News From CHEST Physician®

Our recent congress in Bangkok, Thailand, was just the beginning of our plans to expand the CHEST brand and share our innovative education across the globe. The congress held this past April served as a successful launch pad that included attendance of over 1,000 delegates who represented 57 countries and featured innovative and diverse educational opportunities that incorporated the best of the CHEST Annual Meeting, including interactive lectures, recent advances in clinical practice and science, guided poster presentations, and hands-on simulation opportunities. The exceptional program is attributed to the partnership with the Thoracic Society of Thailand; the Chair, Dr. David Schulman; the faculty, for delivering such an innovative and engaging educational event; and many others who planned, supported, and participated in this impressive event.

In order to have a greater impact on the way that lung diseases, critical care conditions, and sleep disorders are diagnosed and treated, CHEST has been actively expanding its reach and the way it plans, develops, and executes its international educational strategy. This was CHEST’s first venture into a new model designed around hosting one large congress outside of the United States and one smaller regional congress each year. This year, Athens, Greece, followed in June as the site of the regional congress. In subsequent years, we will be increasing the offerings and the options for these regional international events.

Newly announced, we are planning a regional program in Singapore for late fall of 2020 or early 2021. This program will be conducted in collaboration with the National University Health System and Dr. Pyng Lee. Also, next year, the CHEST Congress will be held in Bologna, Italy, June 25-27, in collaboration with the CHEST delegation from Italy, led by Dr. Francesco de Blasio. The program chairs for this event are Drs. John Studdard and William Kelly.

We are excited to broaden our international educational reach through this plan. By refining, growing, and building upon this new model and developing more live learning, hands-on simulation, CHEST gamification, and other interactive components, we continually provide the most cutting-edge learning opportunities available across the globe. We are accomplishing this through partnering with global societies and CHEST delegations to identify unmet educational needs by region and patient base. Through this expansion, we hope to continue our fight to “Crush” lung disease wherever it exists.

Our recent congress in Bangkok, Thailand, was just the beginning of our plans to expand the CHEST brand and share our innovative education across the globe. The congress held this past April served as a successful launch pad that included attendance of over 1,000 delegates who represented 57 countries and featured innovative and diverse educational opportunities that incorporated the best of the CHEST Annual Meeting, including interactive lectures, recent advances in clinical practice and science, guided poster presentations, and hands-on simulation opportunities. The exceptional program is attributed to the partnership with the Thoracic Society of Thailand; the Chair, Dr. David Schulman; the faculty, for delivering such an innovative and engaging educational event; and many others who planned, supported, and participated in this impressive event.

In order to have a greater impact on the way that lung diseases, critical care conditions, and sleep disorders are diagnosed and treated, CHEST has been actively expanding its reach and the way it plans, develops, and executes its international educational strategy. This was CHEST’s first venture into a new model designed around hosting one large congress outside of the United States and one smaller regional congress each year. This year, Athens, Greece, followed in June as the site of the regional congress. In subsequent years, we will be increasing the offerings and the options for these regional international events.

Newly announced, we are planning a regional program in Singapore for late fall of 2020 or early 2021. This program will be conducted in collaboration with the National University Health System and Dr. Pyng Lee. Also, next year, the CHEST Congress will be held in Bologna, Italy, June 25-27, in collaboration with the CHEST delegation from Italy, led by Dr. Francesco de Blasio. The program chairs for this event are Drs. John Studdard and William Kelly.

We are excited to broaden our international educational reach through this plan. By refining, growing, and building upon this new model and developing more live learning, hands-on simulation, CHEST gamification, and other interactive components, we continually provide the most cutting-edge learning opportunities available across the globe. We are accomplishing this through partnering with global societies and CHEST delegations to identify unmet educational needs by region and patient base. Through this expansion, we hope to continue our fight to “Crush” lung disease wherever it exists.

Our recent congress in Bangkok, Thailand, was just the beginning of our plans to expand the CHEST brand and share our innovative education across the globe. The congress held this past April served as a successful launch pad that included attendance of over 1,000 delegates who represented 57 countries and featured innovative and diverse educational opportunities that incorporated the best of the CHEST Annual Meeting, including interactive lectures, recent advances in clinical practice and science, guided poster presentations, and hands-on simulation opportunities. The exceptional program is attributed to the partnership with the Thoracic Society of Thailand; the Chair, Dr. David Schulman; the faculty, for delivering such an innovative and engaging educational event; and many others who planned, supported, and participated in this impressive event.

In order to have a greater impact on the way that lung diseases, critical care conditions, and sleep disorders are diagnosed and treated, CHEST has been actively expanding its reach and the way it plans, develops, and executes its international educational strategy. This was CHEST’s first venture into a new model designed around hosting one large congress outside of the United States and one smaller regional congress each year. This year, Athens, Greece, followed in June as the site of the regional congress. In subsequent years, we will be increasing the offerings and the options for these regional international events.

Newly announced, we are planning a regional program in Singapore for late fall of 2020 or early 2021. This program will be conducted in collaboration with the National University Health System and Dr. Pyng Lee. Also, next year, the CHEST Congress will be held in Bologna, Italy, June 25-27, in collaboration with the CHEST delegation from Italy, led by Dr. Francesco de Blasio. The program chairs for this event are Drs. John Studdard and William Kelly.

We are excited to broaden our international educational reach through this plan. By refining, growing, and building upon this new model and developing more live learning, hands-on simulation, CHEST gamification, and other interactive components, we continually provide the most cutting-edge learning opportunities available across the globe. We are accomplishing this through partnering with global societies and CHEST delegations to identify unmet educational needs by region and patient base. Through this expansion, we hope to continue our fight to “Crush” lung disease wherever it exists.

CHEST has been notified of the following deaths.

We extend our sincere condolences.



John W. Thomas, MD (2018)

Frederick J Curley, MD (2018)

CHEST has been notified of the following deaths.

We extend our sincere condolences.



John W. Thomas, MD (2018)

Frederick J Curley, MD (2018)

CHEST has been notified of the following deaths.

We extend our sincere condolences.



John W. Thomas, MD (2018)

Frederick J Curley, MD (2018)

No matter if you’re only in New Orleans during #CHEST2019 for a day or for the entire meeting, we’ve got you covered on how to spend your time in the Big Easy outside of sessions and CHEST events!

Rise and shine! If breakfast is the most important meal of the day, we’ve got the perfect way to start your morning before heading over to the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center to begin a day of learning. For a quick bite, try the ever popular Cafe du Monde Riverwalk next to the convention center for a light breakfast of beignets and café au lait, or Fulton Street Cafe.

Lunchtime: For something a little more hearty, head to Green Goddess in the French Quarter for southern comfort food. There’s something for everyone, as you’ll even find some vegan dishes on the menu. If you have time for a longer mid-day break, check out a Garden District Tour, Steam Boat on the River, or relax in Jackson Square.

Evening: You’ve had a long day of sessions, lectures, and exploring the exhibit hall, and now you want to wind down with a good meal (and maybe a drink!). For a slower vibe and space to linger and enjoy yourself, take an Uber/Lyft over to La Petite Grocery on Magazine Street for some tasty, traditional New Orleans dishes.

If you’re a night owl or looking for a late-night activity with a group of your friends and peers, there are plenty of places to find a cocktail on Bourbon Street, or listen to live jazz music along Frenchman Street.

There are many more things you can check out in New Orleans, and we hope you enjoy your stay during CHEST 2019.



*Note: If you’re staying in the hotel block near the convention center, many of the attractions, including the Convention Center, will be a short walking distance. Otherwise, we suggest taking an Uber or Lyft to reach your destination.
 

No matter if you’re only in New Orleans during #CHEST2019 for a day or for the entire meeting, we’ve got you covered on how to spend your time in the Big Easy outside of sessions and CHEST events!

Rise and shine! If breakfast is the most important meal of the day, we’ve got the perfect way to start your morning before heading over to the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center to begin a day of learning. For a quick bite, try the ever popular Cafe du Monde Riverwalk next to the convention center for a light breakfast of beignets and café au lait, or Fulton Street Cafe.

Lunchtime: For something a little more hearty, head to Green Goddess in the French Quarter for southern comfort food. There’s something for everyone, as you’ll even find some vegan dishes on the menu. If you have time for a longer mid-day break, check out a Garden District Tour, Steam Boat on the River, or relax in Jackson Square.

Evening: You’ve had a long day of sessions, lectures, and exploring the exhibit hall, and now you want to wind down with a good meal (and maybe a drink!). For a slower vibe and space to linger and enjoy yourself, take an Uber/Lyft over to La Petite Grocery on Magazine Street for some tasty, traditional New Orleans dishes.

If you’re a night owl or looking for a late-night activity with a group of your friends and peers, there are plenty of places to find a cocktail on Bourbon Street, or listen to live jazz music along Frenchman Street.

There are many more things you can check out in New Orleans, and we hope you enjoy your stay during CHEST 2019.



*Note: If you’re staying in the hotel block near the convention center, many of the attractions, including the Convention Center, will be a short walking distance. Otherwise, we suggest taking an Uber or Lyft to reach your destination.
 

No matter if you’re only in New Orleans during #CHEST2019 for a day or for the entire meeting, we’ve got you covered on how to spend your time in the Big Easy outside of sessions and CHEST events!

Rise and shine! If breakfast is the most important meal of the day, we’ve got the perfect way to start your morning before heading over to the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center to begin a day of learning. For a quick bite, try the ever popular Cafe du Monde Riverwalk next to the convention center for a light breakfast of beignets and café au lait, or Fulton Street Cafe.

Lunchtime: For something a little more hearty, head to Green Goddess in the French Quarter for southern comfort food. There’s something for everyone, as you’ll even find some vegan dishes on the menu. If you have time for a longer mid-day break, check out a Garden District Tour, Steam Boat on the River, or relax in Jackson Square.

Evening: You’ve had a long day of sessions, lectures, and exploring the exhibit hall, and now you want to wind down with a good meal (and maybe a drink!). For a slower vibe and space to linger and enjoy yourself, take an Uber/Lyft over to La Petite Grocery on Magazine Street for some tasty, traditional New Orleans dishes.

If you’re a night owl or looking for a late-night activity with a group of your friends and peers, there are plenty of places to find a cocktail on Bourbon Street, or listen to live jazz music along Frenchman Street.

There are many more things you can check out in New Orleans, and we hope you enjoy your stay during CHEST 2019.



