User login
Observation should be considered the first-line treatment of choice in appropriately selected primary spontaneous pneumothorax patients, according to a review comparing observation alone with aspiration or chest tube placement.
Observation was the dominant choice, based on economic modeling showing it to offer both the highest utility and the lowest cost, according to the review, published in CHEST, which encompassed 20 years of relevant publications.
, Gilgamesh Eamer, MD, MSc, FRCSC, of Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, and colleagues wrote. They pointed to recent studies suggesting equivalent or improved outcomes with simple observation in appropriately selected patients. The authors asked, “What management strategy derives the most utility for patients given the cost and morbidity of chest tube placement, hospital admission, surgical intervention and the risk of recurrence of primary spontaneous pneumothorax.”
Primary spontaneous pneumothorax, which leads to progressive pulmonary collapse and respiratory compromise, is thought to be attributable to rupture of air-containing blisters (or bullae) formed under the visceral pleura of the lung, according to the researchers. They stated that, while prior systematic reviews have examined various primary spontaneous pneumothorax management techniques, no reviews encompass more recently published high-quality studies comparing aspiration to other interventions such as observation or Heimlich valve devices.
The authors identified 22 articles for systematic review and meta-analysis after screening an initial list of 5,179 potentially relevant articles (Jan. 1, 2000 to April 10, 2020). They compared observation, needle aspiration, and chest tube placement, and created an economic model for these three treatment pathways based on Canadian medical cost data. The primary outcome measure was resolution following the initial intervention. Secondary outcomes included primary spontaneous pneumothorax recurrence, length of hospital stay, and treatment complications.
The analysis revealed that, compared with observation, chest tube and aspiration had higher resolution without additional intervention (relative risk for chest tube, 0.81; P < .01; RR for aspiration, 0.73; P < .01). Compared with a chest tube, observation and aspiration had shorter length of stay (mean difference for observation, 5.17; P < .01): (MD for aspiration, 2.72; P < .01).
Two-year recurrence rates did not differ between management strategies. Cost utility modeling found a cost of $14,658 (Canadian dollars [CAD] with 1.2535 = 1 US dollar) for chest tube placement, $13,126 CAD for aspiration, and $6,408 CAD for observation.
The utility (a measure including both quantity and quality of life) for each management arm was 0.77 for CT placement, 0.79 for aspiration, and 0.82 for observation. “The observation arm dominates the other two arms meaning it results in a more desirable (higher) utility with lower cost and results in a negative ICER [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio],” the authors stated.
They observed further that it is not typical for a medical intervention to improve patient outcomes, compared with standard care, and at the same time to bring costs down. “Given this, and the increasing evidence that observation is safe and effective in appropriately selected patients presenting with primary spontaneous pneumothorax,” they concluded that “observation should be considered in all patients presenting with primary spontaneous pneumothorax who meet predefined criteria.” They added that, because aspiration is favored over chest tube placement, it should be considered second-line therapy in well-selected primary spontaneous pneumothorax patients presenting with recurrence or who have failed a trial of observation.
“This review sheds light on ‘less is better’ for primary spontaneous pneumothorax management,” commented Dharani K. Narendra, MD, of the department of medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. “It allows clinicians to utilize a ‘wait approach’ versus invasive treatment. Interestingly, recurrence was lower in the observation group.” She said further, in an interview, “In general we assume that if no intervention is done, there is higher chance of recurrence. However, this meta-analysis reveals that is not the case; there is no difference in recurrence of pneumothorax in all groups and fewer complications in the observation group. The invasive treatments such as aspiration or chest tube are risky as they have more complications like pain, bleeding, injury to surrounding structures, etc.”
Neither Dr. Eamer nor Dr. Narendra reported any conflicts of interest. The study was self-funded.
Observation should be considered the first-line treatment of choice in appropriately selected primary spontaneous pneumothorax patients, according to a review comparing observation alone with aspiration or chest tube placement.
Observation was the dominant choice, based on economic modeling showing it to offer both the highest utility and the lowest cost, according to the review, published in CHEST, which encompassed 20 years of relevant publications.
, Gilgamesh Eamer, MD, MSc, FRCSC, of Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, and colleagues wrote. They pointed to recent studies suggesting equivalent or improved outcomes with simple observation in appropriately selected patients. The authors asked, “What management strategy derives the most utility for patients given the cost and morbidity of chest tube placement, hospital admission, surgical intervention and the risk of recurrence of primary spontaneous pneumothorax.”
Primary spontaneous pneumothorax, which leads to progressive pulmonary collapse and respiratory compromise, is thought to be attributable to rupture of air-containing blisters (or bullae) formed under the visceral pleura of the lung, according to the researchers. They stated that, while prior systematic reviews have examined various primary spontaneous pneumothorax management techniques, no reviews encompass more recently published high-quality studies comparing aspiration to other interventions such as observation or Heimlich valve devices.
The authors identified 22 articles for systematic review and meta-analysis after screening an initial list of 5,179 potentially relevant articles (Jan. 1, 2000 to April 10, 2020). They compared observation, needle aspiration, and chest tube placement, and created an economic model for these three treatment pathways based on Canadian medical cost data. The primary outcome measure was resolution following the initial intervention. Secondary outcomes included primary spontaneous pneumothorax recurrence, length of hospital stay, and treatment complications.
The analysis revealed that, compared with observation, chest tube and aspiration had higher resolution without additional intervention (relative risk for chest tube, 0.81; P < .01; RR for aspiration, 0.73; P < .01). Compared with a chest tube, observation and aspiration had shorter length of stay (mean difference for observation, 5.17; P < .01): (MD for aspiration, 2.72; P < .01).
