ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Medical pleuroscopy (MP) is an invasive technique that provides access to the pleural space with a rigid or semi-rigid work instrument, allowing for visualization and the obtaining of bioptic pleural samples. Using pulmonologist-based analgosedation to perform pleuroscopy is still debated for safety reasons. The aim of this real-life study is to demonstrate the safety and diagnostic yield of MP performed under balanced analgosedation by a pulmonologist team with expertise in the management of critically ill patients in the respiratory intensive care unit (RICU) and interventional pulmonology unit as compared to video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) performed by a thoracic surgeon team under anesthesiologist-based analgosedation. METHODS: In this multicentric retrospective controlled study, the inclusion criteria were patients older than 18 years old with pleural effusion of unknown diagnosis consecutively admitted in the years 2017-2022 to the pulmonology unit and RICU of San Donato Hospital in Arezzo (Italy, Tuscany) and to the thoracic surgery unit of Santa Maria Le Scotte in Siena (Italy, Tuscany) to undergo, respectively, MP under balanced propofol-based analgosedation on spontaneous breathing with local anesthesia provided by a pulmonologist team (Group A), and VATS provided by a surgeon team under propofol-based analgosedation managed by an anesthesiologist using invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) via endotracheal intubation (ETI) (Group B). The primary endpoints were (1) a comparison between the two groups in terms of the diagnostic yield of pleural effusion, and (2) major and minor complications of pleuroscopic procedures. The secondary endpoints were (1) the length of the pleuroscopic procedure; (2) the duration of hospitalization; (3) propofol doses; and (4) the patient's comfort after the procedure assessed using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). RESULTS: We enrolled 91 patients in Group A and 116 patients in Group B. A conclusive diagnosis was obtained in 97.8% of Group A vs. 100% of Group B (p = 0.374). Malignant effusion was diagnosed in 59.3% of Group A and in 55.1% of Group B; p = 0.547. No intraoperative or postoperative mortality events or major complications were observed in Group A. The major complications observed in Group B were three major bleeding events (p = 0.079) and one exitus (p = 0.315) not related to the interventional procedure. No significant difference emerged between the two groups in terms of minor complications. The duration of the intervention was significantly lower in Group A (40.0 min ± 12.6 versus 51.5 ± 31.0; p = 0.001). Pain control and, therefore, patient comfort were better in Group A, with an average VAS of 0.34 ± 0.65 versus 2.58 ± 1.26, p < 0.001. The duration of hospitalization was lower in Group B (5.1 ± 2.6 vs. 15.5 ± 8.0, p < 0.001). The average overall dose of propofol administered was significantly lower in Group A (65.6 ± 35.8 mg versus 280 ± 20.0 mg; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This real-life study shows that the MP performed under propofol-based analgosedation by an independent pneumologist team is a safe and well-tolerated procedure with a diagnostic yield and complication rates similar to those obtained with VATS.
ABSTRACT
Propofol-based sedation provides faster recovery than midazolam-based regimens with similar safety and comfort during video flexible bronchoscope (VFB) procedures. Pulmonologist-administered propofol "balanced" analgosedation (PAP-BAS) is still debated in Italy. In this real-life study, PAP-BAS safety and comfort during VFB procedures were investigated. We analysed prospectively the subjects undergoing elective VFB procedures in the Pulmonology and RICU of Arezzo Hospital between February and July 2019. PAP-BAS combined low propofol and meperidine doses titrated to achieve an RASS score between 0 and -3. The primary end-point was the complications' rate. Secondary end-points were as follows: the relation between propofol's dose and a subject's comfort assessed with a VAS, recovery time according to a modified Aldrete score ≥9, RASS, and subjects' will of undergoing the procedure again. We collected postprocedure symptoms' intensity too. Our 158 study patients (67 years; SD ± 14; 64% males) incurred in 25% of complication, fully resolved with medical therapy. Neither recourse to ventilator support nor death was reported. Intraprocedural comfort was good (94% of VAS score ≤2). Among postprocedural symptoms, cough was the most frequently reported, in 36% of the cases. Although half of subjects remembered the procedure, 90% of them would have repeated it, if necessary. 85% of them recovered from procedures within 10 minutes. Complications, VAS, and recovery time were not correlated with propofol dose. To our knowledge, this is the first Italian study showing that PAP-BAS to perform a VFB procedure is safe, well tolerated with a quick recovery. Randomised controlled trials are warranted to confirm these preliminary results.
