Survey of major complications of intercostal chest drain insertion in the UK

Ann Harris; B Ronan O'Driscoll; Peter M Turkington

doi:10.1136/pgmj.2009.087759

Responses

Original article

Survey of major complications of intercostal chest drain insertion in the UK

Compose a Response to This Article

Compose Response

Title *

Author Information

Contributors
First Name and Middle Initial * First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'. Last Name * Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'. Email Address * Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com Occupation * Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'. Affiliation * Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.

Statement of Competing Interests

Competing interests? *

Yes

Please describe the competing interests

PLEASE NOTE:

A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.

I agree to and have read the terms and conditions for rapid responses and BMJ Privacy Notice *

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

commonsense, supervision, and other issues
oscar,m jolobe
Published on: 3 March 2010

Published on: 3 March 2010
commonsense, supervision, and other issues
- oscar,m jolobe, retired geriatrician
In addition to its use for "safe pleural intervention such as aspirating small effusions"(1), thoracic ultrasound(TUS), when compared with usual practice, has been shown to mitigate the risk of iatrogenic pneumothorax(odds ratio(OR) 0.3; 95% Confidence Interval(CI), 0.2 to 0.7)when utilised as an adjunct, not only to diagnostic thoracentesis(presumably in the context of small effusions), but also as an adjunct to therap...
Show More

In addition to its use for "safe pleural intervention such as aspirating small effusions"(1), thoracic ultrasound(TUS), when compared with usual practice, has been shown to mitigate the risk of iatrogenic pneumothorax(odds ratio(OR) 0.3; 95% Confidence Interval(CI), 0.2 to 0.7)when utilised as an adjunct, not only to diagnostic thoracentesis(presumably in the context of small effusions), but also as an adjunct to therapeutic thoracentesis(2). In a systematic review and meta-analysis of 24 studies which reported pneumothorax rates following 6605 thoracentesis, the authors documented that, if anything, pneumothorax was more likely following therapeutic thoracentesis than diagnostic thoracentesis(OR, 2.6; 95% CI,1.8 to 3.8)(2). The risk of pneumothorax was greater when larger needles or catheters were used as opposed to smaller needles(OR, 2.5;95% CI, 1.1 to 6.0). When catheter use, on its own was compared with the use of smaller needles, the risk of pneumothorax was also higher, but, in this instance, the difference between the two modalities did not reach statistical significance(OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 0.5 to 7.2)(2), and only one study reported leaving indwelling catheters in place for a number of days. Among the 6605 thoracentesis documented in those 24 studies, the overall pneumothorax rate was 6%(CI, 4.6 to 7.8%), and in those instances of pneumothorax, this complication justified insertion of chest drains in 34.6%. TUS, however, was no substitute for commonsense and experience, and also no substitute for supervision of junior staff, judging by the fact that, among 6 studies characterised by 100% of TUS, pneumothorax rates ranged from 0% to 10.7%(2). For example, the fact that development of any symptom (cough, dyspnoea, or chest pain) conferred a markedly higher risk of pneumothorax (OR 26.6; 95% CI, 2.7 to 262.5) implied that the 34.6% rate of requirement for chest drain insertion might have been, at least in part, attributable to failure to recognise that those symptoms signified onset of significantly large pneumothorax. Furthermore, among th 6 studies with 100% use of TUS, the pneumothorax rate was second lowest(ie 1.6%) in the cohort of residents who performed the procedure under supervision. Among the four studies with higher rates of pneumothorax(range 2.6% to 10.7%) notwithstanding 100% use of TUS, none reported supervision of residents as part of good practice(2). These observations resonate with the recognition that, when commonsense is not an adjunct, even senior staff can be guilty of inserting chest drains in the pleural space contra lateral to the effusion(3), and that when juniors report that in some trusts "six in ten missed supervision and opportunities to complete new procedures"(4), this is inexcusable References (1)Medford ARL and Entwistle JJ Indications of thoracis ultrasound in chest medicine an observational study Post grad Med J 2010;86:8-11 (2) Gordon CE., Feller-Kopman D., Balk EM., Smetana GW Pneumothorax following thoracentesis Arch Intern Med 2010;170:332-9 (3)Harris A., O'Driscoll BR., Turkington PM Survey of major complication of intercostal chest drain insertion in the UK Postgrad Med J 2010;86:68-72 (4) Munn F Survey reveals pressure on juniors BMA News Review 27 February 2010
Conflict of Interest:
None declared
Show Less

Conflict of Interest:
None declared.
- Back to top

Main menu

Plain text

PLEASE NOTE:

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

Conflict of Interest:

Log in using your username and password

Main menu

Log in using your username and password

You are here

Plain text

PLEASE NOTE:

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

Conflict of Interest:

Read the full text or download the PDF:

Log in using your username and password