*Note: If you’re staying in the hotel block near the convention center, many of the attractions, including the Convention Center, will be a short walking distance. Otherwise, we suggest taking an Uber or Lyft to reach your destination.
 

In 1968, Richard S. Irwin, MD, Master FCCP, graduated from Tufts University School of Medicine. After completing medical residency training at the Tufts-New England Medical Center and pulmonary training at Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center, he has been practicing in pulmonary and critical care medicine for the last 50 years.

It was in 1979 that he became a CHEST member; in 2003-2004, he served as President of CHEST; and he has been actively involved as a CHEST leader throughout his career, serving on every major CHEST committee. But Dr. Irwin’s most beloved position has been as Editor in Chief of the journal CHEST®, a journey that began in 2005 – a position that he has filled for 14 years and that which he has recently stepped down from in June 2019. What better description of those 14 years at the helm of one of the most recognized and respected journals in chest medicine than to hear it straight from the Editor in Chief himself. In the June 2019 issue of the journal CHEST®, Dr. Irwin shares his thoughts in this Commentary: “On Being the Editor in Chief of the Journal CHEST: 14 Memorable Years.” Don’t miss it!

https://journal.chestnet.org.

In 1968, Richard S. Irwin, MD, Master FCCP, graduated from Tufts University School of Medicine. After completing medical residency training at the Tufts-New England Medical Center and pulmonary training at Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center, he has been practicing in pulmonary and critical care medicine for the last 50 years.

It was in 1979 that he became a CHEST member; in 2003-2004, he served as President of CHEST; and he has been actively involved as a CHEST leader throughout his career, serving on every major CHEST committee. But Dr. Irwin’s most beloved position has been as Editor in Chief of the journal CHEST®, a journey that began in 2005 – a position that he has filled for 14 years and that which he has recently stepped down from in June 2019. What better description of those 14 years at the helm of one of the most recognized and respected journals in chest medicine than to hear it straight from the Editor in Chief himself. In the June 2019 issue of the journal CHEST®, Dr. Irwin shares his thoughts in this Commentary: “On Being the Editor in Chief of the Journal CHEST: 14 Memorable Years.” Don’t miss it!

https://journal.chestnet.org.

In 1968, Richard S. Irwin, MD, Master FCCP, graduated from Tufts University School of Medicine. After completing medical residency training at the Tufts-New England Medical Center and pulmonary training at Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center, he has been practicing in pulmonary and critical care medicine for the last 50 years.

It was in 1979 that he became a CHEST member; in 2003-2004, he served as President of CHEST; and he has been actively involved as a CHEST leader throughout his career, serving on every major CHEST committee. But Dr. Irwin’s most beloved position has been as Editor in Chief of the journal CHEST®, a journey that began in 2005 – a position that he has filled for 14 years and that which he has recently stepped down from in June 2019. What better description of those 14 years at the helm of one of the most recognized and respected journals in chest medicine than to hear it straight from the Editor in Chief himself. In the June 2019 issue of the journal CHEST®, Dr. Irwin shares his thoughts in this Commentary: “On Being the Editor in Chief of the Journal CHEST: 14 Memorable Years.” Don’t miss it!

https://journal.chestnet.org.

There are differences in how pulmonologists and other clinicians approach the diagnosis and management of patients with moderate to severe asthma, according to a survey conducted by Medscape in collaboration with CHEST, the American College of Chest Physicians. Despite some of these differences, those surveyed do predominantly favor similar treatment options, including inhaled corticosteroids and biologics. Biologics in particular are perceived as a promising therapeutic approach for moderate to severe asthma by clinicians overall, and many are also comfortable prescribing them.

Medscape and CHEST asked 763 clinicians about their views on moderate to severe asthma. Responses came from 100 pulmonologists; 102 allergists/immunologists; 102 critical care medicine physicians; 100 emergency medicine (EM) physicians; 104 pediatricians; 100 primary care physicians (PCPs); and 155 nurse practitioners (NPs), physician assistants (PAs), or registered nurses (RNs).

Inhaled Steroids Top Treatment Choice

Survey respondents ranked an inhaled corticosteroid with a long-acting bronchodilator as the favored medication for patients with moderate to severe asthma; 83% of allergists/immunologists feel this way, as do between 52% and 63% of the other clinicians, including pulmonologists.

Inhaled corticosteroids alone are generally preferred by 23%-28% of clinicians surveyed, with the exception of allergists/immunologists (12%). EM physicians (19%) and pediatricians (16%) tend to more often favor an inhaled corticosteroid and leukotriene-modifying agent than do other clinicians, but notably, none of the allergists/immunologists felt this way.

 

Biologics Are an Important Step Forward

When it comes to biologic agents for moderate to severe asthma, it is allergists/immunologists (91%) who say they are most comfortable prescribing them. This percentage drops to 59% for pulmonologists, 34% for NP/PA/RNs, 20% for critical care medicine physicians, 16% for PCPs, 7% for pediatricians, and just 2% of EM physicians

Aaron B. Holley, MD, FCCP, program director at the Pulmonary and Critical Care Medical Fellowship, Department of Medicine, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, and a member of the Moderate to Severe Asthma Center of Excellence steering committee, noted that the latest rage is to personalize treatment by “phenotyping” asthma, with the thought being that certain asthma phenotypes will respond well to some treatments, but not to others. “This sounds good in academic and scientific papers, but remains difficult to operationalize in the clinic,” said Holley.

He also noted that the new biologics all target one specific phenotype: eosinophilic asthma. “This phenotype makes up approximately 50% of all patients with asthma; however, the other 50% have no targeted treatments available, and they don’t necessarily respond well to conventional inhaler therapy,” said Holley.

And for patients with severe, poorly responsive asthma, it’s hard to say precisely what percentage is being treated inappropriately for their phenotype, versus what percentage is noncompliant, versus what percentage is due to socioeconomic status and behavioral health issues, he noted.

The solution? “There is no easy solution,” said Holley. “More specialized, severe asthma clinics? Greater education on inhaler use and disease severity? Concomitant management of behavioral health complaints? All these are necessary, but they’re also resource-intensive.”

Still, in his view, the glass is half-full. “The biologics are an important step forward, and we’re getting better at phenotyping. Compared with 5-10 years ago, we’re in a much better place.”

Preferred Biomarkers

Familiarity with biomarkers for moderate or severe asthma is universal among pulmonologists. Only 2% of allergists/immunologists are not familiar with biomarkers, compared with nearly three quarters of EM physicians, 45% of pediatricians, 36% of PCPs, 31% of NP/PA/RNs, and 20% of critical care medicine physicians.

Immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels ranked as the most important biomarker for moderate or severe asthma, favored by 47% of pulmonologists and 50% of allergists/immunologists, followed by eosinophils, preferred by 44% of pulmonologists and 38% of allergists/immunologists. Between 26% and 36% of other clinicians rank IgE tops, except for EM physicians (13%). About one third of critical care medicine physicians and one quarter of PCPs and NP/PA/RNs think eosinophils are the most important biomarker, compared with only 14% of pediatricians and 10% of EM physicians.

Fraction of exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) is least favored by all clinicians surveyed. Just 9% of pulmonologists, 12% of allergists/immunologists, and 5% of EM physicians like this biomarker. Pediatricians ranked FeNO the highest among those surveyed, but only at 14%.

 

Assessment Tools and Guidelines

One “interesting” finding is the difference between specialties in use of the Asthma Control Test (ACT) and Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ), commented Holley. Most pulmonologists (57%) and allergists/immunologists (79%) favor ACTs for adults and children, whereas other clinicians seem to favor the ACQ.

Both the ACT and ACQ have decent literature to support their use, he noted. “I use the ACT, but personally, I don’t think it makes a difference which you use. I do think it’s important to get an objective score for their subjective symptoms to facilitate tracking over time, and to ensure that clinicians are speaking the same language. For example, if someone else sees my patient for some reason, one look at the ACT score will summarize their disease control, as opposed to them having to pull it out of a running narrative history,” said Holley.

ACTs are also favored by 39% of NP/PA/RNs, 34% of pediatricians, 27% of PCPs, 16% of critical care medicine physicians, and just 6% of EM physicians. About one third of EM physicians and PCPs (34% each) favor the ACQ, as do 30% of NP/PA/RNs, 29% of pediatricians, 20% of pulmonologists, 17% of allergists/immunologists, and 8% of EM physicians.
 

Thirty-six percent of all clinicians said they don’t use any assessment tool to gauge asthma control in patients with moderate to severe asthma, including 86% of EM physicians and 42% of PCPs – the specialties most apt to report no use.

As for guideline use, 83% of allergists/immunologists and 81% of pediatricians surveyed use the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) guidelines. Pulmonologists tend to use these guidelines less often (37%), as they also rely on the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) (54%) and European Respiratory Society (ERS)/American Thoracic Society (ATS) guidelines (43%).

About two thirds (62%) of NP/PA/RNs favor the NAEPP guidelines, as do 49% of PCPs and critical care medicine physicians and 31% of EM physicians. Sixty percent of EM physicians don’t use guidelines at all.

 

Chief Culprits Behind Poor Asthma Control

Clinicians tend to see a lack of appropriate treatment as the greatest barrier for patients with moderate to severe asthma; 63% of pulmonologists feel this way, as do 60% of allergists/immunologists, 52% of PCPs, 50% of pediatricians, and 45% of NP/PA/RNs, compared with just 32% of EM and critical care medicine physicians. EM (67%) and critical care medicine (54%) physicians are also more apt to think that the patient not seeing a provider is the greatest barrier.

Overall, most clinicians surveyed link poor asthma control to poor medication adherence and social or environmental risk irritants, such as smoking, secondhand smoke exposure, vaping, and pollutants.

“No surprise here,” said Holley. “In my experience, medication adherence and environmental risks or irritants are big factors in patients with moderate to severe asthma who don’t respond to conventional, standard asthma treatment and continue to progress.”

“We know from data that poor control is related to socioeconomic status and behavioral health. We also know that proper inhaler use and compliance are a big problem. Does this account for most ‘progression’? That’s hard to say, I suppose, but certainly these are big factors,” Holley added.

Echoing Holley, Navitha Ramesh, MD, clinical assistant professor of medicine at the Department of Clinical Sciences, Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine, Scranton, Pennsylvania, who is also a member of the Moderate to Severe Asthma Center of Excellence steering committee, said the biggest barriers to treatment, in her experience, are “poor health literacy, medication nonadherence, poor social support, and tobacco use.”