Two-year recurrence rates did not differ between management strategies. Cost utility modeling found a cost of $14,658 (Canadian dollars [CAD] with 1.2535 = 1 US dollar) for chest tube placement, $13,126 CAD for aspiration, and $6,408 CAD for observation.
The utility (a measure including both quantity and quality of life) for each management arm was 0.77 for CT placement, 0.79 for aspiration, and 0.82 for observation. “The observation arm dominates the other two arms meaning it results in a more desirable (higher) utility with lower cost and results in a negative ICER [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio],” the authors stated.
They observed further that it is not typical for a medical intervention to improve patient outcomes, compared with standard care, and at the same time to bring costs down. “Given this, and the increasing evidence that observation is safe and effective in appropriately selected patients presenting with primary spontaneous pneumothorax,” they concluded that “observation should be considered in all patients presenting with primary spontaneous pneumothorax who meet predefined criteria.” They added that, because aspiration is favored over chest tube placement, it should be considered second-line therapy in well-selected primary spontaneous pneumothorax patients presenting with recurrence or who have failed a trial of observation.
“This review sheds light on ‘less is better’ for primary spontaneous pneumothorax management,” commented Dharani K. Narendra, MD, of the department of medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. “It allows clinicians to utilize a ‘wait approach’ versus invasive treatment. Interestingly, recurrence was lower in the observation group.” She said further, in an interview, “In general we assume that if no intervention is done, there is higher chance of recurrence. However, this meta-analysis reveals that is not the case; there is no difference in recurrence of pneumothorax in all groups and fewer complications in the observation group. The invasive treatments such as aspiration or chest tube are risky as they have more complications like pain, bleeding, injury to surrounding structures, etc.”
Neither Dr. Eamer nor Dr. Narendra reported any conflicts of interest. The study was self-funded.
Observation should be considered the first-line treatment of choice in appropriately selected primary spontaneous pneumothorax patients, according to a review comparing observation alone with aspiration or chest tube placement.
Observation was the dominant choice, based on economic modeling showing it to offer both the highest utility and the lowest cost, according to the review, published in CHEST, which encompassed 20 years of relevant publications.
, Gilgamesh Eamer, MD, MSc, FRCSC, of Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, and colleagues wrote. They pointed to recent studies suggesting equivalent or improved outcomes with simple observation in appropriately selected patients. The authors asked, “What management strategy derives the most utility for patients given the cost and morbidity of chest tube placement, hospital admission, surgical intervention and the risk of recurrence of primary spontaneous pneumothorax.”
Primary spontaneous pneumothorax, which leads to progressive pulmonary collapse and respiratory compromise, is thought to be attributable to rupture of air-containing blisters (or bullae) formed under the visceral pleura of the lung, according to the researchers. They stated that, while prior systematic reviews have examined various primary spontaneous pneumothorax management techniques, no reviews encompass more recently published high-quality studies comparing aspiration to other interventions such as observation or Heimlich valve devices.
The authors identified 22 articles for systematic review and meta-analysis after screening an initial list of 5,179 potentially relevant articles (Jan. 1, 2000 to April 10, 2020). They compared observation, needle aspiration, and chest tube placement, and created an economic model for these three treatment pathways based on Canadian medical cost data. The primary outcome measure was resolution following the initial intervention. Secondary outcomes included primary spontaneous pneumothorax recurrence, length of hospital stay, and treatment complications.
The analysis revealed that, compared with observation, chest tube and aspiration had higher resolution without additional intervention (relative risk for chest tube, 0.81; P < .01; RR for aspiration, 0.73; P < .01). Compared with a chest tube, observation and aspiration had shorter length of stay (mean difference for observation, 5.17; P < .01): (MD for aspiration, 2.72; P < .01).
Two-year recurrence rates did not differ between management strategies. Cost utility modeling found a cost of $14,658 (Canadian dollars [CAD] with 1.2535 = 1 US dollar) for chest tube placement, $13,126 CAD for aspiration, and $6,408 CAD for observation.
The utility (a measure including both quantity and quality of life) for each management arm was 0.77 for CT placement, 0.79 for aspiration, and 0.82 for observation. “The observation arm dominates the other two arms meaning it results in a more desirable (higher) utility with lower cost and results in a negative ICER [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio],” the authors stated.
They observed further that it is not typical for a medical intervention to improve patient outcomes, compared with standard care, and at the same time to bring costs down. “Given this, and the increasing evidence that observation is safe and effective in appropriately selected patients presenting with primary spontaneous pneumothorax,” they concluded that “observation should be considered in all patients presenting with primary spontaneous pneumothorax who meet predefined criteria.” They added that, because aspiration is favored over chest tube placement, it should be considered second-line therapy in well-selected primary spontaneous pneumothorax patients presenting with recurrence or who have failed a trial of observation.
“This review sheds light on ‘less is better’ for primary spontaneous pneumothorax management,” commented Dharani K. Narendra, MD, of the department of medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. “It allows clinicians to utilize a ‘wait approach’ versus invasive treatment. Interestingly, recurrence was lower in the observation group.” She said further, in an interview, “In general we assume that if no intervention is done, there is higher chance of recurrence. However, this meta-analysis reveals that is not the case; there is no difference in recurrence of pneumothorax in all groups and fewer complications in the observation group. The invasive treatments such as aspiration or chest tube are risky as they have more complications like pain, bleeding, injury to surrounding structures, etc.”
Neither Dr. Eamer nor Dr. Narendra reported any conflicts of interest. The study was self-funded.
FROM CHEST