Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Allergy, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Respiratory Division, Department of Medicine, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada.
Int J Health Care Qual Assur. 2021 Apr 30;ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print). doi: 10.1108/IJHCQA-11-2020-0231.
Small-bore drains (≤ 16 Fr) are used in many centers to manage all pleural effusions. The goal of this study was to determine the proportion of avoidable chest drains and associated complications when a strategy of routine chest drain insertion is in place.
DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: We retrospectively reviewed consecutive pleural procedures performed in the Radiology Department of the McGill University Health Centre over one year (August 2015-July 2016). Drain insertion was the default drainage strategy. An interdisciplinary workgroup established criteria for drain insertion, namely: pneumothorax, pleural infection (confirmed/highly suspected), massive effusion (more than 2/3 of hemithorax with severe dyspnea /hypoxemia), effusions in ventilated patients and hemothorax. Drains inserted without any of these criteria were deemed potentially avoidable.
A total of 288 procedures performed in 205 patients were reviewed: 249 (86.5%) drain insertions and 39 (13.5%) thoracenteses. Out of 249 chest drains, 113 (45.4%) were placed in the absence of drain insertion criteria and were deemed potentially avoidable. Of those, 33.6% were inserted for malignant effusions (without subsequent pleurodesis) and 34.5% for transudative effusions (median drainage duration of 2 and 4 days, respectively). Major complications were seen in 21.5% of all procedures. Pneumothorax requiring intervention (2.1%), bleeding (0.7%) and organ puncture or drain misplacement (2%) only occurred with drain insertion. Narcotics were prescribed more frequently following drain insertion vs. thoracentesis (27.1% vs. 9.1%, = 0.03).
ORIGINALITY/VALUE: Routine use of chest drains for pleural effusions leads to avoidable drain insertions in a large proportion of cases and causes unnecessary harms.
许多中心都采用小口径引流管(≤16Fr)来处理所有胸腔积液。本研究旨在确定在常规放置引流管的策略下,避免放置引流管的比例以及相关并发症。
我们回顾性分析了麦吉尔大学健康中心放射科在一年(2015 年 8 月至 2016 年 7 月)内连续进行的胸腔操作。引流管插入是默认的引流策略。一个跨学科工作组制定了引流管插入标准,即气胸、胸腔感染(确诊/高度怀疑)、大量胸腔积液(超过 2/3 胸腔伴严重呼吸困难/低氧血症)、机械通气患者的胸腔积液和血胸。没有任何这些标准的引流管插入被认为是潜在可避免的。
共回顾了 205 例患者的 288 次操作:249 次(86.5%)引流管插入和 39 次(13.5%)胸腔穿刺术。在 249 根胸腔引流管中,有 113 根(45.4%)在没有引流管插入标准的情况下放置,被认为是潜在可避免的。其中,33.6%是为恶性胸腔积液(无后续胸膜固定术)放置的,34.5%是为渗出性胸腔积液放置的(中位引流时间分别为 2 天和 4 天)。所有操作中主要并发症的发生率为 21.5%。仅在放置引流管时才会发生需要干预的气胸(2.1%)、出血(0.7%)和器官穿刺或引流管错位(2%)。与胸腔穿刺术相比,引流管插入术后更频繁地开具麻醉镇痛药(27.1%比 9.1%,=0.03)。
创新性/价值:常规使用胸腔引流管治疗胸腔积液会导致很大一部分病例中出现可避免的引流管插入,并造成不必要的伤害。