The survey was conducted August 29, 2018, to October 11, 2018. Pulmonologists were recruited from CHEST, and all other clinicians were recruited from Medscape members. Patients with moderate to severe asthma account for at least half of all patients with asthma seen by pulmonologists, allergists/immunologists, and critical care medicine physicians; this proportion falls to about 30% among pediatricians and PCPs. Of the clinicians surveyed, patients with moderate to severe asthma are overwhelmingly referred to pulmonologists. Among the reasons for referral are multiple emergency department visits, poor control, failure on first-line therapy, and confounding factors.

Follow Medscape on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube

There are differences in how pulmonologists and other clinicians approach the diagnosis and management of patients with moderate to severe asthma, according to a survey conducted by Medscape in collaboration with CHEST, the American College of Chest Physicians. Despite some of these differences, those surveyed do predominantly favor similar treatment options, including inhaled corticosteroids and biologics. Biologics in particular are perceived as a promising therapeutic approach for moderate to severe asthma by clinicians overall, and many are also comfortable prescribing them.

Medscape and CHEST asked 763 clinicians about their views on moderate to severe asthma. Responses came from 100 pulmonologists; 102 allergists/immunologists; 102 critical care medicine physicians; 100 emergency medicine (EM) physicians; 104 pediatricians; 100 primary care physicians (PCPs); and 155 nurse practitioners (NPs), physician assistants (PAs), or registered nurses (RNs).

Inhaled Steroids Top Treatment Choice

Survey respondents ranked an inhaled corticosteroid with a long-acting bronchodilator as the favored medication for patients with moderate to severe asthma; 83% of allergists/immunologists feel this way, as do between 52% and 63% of the other clinicians, including pulmonologists.

Inhaled corticosteroids alone are generally preferred by 23%-28% of clinicians surveyed, with the exception of allergists/immunologists (12%). EM physicians (19%) and pediatricians (16%) tend to more often favor an inhaled corticosteroid and leukotriene-modifying agent than do other clinicians, but notably, none of the allergists/immunologists felt this way.

 

Biologics Are an Important Step Forward

When it comes to biologic agents for moderate to severe asthma, it is allergists/immunologists (91%) who say they are most comfortable prescribing them. This percentage drops to 59% for pulmonologists, 34% for NP/PA/RNs, 20% for critical care medicine physicians, 16% for PCPs, 7% for pediatricians, and just 2% of EM physicians

Aaron B. Holley, MD, FCCP, program director at the Pulmonary and Critical Care Medical Fellowship, Department of Medicine, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, and a member of the Moderate to Severe Asthma Center of Excellence steering committee, noted that the latest rage is to personalize treatment by “phenotyping” asthma, with the thought being that certain asthma phenotypes will respond well to some treatments, but not to others. “This sounds good in academic and scientific papers, but remains difficult to operationalize in the clinic,” said Holley.

He also noted that the new biologics all target one specific phenotype: eosinophilic asthma. “This phenotype makes up approximately 50% of all patients with asthma; however, the other 50% have no targeted treatments available, and they don’t necessarily respond well to conventional inhaler therapy,” said Holley.

And for patients with severe, poorly responsive asthma, it’s hard to say precisely what percentage is being treated inappropriately for their phenotype, versus what percentage is noncompliant, versus what percentage is due to socioeconomic status and behavioral health issues, he noted.

The solution? “There is no easy solution,” said Holley. “More specialized, severe asthma clinics? Greater education on inhaler use and disease severity? Concomitant management of behavioral health complaints? All these are necessary, but they’re also resource-intensive.”

Still, in his view, the glass is half-full. “The biologics are an important step forward, and we’re getting better at phenotyping. Compared with 5-10 years ago, we’re in a much better place.”

Preferred Biomarkers

Familiarity with biomarkers for moderate or severe asthma is universal among pulmonologists. Only 2% of allergists/immunologists are not familiar with biomarkers, compared with nearly three quarters of EM physicians, 45% of pediatricians, 36% of PCPs, 31% of NP/PA/RNs, and 20% of critical care medicine physicians.

Immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels ranked as the most important biomarker for moderate or severe asthma, favored by 47% of pulmonologists and 50% of allergists/immunologists, followed by eosinophils, preferred by 44% of pulmonologists and 38% of allergists/immunologists. Between 26% and 36% of other clinicians rank IgE tops, except for EM physicians (13%). About one third of critical care medicine physicians and one quarter of PCPs and NP/PA/RNs think eosinophils are the most important biomarker, compared with only 14% of pediatricians and 10% of EM physicians.

Fraction of exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) is least favored by all clinicians surveyed. Just 9% of pulmonologists, 12% of allergists/immunologists, and 5% of EM physicians like this biomarker. Pediatricians ranked FeNO the highest among those surveyed, but only at 14%.

 

Assessment Tools and Guidelines

One “interesting” finding is the difference between specialties in use of the Asthma Control Test (ACT) and Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ), commented Holley. Most pulmonologists (57%) and allergists/immunologists (79%) favor ACTs for adults and children, whereas other clinicians seem to favor the ACQ.

Both the ACT and ACQ have decent literature to support their use, he noted. “I use the ACT, but personally, I don’t think it makes a difference which you use. I do think it’s important to get an objective score for their subjective symptoms to facilitate tracking over time, and to ensure that clinicians are speaking the same language. For example, if someone else sees my patient for some reason, one look at the ACT score will summarize their disease control, as opposed to them having to pull it out of a running narrative history,” said Holley.

ACTs are also favored by 39% of NP/PA/RNs, 34% of pediatricians, 27% of PCPs, 16% of critical care medicine physicians, and just 6% of EM physicians. About one third of EM physicians and PCPs (34% each) favor the ACQ, as do 30% of NP/PA/RNs, 29% of pediatricians, 20% of pulmonologists, 17% of allergists/immunologists, and 8% of EM physicians.
 

Thirty-six percent of all clinicians said they don’t use any assessment tool to gauge asthma control in patients with moderate to severe asthma, including 86% of EM physicians and 42% of PCPs – the specialties most apt to report no use.

As for guideline use, 83% of allergists/immunologists and 81% of pediatricians surveyed use the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) guidelines. Pulmonologists tend to use these guidelines less often (37%), as they also rely on the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) (54%) and European Respiratory Society (ERS)/American Thoracic Society (ATS) guidelines (43%).

About two thirds (62%) of NP/PA/RNs favor the NAEPP guidelines, as do 49% of PCPs and critical care medicine physicians and 31% of EM physicians. Sixty percent of EM physicians don’t use guidelines at all.

 

Chief Culprits Behind Poor Asthma Control

Clinicians tend to see a lack of appropriate treatment as the greatest barrier for patients with moderate to severe asthma; 63% of pulmonologists feel this way, as do 60% of allergists/immunologists, 52% of PCPs, 50% of pediatricians, and 45% of NP/PA/RNs, compared with just 32% of EM and critical care medicine physicians. EM (67%) and critical care medicine (54%) physicians are also more apt to think that the patient not seeing a provider is the greatest barrier.

Overall, most clinicians surveyed link poor asthma control to poor medication adherence and social or environmental risk irritants, such as smoking, secondhand smoke exposure, vaping, and pollutants.

“No surprise here,” said Holley. “In my experience, medication adherence and environmental risks or irritants are big factors in patients with moderate to severe asthma who don’t respond to conventional, standard asthma treatment and continue to progress.”

“We know from data that poor control is related to socioeconomic status and behavioral health. We also know that proper inhaler use and compliance are a big problem. Does this account for most ‘progression’? That’s hard to say, I suppose, but certainly these are big factors,” Holley added.

Echoing Holley, Navitha Ramesh, MD, clinical assistant professor of medicine at the Department of Clinical Sciences, Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine, Scranton, Pennsylvania, who is also a member of the Moderate to Severe Asthma Center of Excellence steering committee, said the biggest barriers to treatment, in her experience, are “poor health literacy, medication nonadherence, poor social support, and tobacco use.”

The survey was conducted August 29, 2018, to October 11, 2018. Pulmonologists were recruited from CHEST, and all other clinicians were recruited from Medscape members. Patients with moderate to severe asthma account for at least half of all patients with asthma seen by pulmonologists, allergists/immunologists, and critical care medicine physicians; this proportion falls to about 30% among pediatricians and PCPs. Of the clinicians surveyed, patients with moderate to severe asthma are overwhelmingly referred to pulmonologists. Among the reasons for referral are multiple emergency department visits, poor control, failure on first-line therapy, and confounding factors.

Follow Medscape on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube

There are differences in how pulmonologists and other clinicians approach the diagnosis and management of patients with moderate to severe asthma, according to a survey conducted by Medscape in collaboration with CHEST, the American College of Chest Physicians. Despite some of these differences, those surveyed do predominantly favor similar treatment options, including inhaled corticosteroids and biologics. Biologics in particular are perceived as a promising therapeutic approach for moderate to severe asthma by clinicians overall, and many are also comfortable prescribing them.

Medscape and CHEST asked 763 clinicians about their views on moderate to severe asthma. Responses came from 100 pulmonologists; 102 allergists/immunologists; 102 critical care medicine physicians; 100 emergency medicine (EM) physicians; 104 pediatricians; 100 primary care physicians (PCPs); and 155 nurse practitioners (NPs), physician assistants (PAs), or registered nurses (RNs).

Inhaled Steroids Top Treatment Choice

Survey respondents ranked an inhaled corticosteroid with a long-acting bronchodilator as the favored medication for patients with moderate to severe asthma; 83% of allergists/immunologists feel this way, as do between 52% and 63% of the other clinicians, including pulmonologists.

Inhaled corticosteroids alone are generally preferred by 23%-28% of clinicians surveyed, with the exception of allergists/immunologists (12%). EM physicians (19%) and pediatricians (16%) tend to more often favor an inhaled corticosteroid and leukotriene-modifying agent than do other clinicians, but notably, none of the allergists/immunologists felt this way.

 

Biologics Are an Important Step Forward

When it comes to biologic agents for moderate to severe asthma, it is allergists/immunologists (91%) who say they are most comfortable prescribing them. This percentage drops to 59% for pulmonologists, 34% for NP/PA/RNs, 20% for critical care medicine physicians, 16% for PCPs, 7% for pediatricians, and just 2% of EM physicians

Aaron B. Holley, MD, FCCP, program director at the Pulmonary and Critical Care Medical Fellowship, Department of Medicine, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, and a member of the Moderate to Severe Asthma Center of Excellence steering committee, noted that the latest rage is to personalize treatment by “phenotyping” asthma, with the thought being that certain asthma phenotypes will respond well to some treatments, but not to others. “This sounds good in academic and scientific papers, but remains difficult to operationalize in the clinic,” said Holley.

