms have attributes. If VM can be utilized during "travel-time," it is quicker but without facilitating "trouble shooting." On the other hand, RTM had no errors in TT placement and facilitated guidance and remediation by the mentor, presumably avoiding failure, increasing safety, and potentially providing psychological support. Ultimately, both techniques appear to have merit and may be complementary, justifying continued research into the human-factors of performing RLSIs in extreme environments that are likely needed in natural and man-made disasters.