GRAvity- versus Wall suction-drIven large volume Thoracentesis: a rAndomized controlled Study (GRAWITAS study).

BACKGROUND: Prior studies found no differences in procedural chest discomfort for patients undergoing manual syringe aspiration or drainage with gravity after thoracentesis. However, whether gravity drainage could protect against chest pain due to the larger negative pressure gradient generated by wall suction has not been investigated. RESEARCH QUESTION: Does wall suction drainage result in more chest discomfort compared to gravity drainage in patients undergoing large volume thoracentesis? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: In this multicenter, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial, patients with large free-flowing effusions of ≥500 mL were assigned to wall suction or gravity drainage in a 1:1 ratio. Wall suction was performed with suction system attached to the suction tubing and with vacuum pressure adjusted to full vacuum. Gravity drainage was performed with a drainage bag placed 100 cm below the catheter insertion site and connected via straight tubing. Patients rated chest discomfort on a 100-mm visual analog scale before, during, and after drainage. The primary outcome was postprocedural chest discomfort at 5 minutes. Secondary outcomes included measures of post procedure chest discomfort, breathlessness, procedure time, volume of fluid drained and complication rates. RESULTS: Of the 228 patients initially randomized, 221 were included in the final analysis. The primary outcome of procedural chest discomfort did not differ significantly between the groups (p = 0.08), nor did the secondary outcomes of postprocedural discomfort and dyspnea. Similar volumes were drained in both groups, but the procedure duration was longer in the gravity arm by approximately 3 minutes. No differences in rate of pneumothorax or re-expansion pulmonary edema were noted between the two groups. INTERPRETATION: Thoracentesis via wall suction and gravity drainage results in similar levels of procedural discomfort and dyspnea improvement.

The use of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration in the diagnosis of thyroid lesions.

BACKGROUND: Non-palpable thyroid nodules can be difficult to access by conventional ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration, particularly when they are intrathoracic. Many of these patients are subject to multiple follow up scans or invasive diagnostic procedures such as mediastinoscopy or surgical resection. We aim to describe the feasibility of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) for diagnosis of thyroid lesions. METHODS: All EBUS-TBNA performed at our institutions from February 2010 to February 2013 were screened, and those in which a thyroid biopsy was performed were reviewed. RESULTS: We identified 12 cases of EBUS-TBNA thyroid biopsy. Nine patients had an indication for EBUS in addition to their thyroid lesions. The median age was 64 years (range 44 to 84 years), and 10 patients were male. Median lesion size was 22.5 mm (range, 10 to 43 mm). Five lesions were strictly intrathoracic. All cases were sampled with a 22G needle and rapid on-site cytologic examination. Adequate samples were obtained in all 12 cases. Malignancy was identified in 3 of the 12 patients (metastatic breast adenocarcinoma, large B-cell lymphoma, and metastatic lung adenocarcinoma). The remaining 9 samples were deemed to be benign nodules. Seven of these were confirmed by clinical follow-up (n = 3), biopsies (n = 3), or surgery (n = 1).There were no EBUS-related complications. CONCLUSIONS: EBUS-TBNA might be a safe and effective alternative for sampling thyroid lesions, particularly useful for those located below the thoracic inlet. Further prospective studies are required to compare its diagnostic yield and safety profile with standard techniques.

Risk stratification in acute pulmonary embolism: frequency and impact on treatment decisions and outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: Guidelines have recommended that risk stratification be performed in patients diagnosed with an acute pulmonary embolism (PE). No study has described the use of risk stratification in routine clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to measure the frequency and impact of risk stratification on treatment decisions and outcomes in patients admitted with acute PE. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted of all of the patients admitted with acute PE at two Geisinger community-based teaching hospitals between 2006 and 2011. Baseline demographics, vital signs, and relevant clinical variables were recorded. The Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index was calculated for each patient. Risk stratification was defined as the measurement of either a biomarker or an echocardiogram within 24 hours of admission. The outcomes measured were short-term adverse events (in-hospital mortality or need for intensive care) and 30-day mortality. RESULTS: The mean age for the study cohort (n = 889) was 61 ± 17 years and 52% were men. Overall, 59% of study subjects were risk stratified. The frequency of risk stratification did not change over time. Risk stratification was associated with assignment to a higher acuity of care and increased use of thrombolysis and inferior vena cava filter placement. When controlling for severity of illness, risk stratification was a significant predictor of worsened short-term adverse outcome (odds ratio 3.43, 95% confidence interval 1.75-6.74, P < 0.001) but was not associated with improved 30-day mortality (odds ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval 0.66-1.95, P = 0.64). CONCLUSIONS: Risk stratification is frequently performed in patients admitted with acute PE and has had a stable prevalence during a 5-year period. The use of risk stratification in acute PE is associated with assignment to higher levels of care and with more advanced treatments. Despite more intense treatment, risk stratification does not improve either short-term outcomes or 30-day mortality.