He also noted that the new biologics all target one specific phenotype: eosinophilic asthma. “This phenotype makes up approximately 50% of all patients with asthma; however, the other 50% have no targeted treatments available, and they don’t necessarily respond well to conventional inhaler therapy,” said Holley.

And for patients with severe, poorly responsive asthma, it’s hard to say precisely what percentage is being treated inappropriately for their phenotype, versus what percentage is noncompliant, versus what percentage is due to socioeconomic status and behavioral health issues, he noted.

The solution? “There is no easy solution,” said Holley. “More specialized, severe asthma clinics? Greater education on inhaler use and disease severity? Concomitant management of behavioral health complaints? All these are necessary, but they’re also resource-intensive.”

Still, in his view, the glass is half-full. “The biologics are an important step forward, and we’re getting better at phenotyping. Compared with 5-10 years ago, we’re in a much better place.”

Preferred Biomarkers

Familiarity with biomarkers for moderate or severe asthma is universal among pulmonologists. Only 2% of allergists/immunologists are not familiar with biomarkers, compared with nearly three quarters of EM physicians, 45% of pediatricians, 36% of PCPs, 31% of NP/PA/RNs, and 20% of critical care medicine physicians.

Immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels ranked as the most important biomarker for moderate or severe asthma, favored by 47% of pulmonologists and 50% of allergists/immunologists, followed by eosinophils, preferred by 44% of pulmonologists and 38% of allergists/immunologists. Between 26% and 36% of other clinicians rank IgE tops, except for EM physicians (13%). About one third of critical care medicine physicians and one quarter of PCPs and NP/PA/RNs think eosinophils are the most important biomarker, compared with only 14% of pediatricians and 10% of EM physicians.

Fraction of exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) is least favored by all clinicians surveyed. Just 9% of pulmonologists, 12% of allergists/immunologists, and 5% of EM physicians like this biomarker. Pediatricians ranked FeNO the highest among those surveyed, but only at 14%.

 

Assessment Tools and Guidelines

One “interesting” finding is the difference between specialties in use of the Asthma Control Test (ACT) and Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ), commented Holley. Most pulmonologists (57%) and allergists/immunologists (79%) favor ACTs for adults and children, whereas other clinicians seem to favor the ACQ.

Both the ACT and ACQ have decent literature to support their use, he noted. “I use the ACT, but personally, I don’t think it makes a difference which you use. I do think it’s important to get an objective score for their subjective symptoms to facilitate tracking over time, and to ensure that clinicians are speaking the same language. For example, if someone else sees my patient for some reason, one look at the ACT score will summarize their disease control, as opposed to them having to pull it out of a running narrative history,” said Holley.

ACTs are also favored by 39% of NP/PA/RNs, 34% of pediatricians, 27% of PCPs, 16% of critical care medicine physicians, and just 6% of EM physicians. About one third of EM physicians and PCPs (34% each) favor the ACQ, as do 30% of NP/PA/RNs, 29% of pediatricians, 20% of pulmonologists, 17% of allergists/immunologists, and 8% of EM physicians.
 

Thirty-six percent of all clinicians said they don’t use any assessment tool to gauge asthma control in patients with moderate to severe asthma, including 86% of EM physicians and 42% of PCPs – the specialties most apt to report no use.

As for guideline use, 83% of allergists/immunologists and 81% of pediatricians surveyed use the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) guidelines. Pulmonologists tend to use these guidelines less often (37%), as they also rely on the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) (54%) and European Respiratory Society (ERS)/American Thoracic Society (ATS) guidelines (43%).

About two thirds (62%) of NP/PA/RNs favor the NAEPP guidelines, as do 49% of PCPs and critical care medicine physicians and 31% of EM physicians. Sixty percent of EM physicians don’t use guidelines at all.

 

Chief Culprits Behind Poor Asthma Control

Clinicians tend to see a lack of appropriate treatment as the greatest barrier for patients with moderate to severe asthma; 63% of pulmonologists feel this way, as do 60% of allergists/immunologists, 52% of PCPs, 50% of pediatricians, and 45% of NP/PA/RNs, compared with just 32% of EM and critical care medicine physicians. EM (67%) and critical care medicine (54%) physicians are also more apt to think that the patient not seeing a provider is the greatest barrier.

Overall, most clinicians surveyed link poor asthma control to poor medication adherence and social or environmental risk irritants, such as smoking, secondhand smoke exposure, vaping, and pollutants.

“No surprise here,” said Holley. “In my experience, medication adherence and environmental risks or irritants are big factors in patients with moderate to severe asthma who don’t respond to conventional, standard asthma treatment and continue to progress.”

“We know from data that poor control is related to socioeconomic status and behavioral health. We also know that proper inhaler use and compliance are a big problem. Does this account for most ‘progression’? That’s hard to say, I suppose, but certainly these are big factors,” Holley added.

Echoing Holley, Navitha Ramesh, MD, clinical assistant professor of medicine at the Department of Clinical Sciences, Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine, Scranton, Pennsylvania, who is also a member of the Moderate to Severe Asthma Center of Excellence steering committee, said the biggest barriers to treatment, in her experience, are “poor health literacy, medication nonadherence, poor social support, and tobacco use.”

The survey was conducted August 29, 2018, to October 11, 2018. Pulmonologists were recruited from CHEST, and all other clinicians were recruited from Medscape members. Patients with moderate to severe asthma account for at least half of all patients with asthma seen by pulmonologists, allergists/immunologists, and critical care medicine physicians; this proportion falls to about 30% among pediatricians and PCPs. Of the clinicians surveyed, patients with moderate to severe asthma are overwhelmingly referred to pulmonologists. Among the reasons for referral are multiple emergency department visits, poor control, failure on first-line therapy, and confounding factors.

Follow Medscape on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube

In a study highlighted in a recent issue of CHEST Physician, Hou and colleagues analyzed complications from biopsies of lung abnormalities seen on CT scans by conducting a large retrospective study with data gleaned from national databases of patients undergoing CT- guided biopsy, surgery, or bronchoscopy.¹ While it should not be interpreted as representative of a lung cancer screening population (for excellent comments by Drs. Rivera and Silvestri regarding the study, see: https://tinyurl.com/y52ucb94), it does raises two important questions when performing shared decision-making for low dose CT (LDCT) scanning: (1) What information should clinicians discuss with patients regarding various biopsy methods until more data are available? (2) How do we mitigate complications from biopsies?

While procedure-specific biopsy risk may be generalizable, it may be institutionally specific, and knowledge of local skill and outcomes data can help guide discussions. With that said, some general information can inform decisions. The NAVIGATE study investigators recently published their 1-year follow-up results using a navigational bronchoscopy system (superDimension^™). While inherent limitations to this study exist, it does provide some useful information as to procedure-related complications from a large sample of patients who approximate a lung cancer screening population. This group was composed of both academic and community centers and prospectively followed 1,215 patients for 1 year.² The average age of the population was 67.6 (± 11.3), and 80% were current or former smokers. The median nodule size was 2 cm. The diagnostic yield was 73% at 1 year follow-up (data will be re-analyzed at 2 years). The pneumothorax rate was 4%, with 3% requiring chest tube. Hemorrhage occurred in 2.5% of all patients, with 1.5% having a common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) ≥ 2. Grade 4 respiratory failure occurred in 1 patient. There were no ENB procedure-related deaths. It should be noted that individuals performing these procedures were, by and large, high-volume and experienced users.

In comparison, the overall pooled sensitivity for CT scan-guided biopsy is 90% for pulmonary nodules and masses. The yield is lower, however, for smaller lesions (≤2.0) and ranges from 74% to 77%.³ The average pneumothorax rate is 20%, with 1% to 3% requiring chest tube placement. Risk factors for pneumothorax vary between studies, but, generally speaking, have been associated with nodules ≤ 2 cm, those within 2 cm of the pleura (but not abutting the pleura), and emphysema in the track of needle trajectory. Pulmonary hemorrhage occurs 30% of the time but is mild in most cases. Hemoptysis and severe hemorrhage occur at rates of 4% and <1%, respectively. Risk factors for development of pulmonary hemorrhage include small lesion size (< 2 cm) and lesions > 2 cm from the pleura.

When considering surgical lung biopsies and resection, recent data suggest every effort should be made to encourage smoking cessation in order to mitigate postoperative morbidity. In a retrospective study by Fukui and colleagues,⁴ respiratory morbidity (defined as hypoxia, pneumonia, atelectasis, and uncontrolled sputum production) was 22% in smokers vs 3.5% in never smokers. The rate of complications decreased as the time from smoking cessation to date of surgery increased.

The goal for each patient who is counseled should be to limit the number of procedures and achieve the greatest diagnostic confidence with the lowest complication rate. With these risks and diagnostic yield in mind, the decision to recommend a particular biopsy strategy (or no biopsy at all) should be based on current guideline recommendations: (1) patient co-morbidities and preferences; (2) size of index nodule or mass; (3) presence of pathologically enlarged mediastinal and/or hilar lymphadenopathy; (4) evidence of extrathoracic metastasis; and (5) institutional expertise. Specifically speaking for the pulmonologist, this translates into identifying specific procedural “champions” who are dedicated to performing these procedures and are members of a multidisciplinary thoracic team. These individuals should have dedicated training in advanced diagnostic procedures to achieve the aforementioned goals.⁵ The same should hold true for transthoracic, CT-guided biopsies. Interventional pulmonology fellowships are structured to provide exposure to multidisciplinary nodule clinics and tumor boards, establishing quality improvement initiatives, as well as developing procedural expertise.⁶

It is apparent that shared decision-making can become complex. These details will likely be lost to a primary care provider simply due to time constraints and information overload. As such, pulmonologists should be at the forefront of lung cancer screening – in programmatic development, implementation, and providing education to providers directly involved with shared decision-making discussions.
 

Dr. Aboudara is with the Division of Allergy, Pulmonary, and Critical Care; Vanderbilt University Medical Center; Nashville, Tennessee.

References

1. Huo J, Xu Y, Sheu T, et al. Complication rates and downstream medical costs associated with invasive diagnostic procedures for lung abnormalities in the community setting: Complications and medical costs associated with diagnostic procedures for lung abnormalities. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179:324-32.

2. Folch EE, Pritchett MA, Nead MA, et al. Electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy for peripheral pulmonary lesions: One-year results of the prospective, multicenter NAVIGATE study. J Thorac Oncol. 2019;14(3):445-58.

