Chest
-
Review
Interhospital Transfer of Patients with Acute Pulmonary Embolism (PE): Challenges and Opportunities.
Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The management paradigm for acute PE has evolved in recent years with wider availability of advanced treatment modalities ranging from catheter-directed reperfusion therapies to mechanical circulatory support. ⋯ One of the unmet needs in current PE care is an organized approach to the process of interhospital transfer (IHT) of critically ill PE patients. In this review, we discuss medical optimization and support of patients before and during transfer, transfer checklists, defined roles of emergency medical services, and the roles and responsibilities of referring and receiving centers involved in the IHT of acute PE patients.
-
Thoracentesis and tube thoracostomy are common procedures with bleeding risks, but existing guidelines may be overly conservative. We reviewed the evidence on the safety of thoracentesis and tube thoracostomy in patients with uncorrected coagulopathy. ⋯ Among patients with uncorrected coagulopathy who underwent thoracentesis or tube thoracostomy, major bleeding and mortality complications were uncommon. Our results suggest that in appropriately selected patients, thoracentesis or tube thoracostomy can be performed safely.
-
Timely care is an important dimension of health care quality, but the impact of delays in care on lung cancer outcomes is unclear. Quantifying the impact of delays in cancer treatment on survival is necessary to inform resource allocation, quality improvement initiatives, and lung cancer guidelines. Review of the available literature demonstrated significant heterogeneity between studies in terms of the impact of delay. ⋯ Precise quantification of the impact of delay is not currently possible. Given the available evidence, quality metrics for the timeliness of lung cancer care should focus on local barriers to care. These metrics should be carefully designed to take into account clinical-radiographic stage at initial presentation.
-
This document summarizes suggestions of the central sleep apnea (CSA) Technical Expert Panel working group. This paper shares our vision for bringing the right device to the right patient at the right time. For patients with CSA, current coverage criteria do not align with guideline treatment recommendations. ⋯ Narrow coverage criteria that require near elimination of obstructive breathing events on CPAP or BPAP in the spontaneous mode, even if at poorly tolerated pressure levels, may preclude therapy with BPAP with backup rate or adaptive servoventilation, even when those devices provide demonstrably better therapy. CSA is a dynamic disorder that may require different treatments over time, sometimes switching from one device to another; an example is switching from BPAP with backup rate to an adaptive servoventilation with automatic end-expiratory pressure adjustments, which may not be covered. To address these challenges, we suggest several changes to the coverage determinations, including: (1) a single simplified initial and continuing coverage definition of CSA that aligns with OSA; (2) removal of hypoventilation terminology from coverage criteria for CSA; (3) all effective therapies for CSA should be covered, including oxygen and all PAP devices with or without backup rates or servo-mechanisms; and (4) patients shown to have a suboptimal response to one PAP device should be allowed to add oxygen or change to another PAP device with different capabilities if shown to be effective with testing.
-
The existing coverage criteria for noninvasive ventilation (NIV) do not recognize the benefits of early initiation of NIV for those with thoracic restrictive disorders and do not address the unique needs for daytime support as the patients progress to ventilator dependence. This document summarizes the work of the thoracic restrictive disorder Technical Expert Panel working group. ⋯ To best address these issues, we make the following key recommendations: (1) given the need to encourage early initiation of NIV with bilevel positive airway pressure devices, we recommend that symptoms be considered as a reason to initiate therapy even at mildly reduced FVCs; (2) broaden CO2 measurements to include surrogates such as transcutaneous, end-tidal, or venous blood gas; (3) expand the diagnostic category to include phrenic nerve injuries and disorders of central drive; (4) allow a bilevel positive airway pressure device to be advanced to an HMV when the vital capacity is < 30% or to address severe daytime respiratory symptoms; and (5) provide additional HMV when the patient is ventilator dependent with use > 18 h per day. Adoption of these proposed recommendations would result in the right device, at the right time, for the right type of patients with thoracic restrictive disorders.