Manual aspiration in the biopsy-side down position to deal with delayed pneumothorax after lung biopsy

Retrospective evaluation of routine in-hospital observation in 433 patients after CT-guided biopsies

BACKGROUND

After computed tomography (CT)-guided interventions, routine in-hospital observation is recommended by the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the frequency of delayed major complications or hospitalizations after CT-guided biopsies in patients with initially no or minor complications and to assess whether routine in-hospital observation is justified.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This retrospective study included 433 outpatients after CT-guided biopsy of the thoracic (n = 176), abdominal (n = 129), or musculoskeletal (n = 128) region with subsequent in-hospital observation. Complications were graded according to the current Society of Interventional Radiology recommendations and grouped into minor or major. A complication that occurred during in-hospital observation was defined as delayed complication. A delayed major complication was a newly developed major complication or a progression from an initially minor to a major complication. Hospitalization frequencies were evaluated similarly. Occurrence, 95% confidence intervals (CI), and P values for significant differences between the three organ groups were calculated. If delayed major complications were more frequent than 1%, routine in-hospital observation was considered justified.

RESULTS

Delayed, major complication frequencies were: thoracic, 8.2% (95% CI 4.6-13.4); abdominal, 0.0% (95% CI 0.0-2.9); and musculoskeletal, 0.0% (95% CI 0.0-2.9) (P < 0.001). Delayed hospitalization frequencies were: thoracic, 8.8% (95% CI 5.0-14.2); abdominal, 1.6% (95% CI 0.2-5.6); and musculoskeletal, 0.0% (95% CI 0.0-2.9) (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

After thoracic interventions, routine observation is considered justified for patient safety whereas routine observation may be omitted after musculoskeletal interventions. In the abdominal group, no delayed complications were observed, but delayed hospitalization occurred. Thus, in-hospital observation could be justified in a safe patient environment, but remains an individual decision.

Pneumothorax Induced by Computed Tomography Guided Transthoracic Needle Biopsy: A Review for the Clinician

Percutaneous computed tomography (CT)-guided transthoracic needle biopsy (TTNB) is a valuable procedure for obtaining tissue or cells for diagnosis, which is especially indispensable in thoracic oncology. Pneumothorax and hemoptysis are the most common complications of percutaneous needle biopsy of the lung. According to reports published over the past decades, pneumothorax incidence in patients who underwent TTNB greatly varies. The morbidity of pneumothorax after CT-guided TTNB depends on several factors, including size and depth of lesions, emphysema, the number of pleural surfaces and fissure crossed, etc. Attention to biopsy planning and technique and post-biopsy precautions help to prevent or minimize potential complications. Many measures can be taken to help prevent the progression of a pneumothorax, which in turn might reduce the number of pneumothoraces requiring chest tube placement. A multitude of therapeutic options is available for the treatment of pneumothorax, varying from observation and oxygen treatment, simple manual aspiration, to chest tube placement. When a pneumothorax develops during the biopsy procedure, it can be manually aspirated after the needle is retracted back into the pleural space or by inserting a separate needle into the pleural space. Biopsy side down positioning of the patient after biopsy significantly reduces the incidence of pneumothorax and the requirement of chest tube placement. Aspiration in biopsy side down position is also recommended for treating pneumothorax when simple manual aspiration is unsuccessful or delayed pneumothorax occurred. Chest tube placement is an important treatment strategy for patients with a large or symptomatic pneumothorax. Clinicians are encouraged to understand the development, prevention, and treatment of pneumothorax. Efforts should be made to reduce the incidence of pneumothorax in biopsy planning and post-biopsy precautions. When pneumothorax occurs, appropriate treatment should be adopted to reduce the risk of worsening pneumothorax.

Effect of puncture sites on pneumothorax after lung CT-guided biopsy

To determine the influence of puncture site on aspiration in dealing with pneumothorax following CT-guided lung biopsy.Two hundred thirty-six pneumothorax patients after CT guided lung biopsies were retrospective analyzed from January 2013 to December 2018. Patients with minor asymptomatic pneumothorax were treated conservatively with monitoring of vital signs and follow-up CT to confirm stability. Ninety of the 236 pneumothorax patients, who underwent manual aspiration, were included in this analysis. In first manual aspiration, the needle from the lesion was retracted back into the pleural space after biopsy, and then aspiration treatment was performed. If the treatment is of unsatisfied result, a second attempt aspiration treatment, which puncture site away from initial biopsy one, was conducted. The efficacy of simple manual aspiration and the new method, changing puncture site for re-aspiration was observed.Immediate success was obtained in 62 out of the 90 patients in the first attempt. The effective rate and failure rate were 68.9% (62/90) and 31.1% (28/90), respectively. Twenty-eight patients in whom first attempt simple aspiration were unsuccessful underwent a second attempt aspiration, which puncture site away from initial biopsy one, was successful in 13 patients with 15 patients undergoing chest tube placement. The effective rate and failure rate were 46.4% (13/28) and 53.6% (15/28), respectively. Applying the modified procedure, total effective rate of aspiration elevated significantly from 68.9% (62/90) to 83.3% (75/90) (P < .05). No serious side effects were detected in the period of aspiration procedure.Manual aspiration with puncture site away from initial biopsy one is worth trying to deal with post-biopsy pneumothorax. This modified procedure improved the efficiency of treatment significantly, and reduced the rate of pneumothorax requiring chest tube placement.

Pericardial fluid levels of growth differentiation factor 15 in patients with or without coronary artery disease: a prospective study

BACKGROUND

Growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF15) has already been reported as a novel efficient biomarker in patients with coronary artery diseases (CAD). However, very little is demonstrated about the potential impact of pericardial fluid GDF-15 accumulation on CAD. The aim of this study was to evaluate pericardial fluid and plasma GDF15 levels in patients with ischemic heart disease.

METHODS

In this study, 42 consecutive patients (21 patients with significant CAD; 21 patients without CAD) undergoing open heart surgery were recruited in this study. Pericardial fluid were obtained at the time of surgery, and GDF15 levels in the samples were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Plasma glucose, creatinine, CK-MB, cTnI and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) measurements were performed.

RESULTS

The plasma GDF15 levels were markedly higher than the pericardial fluid levels both in the CAD group and non-CAD group (1,174.0±148.7 vs. 677.8±77.2 pg/mL, P<0.01; 925.8±127.4 vs. 617.4±76.2 pg/mL, P<0.01). The levels of pericardial fluid GDF15, was not statistically different between the CAD and non-CAD groups (P>0.05). An obvious correlation was observed between plasma and pericardial fluid GDF15 concentration both in the CAD group and non-CAD group (R=0.53, P<0.01; R=0.54, P<0.01). An obvious positive correlation was found between pericardial fluid GDF15 and plasma creatinine levels in CAD patients but not in non-CAD patients (R=0.65, P<0.01). In the CAD group, an obvious correlation was also observed between pericardial fluid GDF15 levels and NT-ProBNP (R=0.63, P<0.01), while no relationship was found in non-CAD group. There was a positive correlation between pericardial fluid GDF15 and LVEF in non-CAD group but not in CAD group patients (R=-0.44, P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study first revealed an association between pericardial fluid GDF15 and baseline characteristics. Pericardial fluid GDF15 levels are associated with cardiac and kidney function in patients with coronary artery disease and may be a valuable marker for assessing CAD severity and predicting its complications.