3. Ohno Y, Hatabu H, Takenaka D, et al. CT-guided transthoracic needle aspiration biopsy of small (< or = 20 mm) solitary pulmonary nodules. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;180(6):1665-69.

4. Fukui M, Suzuki K, Matsunaga T, et al. Importance of smoking cessation on surgical outcome in primary lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2019;107(4):1005-09.

5. Mahajan A, Khandhar S, Folch EE. Pulmonary Perspectives^®: Ensuring quality for EBUS bronchoscopy with varying levels of practitioner experience. CHEST Physician. April 6, 2017. https://tinyurl.com/y3hwlc4g. .

6. Mullon JJ, Burkart KM, Silvestri G, et al. Interventional Pulmonology Fellowship Accreditation Standards: Executive summary of the Multisociety Interventional Pulmonology Fellowship Accreditation Committee. Chest. 2017;151(5):1114-21.

In a study highlighted in a recent issue of CHEST Physician, Hou and colleagues analyzed complications from biopsies of lung abnormalities seen on CT scans by conducting a large retrospective study with data gleaned from national databases of patients undergoing CT- guided biopsy, surgery, or bronchoscopy.¹ While it should not be interpreted as representative of a lung cancer screening population (for excellent comments by Drs. Rivera and Silvestri regarding the study, see: https://tinyurl.com/y52ucb94), it does raises two important questions when performing shared decision-making for low dose CT (LDCT) scanning: (1) What information should clinicians discuss with patients regarding various biopsy methods until more data are available? (2) How do we mitigate complications from biopsies?

While procedure-specific biopsy risk may be generalizable, it may be institutionally specific, and knowledge of local skill and outcomes data can help guide discussions. With that said, some general information can inform decisions. The NAVIGATE study investigators recently published their 1-year follow-up results using a navigational bronchoscopy system (superDimension^™). While inherent limitations to this study exist, it does provide some useful information as to procedure-related complications from a large sample of patients who approximate a lung cancer screening population. This group was composed of both academic and community centers and prospectively followed 1,215 patients for 1 year.² The average age of the population was 67.6 (± 11.3), and 80% were current or former smokers. The median nodule size was 2 cm. The diagnostic yield was 73% at 1 year follow-up (data will be re-analyzed at 2 years). The pneumothorax rate was 4%, with 3% requiring chest tube. Hemorrhage occurred in 2.5% of all patients, with 1.5% having a common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) ≥ 2. Grade 4 respiratory failure occurred in 1 patient. There were no ENB procedure-related deaths. It should be noted that individuals performing these procedures were, by and large, high-volume and experienced users.

In comparison, the overall pooled sensitivity for CT scan-guided biopsy is 90% for pulmonary nodules and masses. The yield is lower, however, for smaller lesions (≤2.0) and ranges from 74% to 77%.³ The average pneumothorax rate is 20%, with 1% to 3% requiring chest tube placement. Risk factors for pneumothorax vary between studies, but, generally speaking, have been associated with nodules ≤ 2 cm, those within 2 cm of the pleura (but not abutting the pleura), and emphysema in the track of needle trajectory. Pulmonary hemorrhage occurs 30% of the time but is mild in most cases. Hemoptysis and severe hemorrhage occur at rates of 4% and <1%, respectively. Risk factors for development of pulmonary hemorrhage include small lesion size (< 2 cm) and lesions > 2 cm from the pleura.

When considering surgical lung biopsies and resection, recent data suggest every effort should be made to encourage smoking cessation in order to mitigate postoperative morbidity. In a retrospective study by Fukui and colleagues,⁴ respiratory morbidity (defined as hypoxia, pneumonia, atelectasis, and uncontrolled sputum production) was 22% in smokers vs 3.5% in never smokers. The rate of complications decreased as the time from smoking cessation to date of surgery increased.

The goal for each patient who is counseled should be to limit the number of procedures and achieve the greatest diagnostic confidence with the lowest complication rate. With these risks and diagnostic yield in mind, the decision to recommend a particular biopsy strategy (or no biopsy at all) should be based on current guideline recommendations: (1) patient co-morbidities and preferences; (2) size of index nodule or mass; (3) presence of pathologically enlarged mediastinal and/or hilar lymphadenopathy; (4) evidence of extrathoracic metastasis; and (5) institutional expertise. Specifically speaking for the pulmonologist, this translates into identifying specific procedural “champions” who are dedicated to performing these procedures and are members of a multidisciplinary thoracic team. These individuals should have dedicated training in advanced diagnostic procedures to achieve the aforementioned goals.⁵ The same should hold true for transthoracic, CT-guided biopsies. Interventional pulmonology fellowships are structured to provide exposure to multidisciplinary nodule clinics and tumor boards, establishing quality improvement initiatives, as well as developing procedural expertise.⁶

It is apparent that shared decision-making can become complex. These details will likely be lost to a primary care provider simply due to time constraints and information overload. As such, pulmonologists should be at the forefront of lung cancer screening – in programmatic development, implementation, and providing education to providers directly involved with shared decision-making discussions.
 

Dr. Aboudara is with the Division of Allergy, Pulmonary, and Critical Care; Vanderbilt University Medical Center; Nashville, Tennessee.

References

1. Huo J, Xu Y, Sheu T, et al. Complication rates and downstream medical costs associated with invasive diagnostic procedures for lung abnormalities in the community setting: Complications and medical costs associated with diagnostic procedures for lung abnormalities. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179:324-32.

2. Folch EE, Pritchett MA, Nead MA, et al. Electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy for peripheral pulmonary lesions: One-year results of the prospective, multicenter NAVIGATE study. J Thorac Oncol. 2019;14(3):445-58.

3. Ohno Y, Hatabu H, Takenaka D, et al. CT-guided transthoracic needle aspiration biopsy of small (< or = 20 mm) solitary pulmonary nodules. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;180(6):1665-69.

4. Fukui M, Suzuki K, Matsunaga T, et al. Importance of smoking cessation on surgical outcome in primary lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2019;107(4):1005-09.

5. Mahajan A, Khandhar S, Folch EE. Pulmonary Perspectives^®: Ensuring quality for EBUS bronchoscopy with varying levels of practitioner experience. CHEST Physician. April 6, 2017. https://tinyurl.com/y3hwlc4g. .

6. Mullon JJ, Burkart KM, Silvestri G, et al. Interventional Pulmonology Fellowship Accreditation Standards: Executive summary of the Multisociety Interventional Pulmonology Fellowship Accreditation Committee. Chest. 2017;151(5):1114-21.

In a study highlighted in a recent issue of CHEST Physician, Hou and colleagues analyzed complications from biopsies of lung abnormalities seen on CT scans by conducting a large retrospective study with data gleaned from national databases of patients undergoing CT- guided biopsy, surgery, or bronchoscopy.¹ While it should not be interpreted as representative of a lung cancer screening population (for excellent comments by Drs. Rivera and Silvestri regarding the study, see: https://tinyurl.com/y52ucb94), it does raises two important questions when performing shared decision-making for low dose CT (LDCT) scanning: (1) What information should clinicians discuss with patients regarding various biopsy methods until more data are available? (2) How do we mitigate complications from biopsies?

While procedure-specific biopsy risk may be generalizable, it may be institutionally specific, and knowledge of local skill and outcomes data can help guide discussions. With that said, some general information can inform decisions. The NAVIGATE study investigators recently published their 1-year follow-up results using a navigational bronchoscopy system (superDimension^™). While inherent limitations to this study exist, it does provide some useful information as to procedure-related complications from a large sample of patients who approximate a lung cancer screening population. This group was composed of both academic and community centers and prospectively followed 1,215 patients for 1 year.² The average age of the population was 67.6 (± 11.3), and 80% were current or former smokers. The median nodule size was 2 cm. The diagnostic yield was 73% at 1 year follow-up (data will be re-analyzed at 2 years). The pneumothorax rate was 4%, with 3% requiring chest tube. Hemorrhage occurred in 2.5% of all patients, with 1.5% having a common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) ≥ 2. Grade 4 respiratory failure occurred in 1 patient. There were no ENB procedure-related deaths. It should be noted that individuals performing these procedures were, by and large, high-volume and experienced users.

In comparison, the overall pooled sensitivity for CT scan-guided biopsy is 90% for pulmonary nodules and masses. The yield is lower, however, for smaller lesions (≤2.0) and ranges from 74% to 77%.³ The average pneumothorax rate is 20%, with 1% to 3% requiring chest tube placement. Risk factors for pneumothorax vary between studies, but, generally speaking, have been associated with nodules ≤ 2 cm, those within 2 cm of the pleura (but not abutting the pleura), and emphysema in the track of needle trajectory. Pulmonary hemorrhage occurs 30% of the time but is mild in most cases. Hemoptysis and severe hemorrhage occur at rates of 4% and <1%, respectively. Risk factors for development of pulmonary hemorrhage include small lesion size (< 2 cm) and lesions > 2 cm from the pleura.

When considering surgical lung biopsies and resection, recent data suggest every effort should be made to encourage smoking cessation in order to mitigate postoperative morbidity. In a retrospective study by Fukui and colleagues,⁴ respiratory morbidity (defined as hypoxia, pneumonia, atelectasis, and uncontrolled sputum production) was 22% in smokers vs 3.5% in never smokers. The rate of complications decreased as the time from smoking cessation to date of surgery increased.

The goal for each patient who is counseled should be to limit the number of procedures and achieve the greatest diagnostic confidence with the lowest complication rate. With these risks and diagnostic yield in mind, the decision to recommend a particular biopsy strategy (or no biopsy at all) should be based on current guideline recommendations: (1) patient co-morbidities and preferences; (2) size of index nodule or mass; (3) presence of pathologically enlarged mediastinal and/or hilar lymphadenopathy; (4) evidence of extrathoracic metastasis; and (5) institutional expertise. Specifically speaking for the pulmonologist, this translates into identifying specific procedural “champions” who are dedicated to performing these procedures and are members of a multidisciplinary thoracic team. These individuals should have dedicated training in advanced diagnostic procedures to achieve the aforementioned goals.⁵ The same should hold true for transthoracic, CT-guided biopsies. Interventional pulmonology fellowships are structured to provide exposure to multidisciplinary nodule clinics and tumor boards, establishing quality improvement initiatives, as well as developing procedural expertise.⁶

It is apparent that shared decision-making can become complex. These details will likely be lost to a primary care provider simply due to time constraints and information overload. As such, pulmonologists should be at the forefront of lung cancer screening – in programmatic development, implementation, and providing education to providers directly involved with shared decision-making discussions.
 

