Ambulatory management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax: an open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Primary spontaneous pneumothorax occurs in otherwise healthy young patients. Optimal management is not defined and often results in prolonged hospitalisation. Data on efficacy of ambulatory options are poor. We aimed to describe the duration of hospitalisation and safety of ambulatory management compared with standard care. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised controlled trial, adults (aged 16-55 years) with symptomatic primary spontaneous pneumothorax were recruited from 24 UK hospitals during a period of 3 years. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to treatment with either an ambulatory device or standard guideline-based management (aspiration, standard chest tube insertion, or both). The primary outcome was total length of hospital stay including re-admission up to 30 days after randomisation. Patients with available data were included in the primary analysis and all assigned patients were included in the safety analysis. The trial was prospectively registered with the International Standard Randomised Clinical Trials Number, ISRCTN79151659. FINDINGS: Of 776 patients screened between July, 2015, and March, 2019, 236 (30%) were randomly assigned to ambulatory care (n=117) and standard care (n=119). At day 30, the median hospitalisation was significantly shorter in the 114 patients with available data who received ambulatory treatment (0 days [IQR 0-3]) than in the 113 with available data who received standard care (4 days [IQR 0-8]; p<0·0001; median difference 2 days [95% CI 1-3]). 110 (47%) of 236 patients had adverse events, including 64 (55%) of 117 patients in the ambulatory care arm and 46 (39%) of 119 in the standard care arm. All 14 serious adverse events occurred in patients who received ambulatory care, eight (57%) of which were related to the intervention, including an enlarging pneumothorax, asymptomatic pulmonary oedema, and the device malfunctioning, leaking, or dislodging. INTERPRETATION: Ambulatory management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax significantly reduced the duration of hospitalisation including re-admissions in the first 30 days, but at the expense of increased adverse events. This data suggests that primary spontaneous pneumothorax can be managed for outpatients, using ambulatory devices in those who require intervention. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research.

Ambulatory management of secondary spontaneous pneumothorax: a randomised controlled trial.

Secondary spontaneous pneumothorax (SSP) is traditionally managed with an intercostal chest tube attached to an underwater seal. We investigated whether use of a one-way flutter valve shortened patients' length of stay (LoS).This open-label randomised controlled trial enrolled patients presenting with SSP and randomised to either a chest tube and underwater seal (standard care: SC) or ambulatory care (AC) with a flutter valve. The type of flutter valve used depended on whether at randomisation the patient already had a chest tube in place: in those without a chest tube a pleural vent (PV) was used; in those with a chest tube in situ, an Atrium Pneumostat (AP) valve was attached. The primary end-point was LoS.Between March 2017 and March 2020, 41 patients underwent randomisation: 20 to SC and 21 to AC (13=PV, 8=AP). There was no difference in LoS in the first 30 days following treatment intervention: AC (median=6 days, IQR 14.5) and SC (median=6 days, IQR 13.3). In patients treated with PV there was a high rate of early treatment failure (6/13; 46%), compared to patients receiving SC (3/20; 15%) (p=0.11) Patients treated with AP had no (0/8 0%) early treatment failures and a median LoS of 1.5 days (IQR 23.8).There was no difference in LoS between ambulatory and standard care. Pleural Vents had high rates of treatment failure and should not be used in SSP. Atrium Pneumostats are a safer alternative, with a trend towards lower LoS.

Understanding clinical decision-making in mesothelioma care: a mixed methods study.

INTRODUCTION: Malignant pleural mesothelioma is a rare, incurable cancer arising from previous asbestos exposure; patients have a poor prognosis, with a median survival rate of 8-14 months. Variation in mesothelioma clinical decision-making remains common with a lack of multidisciplinary knowledge sharing, leading to inconsistencies in treatment decisions. The study aimed to explore which factors impacted on clinicians' decision-making in mesothelioma care, with a view to optimising the mesothelioma care pathway. METHODS: This mixed methods study consisted of documentary analysis of local and national guidelines, policies or documents pertaining to mesothelioma care pathways, secondary analysis of mesothelioma patient data, and interviews with clinicians attending lung cancer and/or mesothelioma-specific multidisciplinary team meetings. The study took place at three National Health Service trusts in England. Documentations relating to patients' treatment pathways were collated and reviewed qualitatively. Records of patients with mesothelioma were extracted from hospital patient records and data collected on diagnosis date, treatment, mortality rates, survival postdiagnosis, age and clinical care team. Data were statistically analysed. Interviews with clinicians explored influences on clinical decision-making, including challenges or barriers involved. Data were thematically analysed. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology reporting checklist was used. RESULTS: There were differences in the structure and delivery of mesothelioma treatment and care between trusts. Four main themes were identified: 'collaboration and communication', 'evidence base and knowledge', 'role of the clinician' and 'role of the patient'. Two cross-cutting themes relating to the role of the mesothelioma nurse specialist and the impact of COVID-19 were identified. DISCUSSION: There is a need to review the structure of mesothelioma multidisciplinary team meetings to ensure patients are reviewed by clinicians with appropriate knowledge, expertise and understanding of how, why and when decisions should be made. There is a need for expert clinicians in mesothelioma care to promote an up-to-date evidence and knowledge base within the wider multidisciplinary team.

Missed opportunity to diagnose HIV with Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia as its sequela.

Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP) is an opportunistic infection of the lung occurring primarily in patients with HIV infection with a CD4 cell count <200 mm3, solid organ transplant recipients and those taking immunosuppressive therapy. The 1980s heralded the HIV pandemic, turning PCP into a major medical and public health problem worldwide. Manifestations of unusual infections such as pneumocystis and Kaposi's sarcoma, were, after all, the first signs of the emerging pandemic to be recognised and may indeed, be the presenting feature of a previously undiagnosed HIV infection. With the advent of pneumocystis chemoprophylaxis and the initiation of highly active antiretroviral therapy, there has been a decreased incidence in developed countries, but it remains high in developing countries. Unfortunately, late presentation of HIV remains a problem resulting in significant morbidity and mortality. The authors report the case of a new diagnosis of HIV infection in a 45-year-old woman, presenting with a dry cough, dyspnoea, unintentional weight loss and PCP. Two weeks after commencing highly active antiretroviral therapy, she was diagnosed with immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome. Research shows that stigma and discrimination in the healthcare setting contributes to keeping individuals from accessing HIV prevention, care and treatment services and adopting key preventive behaviours. The barriers to HIV testing and stigma eradication in primary care will be explored as well as missed opportunities to diagnosis HIV in primary care in individuals presenting with signs and symptoms of immunosuppression, in this case shingles.