Dr. Aboudara is with the Division of Allergy, Pulmonary, and Critical Care; Vanderbilt University Medical Center; Nashville, Tennessee.

References

1. Huo J, Xu Y, Sheu T, et al. Complication rates and downstream medical costs associated with invasive diagnostic procedures for lung abnormalities in the community setting: Complications and medical costs associated with diagnostic procedures for lung abnormalities. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179:324-32.

2. Folch EE, Pritchett MA, Nead MA, et al. Electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy for peripheral pulmonary lesions: One-year results of the prospective, multicenter NAVIGATE study. J Thorac Oncol. 2019;14(3):445-58.

3. Ohno Y, Hatabu H, Takenaka D, et al. CT-guided transthoracic needle aspiration biopsy of small (< or = 20 mm) solitary pulmonary nodules. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;180(6):1665-69.

4. Fukui M, Suzuki K, Matsunaga T, et al. Importance of smoking cessation on surgical outcome in primary lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2019;107(4):1005-09.

5. Mahajan A, Khandhar S, Folch EE. Pulmonary Perspectives^®: Ensuring quality for EBUS bronchoscopy with varying levels of practitioner experience. CHEST Physician. April 6, 2017. https://tinyurl.com/y3hwlc4g. .

6. Mullon JJ, Burkart KM, Silvestri G, et al. Interventional Pulmonology Fellowship Accreditation Standards: Executive summary of the Multisociety Interventional Pulmonology Fellowship Accreditation Committee. Chest. 2017;151(5):1114-21.

Editor’s Picks


COMMENTARY
On Being the Editor in Chief of the Journal CHEST: 14 Memorable Years.
By Dr. Richard S. Irwin

ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Procalcitonin-Guided Antibiotic Discontinuation and Mortality in Critically Ill Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
By Dr. B. J. Pepper, et al.

A Novel Algorithm to Analyze Epidemiology and Outcomes of Carbapenem Resistance Among Patients With Hospital-Acquired and Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
By Dr. M. D. Zilberberg, et al.

Raw Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis Variables Are Independent Predictors of Early All-Cause Mortality in Patients With COPD.
By Dr. Francesca de Blasio, et al.

Editor’s Picks


COMMENTARY
On Being the Editor in Chief of the Journal CHEST: 14 Memorable Years.
By Dr. Richard S. Irwin

ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Procalcitonin-Guided Antibiotic Discontinuation and Mortality in Critically Ill Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
By Dr. B. J. Pepper, et al.

A Novel Algorithm to Analyze Epidemiology and Outcomes of Carbapenem Resistance Among Patients With Hospital-Acquired and Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
By Dr. M. D. Zilberberg, et al.

Raw Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis Variables Are Independent Predictors of Early All-Cause Mortality in Patients With COPD.
By Dr. Francesca de Blasio, et al.

Editor’s Picks


COMMENTARY
On Being the Editor in Chief of the Journal CHEST: 14 Memorable Years.
By Dr. Richard S. Irwin

ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Procalcitonin-Guided Antibiotic Discontinuation and Mortality in Critically Ill Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
By Dr. B. J. Pepper, et al.

A Novel Algorithm to Analyze Epidemiology and Outcomes of Carbapenem Resistance Among Patients With Hospital-Acquired and Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
By Dr. M. D. Zilberberg, et al.

Raw Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis Variables Are Independent Predictors of Early All-Cause Mortality in Patients With COPD.
By Dr. Francesca de Blasio, et al.

Recently, the CHEST Foundation had the pleasure of sitting down with Salim Surani, MD, FCCP to get his perspective on the NetWorks Challenge and its impact. Dr. Surani initially got involved with CHEST at the Board level and is now a leader within the Council of NetWorks. “My hope was that I could work within my NetWork to help them become more involved with CHEST and the CHEST Foundation. Through this involvement, I believe we can help shape changes in chest medicine practice dynamics. In the Practice Operations NetWork, we strive to educate physicians in practice to ensure they are up to date with government regulations and how to navigate changes in a positive way, ultimately with the goal of impacting our patients’ lives for the better.”

When asked about his involvement with CHEST and the Foundation, he said “It just makes sense to be involved in an institution that is passionate about taking care of patients and clinicians. The CHEST Foundation has given tens of millions of dollars in funding for grants to help shape the future of the education, the future of research, and the future of better patient care.”

Dr. Surani has always been a strong advocate for the NetWorks Challenge. “There is nothing that has been more satisfying in my life than the opportunity to give. I have always believed that the biggest winner is the person who gives a gift. When you give something to the right cause, what you get in return is a tremendous amount of satisfaction, and it is that satisfaction which drives you – which gives you a feeling of purpose. I want others to get involved and participate. If you feel passionate about something, put your money where your mouth is. This is why I will be matching any gift of $500 or greater by 10% made to any NetWork during the NetWorks Challenge. This is an opportunity to multiply your donation before it goes to the CHEST Foundation so that grants and other awards can be larger in the coming years. The NetWorks Challenge helps fund our Diversity Travel Grants Program and provides additional travel grants to each participating NetWork.” Last year, Dr. Surani gave an additional $2,365.17 through his challenge match. Are you up for the challenge this year?

Visit chestfoundation.org/donate today to help shape the future of our discipline!

Recently, the CHEST Foundation had the pleasure of sitting down with Salim Surani, MD, FCCP to get his perspective on the NetWorks Challenge and its impact. Dr. Surani initially got involved with CHEST at the Board level and is now a leader within the Council of NetWorks. “My hope was that I could work within my NetWork to help them become more involved with CHEST and the CHEST Foundation. Through this involvement, I believe we can help shape changes in chest medicine practice dynamics. In the Practice Operations NetWork, we strive to educate physicians in practice to ensure they are up to date with government regulations and how to navigate changes in a positive way, ultimately with the goal of impacting our patients’ lives for the better.”

When asked about his involvement with CHEST and the Foundation, he said “It just makes sense to be involved in an institution that is passionate about taking care of patients and clinicians. The CHEST Foundation has given tens of millions of dollars in funding for grants to help shape the future of the education, the future of research, and the future of better patient care.”

Dr. Surani has always been a strong advocate for the NetWorks Challenge. “There is nothing that has been more satisfying in my life than the opportunity to give. I have always believed that the biggest winner is the person who gives a gift. When you give something to the right cause, what you get in return is a tremendous amount of satisfaction, and it is that satisfaction which drives you – which gives you a feeling of purpose. I want others to get involved and participate. If you feel passionate about something, put your money where your mouth is. This is why I will be matching any gift of $500 or greater by 10% made to any NetWork during the NetWorks Challenge. This is an opportunity to multiply your donation before it goes to the CHEST Foundation so that grants and other awards can be larger in the coming years. The NetWorks Challenge helps fund our Diversity Travel Grants Program and provides additional travel grants to each participating NetWork.” Last year, Dr. Surani gave an additional $2,365.17 through his challenge match. Are you up for the challenge this year?

Visit chestfoundation.org/donate today to help shape the future of our discipline!

Recently, the CHEST Foundation had the pleasure of sitting down with Salim Surani, MD, FCCP to get his perspective on the NetWorks Challenge and its impact. Dr. Surani initially got involved with CHEST at the Board level and is now a leader within the Council of NetWorks. “My hope was that I could work within my NetWork to help them become more involved with CHEST and the CHEST Foundation. Through this involvement, I believe we can help shape changes in chest medicine practice dynamics. In the Practice Operations NetWork, we strive to educate physicians in practice to ensure they are up to date with government regulations and how to navigate changes in a positive way, ultimately with the goal of impacting our patients’ lives for the better.”

When asked about his involvement with CHEST and the Foundation, he said “It just makes sense to be involved in an institution that is passionate about taking care of patients and clinicians. The CHEST Foundation has given tens of millions of dollars in funding for grants to help shape the future of the education, the future of research, and the future of better patient care.”

Dr. Surani has always been a strong advocate for the NetWorks Challenge. “There is nothing that has been more satisfying in my life than the opportunity to give. I have always believed that the biggest winner is the person who gives a gift. When you give something to the right cause, what you get in return is a tremendous amount of satisfaction, and it is that satisfaction which drives you – which gives you a feeling of purpose. I want others to get involved and participate. If you feel passionate about something, put your money where your mouth is. This is why I will be matching any gift of $500 or greater by 10% made to any NetWork during the NetWorks Challenge. This is an opportunity to multiply your donation before it goes to the CHEST Foundation so that grants and other awards can be larger in the coming years. The NetWorks Challenge helps fund our Diversity Travel Grants Program and provides additional travel grants to each participating NetWork.” Last year, Dr. Surani gave an additional $2,365.17 through his challenge match. Are you up for the challenge this year?

Visit chestfoundation.org/donate today to help shape the future of our discipline!

Clinical Pulmonary Medicine

Pulmonary embolism in pregnancy: A diagnostic conundrum

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is the 6th leading cause of maternal mortality in the United States. The clinical signs and symptoms of PE are usually nonspecific and often overlap with the normal physiologic changes of pregnancy. Due to low specificity and sensitivity of D-dimer test, pregnant patients with suspected PE often undergo CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) and ventilation-perfusion scanning, both of which can cause radiation exposure to mother and fetus.

To answer whether pregnancy-adapted YEARS algorithm (Van der Hulle T et al. Lancet. 2017;390[10091]:289) can be safely used to avoid diagnostic imaging, Artemis Study Investigators prospectively studied three criteria from YEARS algorithm in combination with a D-dimer level (Van der Pol et al. N Engl J Med. 2019;380[12]:1139. The three criteria included clinical signs of deep-vein thrombosis (DVT), hemoptysis, and PE as the most likely diagnosis. PE was considered ruled out when none of the three criteria were present and D-dimer was less than 1000 ng/mL or if one or more of the criteria were met and D-dimer was less than 500 ng/mL. Patients in whom D-dimer was greater than 1000 ng/mL or in those with D-dimer greater than 500 ng/mL and had 1 or more of the YEARS algorithm criteria present, PE could not be ruled out and underwent CTPA. A modification of the criteria was done only for patients who had clinical signs of DVT at baseline. These patients underwent compression ultrasonography and if a clot was found, CTPA was not performed and patients were started on anticoagulation therapy. Those with negative DVT studies were subclassified based on D-dimer levels as the study population above. Patients in whom pulmonary embolism was not ruled out underwent CTPA. Of these 299 patients, 16 (5.4%) were confirmed to have PE at baseline.

In the remaining 195 patients in whom PE was ruled out on the basis of study protocol, a 3-month follow-up diagnosed one patient (0.51%) with VTE. Using pregnancy-adapted YEARS algorithm, CTPA was avoided in 39% of the patients of which 65% were in their first trimester when the radiation exposure can be most harmful to the fetus.

Muhammad Adrish, MD, FCCP
Steering Committee Member

Munish Luthra, MD, FCCP
Steering Committee Member
 

Cardiovascular Medicine and Surgery

Physical examination of low cardiac output in the ICU

Regarding determination of shock etiology, in a small series of patients with systolic blood pressure < 90 mm Hg, physical exam findings of relatively warm skin temperature and rapid capillary refill had 89% sensitivity for vasodilatory shock, and jugular venous pressure ≥8 had 82% sensitivity for cardiogenic etiologies (Vazquez, et al. J Hosp Med. 2010;5[8]:471). Thus, while physical exam findings may inform bedside shock assessment, their accuracy is limited. Critical care physicians should consider additional assessment techniques, such as echocardiography or invasive hemodynamic monitoring, if diagnostic uncertainty persists (Vincent, et al. N Engl J Med. 2013;369[18]:1726).

Benjamin Kenigsberg, MD
Steering Committee Member

Dr. David Bowton and Dr. Steven Hollenberg contributed to the article.
 

Chest Infections

Lung infections in the transplant recipients

Multiple factors contribute to this increased infection risk, including donor lung colonization, disruption of local host defenses, constant contact with environmental pathogens, and heavy immunosuppression (Redmund KF, et al. Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2009;6[1]:94).

The onset of infectious manifestations, from the time of transplantation, is variable, depending on the organism. Based on the time of onset, infections can be categorized into within the first month posttransplant, 1 to 6 months, and beyond 6 months, posttransplant. During the first month, because of allograft colonization, preexisting infections in the recipient, and surgical- and hospital-acquired nosocomial infections are more common. The first 6 months are where the patients are at the highest risk for opportunistic infections. As the immunosuppression is lowered after 6 months, the causative organisms tend to be more common pathogens (Green M. Am J Transplant. 2013;13 [suppl 4]:3-8).

An early, aggressive, empiric antimicrobial therapy initiation and proactive, invasive diagnostic approach with needed testing to identify the potential pathogen, is imperative in these patients. Early bronchoscopy with bronchoalveolar lavage remains the most sensitive test to identify pathogens. Therapy can then be tailored toward the identified pathogen.

As part of the Chest Infections NetWork, we would like to raise awareness of lung infections in unique subgroups, such as lung transplant recipients. Treating infections in such patients requires a high index of suspicion in the setting of an atypical presentation.

Raed Alalawi, MD, FCCP
Steering Committee Member
 

Interprofessional Team

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) in Near Fatal Asthma

Use of early ECMO to permit spontaneous breathing while the circuit accomplishes required ventilation and oxygenation seems more ideal. Avoidance of mechanical ventilation not only prevents complications like barotrauma but also may reduce delirium, malnutrition, and neuromuscular dysfunction. Performing “awake” ECMO has successfully been described for obstructive airway disease (Langer T, et al. Critical Care. 2016;20[1]:150). Factors limiting this approach are the invasive nature of ECMO and the inherent risks of large cannula dislodgement; however, the safety of this has been demonstrated with ambulation of ECMO patients to receive physical therapy (Abrams D, et al. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2019;8[1]:44). Alternatively, extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal (ECCO2R) systems utilize smaller catheters to satisfactorily remove CO₂ while oxygen supplementation could be achieved via nasal cannula (Pisani L, et al. Respiratory Care. 2018;63[9]:1174). Incorporation of ECMO in select cases of NFA, especially ECCO2R, should be considered as an early rather than rescue therapy for acute severe asthma refractory to conventional medical therapy.

Robert Baeten, DMSc, PA-C, FCCP
Steering Committee Member

Munish Luthra MD, FCCP
Steering Committee Member
 

Clinical Pulmonary Medicine

Pulmonary embolism in pregnancy: A diagnostic conundrum

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is the 6th leading cause of maternal mortality in the United States. The clinical signs and symptoms of PE are usually nonspecific and often overlap with the normal physiologic changes of pregnancy. Due to low specificity and sensitivity of D-dimer test, pregnant patients with suspected PE often undergo CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) and ventilation-perfusion scanning, both of which can cause radiation exposure to mother and fetus.

To answer whether pregnancy-adapted YEARS algorithm (Van der Hulle T et al. Lancet. 2017;390[10091]:289) can be safely used to avoid diagnostic imaging, Artemis Study Investigators prospectively studied three criteria from YEARS algorithm in combination with a D-dimer level (Van der Pol et al. N Engl J Med. 2019;380[12]:1139. The three criteria included clinical signs of deep-vein thrombosis (DVT), hemoptysis, and PE as the most likely diagnosis. PE was considered ruled out when none of the three criteria were present and D-dimer was less than 1000 ng/mL or if one or more of the criteria were met and D-dimer was less than 500 ng/mL. Patients in whom D-dimer was greater than 1000 ng/mL or in those with D-dimer greater than 500 ng/mL and had 1 or more of the YEARS algorithm criteria present, PE could not be ruled out and underwent CTPA. A modification of the criteria was done only for patients who had clinical signs of DVT at baseline. These patients underwent compression ultrasonography and if a clot was found, CTPA was not performed and patients were started on anticoagulation therapy. Those with negative DVT studies were subclassified based on D-dimer levels as the study population above. Patients in whom pulmonary embolism was not ruled out underwent CTPA. Of these 299 patients, 16 (5.4%) were confirmed to have PE at baseline.

In the remaining 195 patients in whom PE was ruled out on the basis of study protocol, a 3-month follow-up diagnosed one patient (0.51%) with VTE. Using pregnancy-adapted YEARS algorithm, CTPA was avoided in 39% of the patients of which 65% were in their first trimester when the radiation exposure can be most harmful to the fetus.

Muhammad Adrish, MD, FCCP
Steering Committee Member

Munish Luthra, MD, FCCP
Steering Committee Member
 

Cardiovascular Medicine and Surgery

Physical examination of low cardiac output in the ICU

Regarding determination of shock etiology, in a small series of patients with systolic blood pressure < 90 mm Hg, physical exam findings of relatively warm skin temperature and rapid capillary refill had 89% sensitivity for vasodilatory shock, and jugular venous pressure ≥8 had 82% sensitivity for cardiogenic etiologies (Vazquez, et al. J Hosp Med. 2010;5[8]:471). Thus, while physical exam findings may inform bedside shock assessment, their accuracy is limited. Critical care physicians should consider additional assessment techniques, such as echocardiography or invasive hemodynamic monitoring, if diagnostic uncertainty persists (Vincent, et al. N Engl J Med. 2013;369[18]:1726).

Benjamin Kenigsberg, MD
Steering Committee Member

Dr. David Bowton and Dr. Steven Hollenberg contributed to the article.
 

Chest Infections

Lung infections in the transplant recipients

Multiple factors contribute to this increased infection risk, including donor lung colonization, disruption of local host defenses, constant contact with environmental pathogens, and heavy immunosuppression (Redmund KF, et al. Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2009;6[1]:94).

The onset of infectious manifestations, from the time of transplantation, is variable, depending on the organism. Based on the time of onset, infections can be categorized into within the first month posttransplant, 1 to 6 months, and beyond 6 months, posttransplant. During the first month, because of allograft colonization, preexisting infections in the recipient, and surgical- and hospital-acquired nosocomial infections are more common. The first 6 months are where the patients are at the highest risk for opportunistic infections. As the immunosuppression is lowered after 6 months, the causative organisms tend to be more common pathogens (Green M. Am J Transplant. 2013;13 [suppl 4]:3-8).

An early, aggressive, empiric antimicrobial therapy initiation and proactive, invasive diagnostic approach with needed testing to identify the potential pathogen, is imperative in these patients. Early bronchoscopy with bronchoalveolar lavage remains the most sensitive test to identify pathogens. Therapy can then be tailored toward the identified pathogen.

As part of the Chest Infections NetWork, we would like to raise awareness of lung infections in unique subgroups, such as lung transplant recipients. Treating infections in such patients requires a high index of suspicion in the setting of an atypical presentation.

Raed Alalawi, MD, FCCP
Steering Committee Member
 

Interprofessional Team

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) in Near Fatal Asthma

Use of early ECMO to permit spontaneous breathing while the circuit accomplishes required ventilation and oxygenation seems more ideal. Avoidance of mechanical ventilation not only prevents complications like barotrauma but also may reduce delirium, malnutrition, and neuromuscular dysfunction. Performing “awake” ECMO has successfully been described for obstructive airway disease (Langer T, et al. Critical Care. 2016;20[1]:150). Factors limiting this approach are the invasive nature of ECMO and the inherent risks of large cannula dislodgement; however, the safety of this has been demonstrated with ambulation of ECMO patients to receive physical therapy (Abrams D, et al. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2019;8[1]:44). Alternatively, extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal (ECCO2R) systems utilize smaller catheters to satisfactorily remove CO₂ while oxygen supplementation could be achieved via nasal cannula (Pisani L, et al. Respiratory Care. 2018;63[9]:1174). Incorporation of ECMO in select cases of NFA, especially ECCO2R, should be considered as an early rather than rescue therapy for acute severe asthma refractory to conventional medical therapy.

Robert Baeten, DMSc, PA-C, FCCP
Steering Committee Member

Munish Luthra MD, FCCP
Steering Committee Member
 

Clinical Pulmonary Medicine

Pulmonary embolism in pregnancy: A diagnostic conundrum

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is the 6th leading cause of maternal mortality in the United States. The clinical signs and symptoms of PE are usually nonspecific and often overlap with the normal physiologic changes of pregnancy. Due to low specificity and sensitivity of D-dimer test, pregnant patients with suspected PE often undergo CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) and ventilation-perfusion scanning, both of which can cause radiation exposure to mother and fetus.

To answer whether pregnancy-adapted YEARS algorithm (Van der Hulle T et al. Lancet. 2017;390[10091]:289) can be safely used to avoid diagnostic imaging, Artemis Study Investigators prospectively studied three criteria from YEARS algorithm in combination with a D-dimer level (Van der Pol et al. N Engl J Med. 2019;380[12]:1139. The three criteria included clinical signs of deep-vein thrombosis (DVT), hemoptysis, and PE as the most likely diagnosis. PE was considered ruled out when none of the three criteria were present and D-dimer was less than 1000 ng/mL or if one or more of the criteria were met and D-dimer was less than 500 ng/mL. Patients in whom D-dimer was greater than 1000 ng/mL or in those with D-dimer greater than 500 ng/mL and had 1 or more of the YEARS algorithm criteria present, PE could not be ruled out and underwent CTPA. A modification of the criteria was done only for patients who had clinical signs of DVT at baseline. These patients underwent compression ultrasonography and if a clot was found, CTPA was not performed and patients were started on anticoagulation therapy. Those with negative DVT studies were subclassified based on D-dimer levels as the study population above. Patients in whom pulmonary embolism was not ruled out underwent CTPA. Of these 299 patients, 16 (5.4%) were confirmed to have PE at baseline.

In the remaining 195 patients in whom PE was ruled out on the basis of study protocol, a 3-month follow-up diagnosed one patient (0.51%) with VTE. Using pregnancy-adapted YEARS algorithm, CTPA was avoided in 39% of the patients of which 65% were in their first trimester when the radiation exposure can be most harmful to the fetus.

Muhammad Adrish, MD, FCCP
Steering Committee Member

Munish Luthra, MD, FCCP
Steering Committee Member
 

Cardiovascular Medicine and Surgery

Physical examination of low cardiac output in the ICU

Regarding determination of shock etiology, in a small series of patients with systolic blood pressure < 90 mm Hg, physical exam findings of relatively warm skin temperature and rapid capillary refill had 89% sensitivity for vasodilatory shock, and jugular venous pressure ≥8 had 82% sensitivity for cardiogenic etiologies (Vazquez, et al. J Hosp Med. 2010;5[8]:471). Thus, while physical exam findings may inform bedside shock assessment, their accuracy is limited. Critical care physicians should consider additional assessment techniques, such as echocardiography or invasive hemodynamic monitoring, if diagnostic uncertainty persists (Vincent, et al. N Engl J Med. 2013;369[18]:1726).

Benjamin Kenigsberg, MD
Steering Committee Member

Dr. David Bowton and Dr. Steven Hollenberg contributed to the article.
 

Chest Infections

Lung infections in the transplant recipients

Multiple factors contribute to this increased infection risk, including donor lung colonization, disruption of local host defenses, constant contact with environmental pathogens, and heavy immunosuppression (Redmund KF, et al. Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2009;6[1]:94).

The onset of infectious manifestations, from the time of transplantation, is variable, depending on the organism. Based on the time of onset, infections can be categorized into within the first month posttransplant, 1 to 6 months, and beyond 6 months, posttransplant. During the first month, because of allograft colonization, preexisting infections in the recipient, and surgical- and hospital-acquired nosocomial infections are more common. The first 6 months are where the patients are at the highest risk for opportunistic infections. As the immunosuppression is lowered after 6 months, the causative organisms tend to be more common pathogens (Green M. Am J Transplant. 2013;13 [suppl 4]:3-8).

An early, aggressive, empiric antimicrobial therapy initiation and proactive, invasive diagnostic approach with needed testing to identify the potential pathogen, is imperative in these patients. Early bronchoscopy with bronchoalveolar lavage remains the most sensitive test to identify pathogens. Therapy can then be tailored toward the identified pathogen.

As part of the Chest Infections NetWork, we would like to raise awareness of lung infections in unique subgroups, such as lung transplant recipients. Treating infections in such patients requires a high index of suspicion in the setting of an atypical presentation.

Raed Alalawi, MD, FCCP
Steering Committee Member
 

Interprofessional Team

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) in Near Fatal Asthma

Use of early ECMO to permit spontaneous breathing while the circuit accomplishes required ventilation and oxygenation seems more ideal. Avoidance of mechanical ventilation not only prevents complications like barotrauma but also may reduce delirium, malnutrition, and neuromuscular dysfunction. Performing “awake” ECMO has successfully been described for obstructive airway disease (Langer T, et al. Critical Care. 2016;20[1]:150). Factors limiting this approach are the invasive nature of ECMO and the inherent risks of large cannula dislodgement; however, the safety of this has been demonstrated with ambulation of ECMO patients to receive physical therapy (Abrams D, et al. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2019;8[1]:44). Alternatively, extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal (ECCO2R) systems utilize smaller catheters to satisfactorily remove CO₂ while oxygen supplementation could be achieved via nasal cannula (Pisani L, et al. Respiratory Care. 2018;63[9]:1174). Incorporation of ECMO in select cases of NFA, especially ECCO2R, should be considered as an early rather than rescue therapy for acute severe asthma refractory to conventional medical therapy.

Robert Baeten, DMSc, PA-C, FCCP
Steering Committee Member

Munish Luthra MD, FCCP
Steering Committee Member
 

What makes the traditional New Orleans food so special? The flair and broad history for these dishes unite the city and the love for all things tasty with its seafood, Creole, Cajun, and many other types of food options. We’ve picked five famous New Orleans dishes that you should try while you attend CHEST 2019.

GUMBO

As one of Louisiana’s quintessential dishes, you can find gumbo in restaurants, at events, and homes all over the state. Claiming both French and West African roots, there’s no one way to make gumbo, but it is usually served over rice and with a wide variety of other ingredients. With so many different recipes that each family and cook has perfected to be the “best,” most cooks tend to guard their recipes closely.

CRAWFISH ETOUFFEE

The word étouffée (pronounced eh-too-fey) comes from the French word “to smother.” This dish is a very thick stew full of crawfish (or shrimp) served over rice. It is also similar in some way to gumbo – same types of Creole seasonings, served over rice, and made with a roux – but it is often made with a “blonde” roux, which is lighter in color and gives an almost sweet flavor. It’s a taste that’s worth trying and claimed you won’t forget.

JAMBALAYA

Another famous and traditional New Orleans dish is jambalaya. This is a rice dish that is a culinary staple of the city with a history from the time when colonial Spanish settlers tried reconstructing their native paella from locally sourced ingredients. It typically contains a mix of meat, vegetables, spices, and rice, combined in a variety of ways.

PO-BOYS

This classic French bread sandwich is stuffed and slathered with sauce. Filled with lettuce, tomato, and pickles, it’s usually whatever filled with whatever meat you choose – roast beef, fried shrimp, oysters. This allows for many types of po-boy sandwiches. You tend to see very creative po-boys at the Oak Street Po-Boy Festival each year.

BEIGNETS

These pastries are more than just a doughnut and are famous for being a doughnut without the hole. As the city’s most popular sweet treat and staple, locals and visitors can enjoy beignets all year long, available 24-hours a day in New Orleans at more than one coffee hotspot.

What makes the traditional New Orleans food so special? The flair and broad history for these dishes unite the city and the love for all things tasty with its seafood, Creole, Cajun, and many other types of food options. We’ve picked five famous New Orleans dishes that you should try while you attend CHEST 2019.

GUMBO

As one of Louisiana’s quintessential dishes, you can find gumbo in restaurants, at events, and homes all over the state. Claiming both French and West African roots, there’s no one way to make gumbo, but it is usually served over rice and with a wide variety of other ingredients. With so many different recipes that each family and cook has perfected to be the “best,” most cooks tend to guard their recipes closely.

CRAWFISH ETOUFFEE

The word étouffée (pronounced eh-too-fey) comes from the French word “to smother.” This dish is a very thick stew full of crawfish (or shrimp) served over rice. It is also similar in some way to gumbo – same types of Creole seasonings, served over rice, and made with a roux – but it is often made with a “blonde” roux, which is lighter in color and gives an almost sweet flavor. It’s a taste that’s worth trying and claimed you won’t forget.

JAMBALAYA

Another famous and traditional New Orleans dish is jambalaya. This is a rice dish that is a culinary staple of the city with a history from the time when colonial Spanish settlers tried reconstructing their native paella from locally sourced ingredients. It typically contains a mix of meat, vegetables, spices, and rice, combined in a variety of ways.

PO-BOYS

This classic French bread sandwich is stuffed and slathered with sauce. Filled with lettuce, tomato, and pickles, it’s usually whatever filled with whatever meat you choose – roast beef, fried shrimp, oysters. This allows for many types of po-boy sandwiches. You tend to see very creative po-boys at the Oak Street Po-Boy Festival each year.

BEIGNETS

These pastries are more than just a doughnut and are famous for being a doughnut without the hole. As the city’s most popular sweet treat and staple, locals and visitors can enjoy beignets all year long, available 24-hours a day in New Orleans at more than one coffee hotspot.

What makes the traditional New Orleans food so special? The flair and broad history for these dishes unite the city and the love for all things tasty with its seafood, Creole, Cajun, and many other types of food options. We’ve picked five famous New Orleans dishes that you should try while you attend CHEST 2019.

GUMBO

As one of Louisiana’s quintessential dishes, you can find gumbo in restaurants, at events, and homes all over the state. Claiming both French and West African roots, there’s no one way to make gumbo, but it is usually served over rice and with a wide variety of other ingredients. With so many different recipes that each family and cook has perfected to be the “best,” most cooks tend to guard their recipes closely.

CRAWFISH ETOUFFEE

The word étouffée (pronounced eh-too-fey) comes from the French word “to smother.” This dish is a very thick stew full of crawfish (or shrimp) served over rice. It is also similar in some way to gumbo – same types of Creole seasonings, served over rice, and made with a roux – but it is often made with a “blonde” roux, which is lighter in color and gives an almost sweet flavor. It’s a taste that’s worth trying and claimed you won’t forget.

JAMBALAYA

Another famous and traditional New Orleans dish is jambalaya. This is a rice dish that is a culinary staple of the city with a history from the time when colonial Spanish settlers tried reconstructing their native paella from locally sourced ingredients. It typically contains a mix of meat, vegetables, spices, and rice, combined in a variety of ways.

PO-BOYS

This classic French bread sandwich is stuffed and slathered with sauce. Filled with lettuce, tomato, and pickles, it’s usually whatever filled with whatever meat you choose – roast beef, fried shrimp, oysters. This allows for many types of po-boy sandwiches. You tend to see very creative po-boys at the Oak Street Po-Boy Festival each year.

BEIGNETS

These pastries are more than just a doughnut and are famous for being a doughnut without the hole. As the city’s most popular sweet treat and staple, locals and visitors can enjoy beignets all year long, available 24-hours a day in New Orleans at more than one coffee hotspot.