Conservative versus Interventional Treatment for Spontaneous Pneumothorax.

BACKGROUND: Whether conservative management is an acceptable alternative to interventional management for uncomplicated, moderate-to-large primary spontaneous pneumothorax is unknown. METHODS: In this open-label, multicenter, noninferiority trial, we recruited patients 14 to 50 years of age with a first-known, unilateral, moderate-to-large primary spontaneous pneumothorax. Patients were randomly assigned to immediate interventional management of the pneumothorax (intervention group) or a conservative observational approach (conservative-management group) and were followed for 12 months. The primary outcome was lung reexpansion within 8 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 316 patients underwent randomization (154 patients to the intervention group and 162 to the conservative-management group). In the conservative-management group, 25 patients (15.4%) underwent interventions to manage the pneumothorax, for reasons prespecified in the protocol, and 137 (84.6%) did not undergo interventions. In a complete-case analysis in which data were not available for 23 patients in the intervention group and 37 in the conservative-management group, reexpansion within 8 weeks occurred in 129 of 131 patients (98.5%) with interventional management and in 118 of 125 (94.4%) with conservative management (risk difference, -4.1 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -8.6 to 0.5; P = 0.02 for noninferiority); the lower boundary of the 95% confidence interval was within the prespecified noninferiority margin of -9 percentage points. In a sensitivity analysis in which all missing data after 56 days were imputed as treatment failure (with reexpansion in 129 of 138 patients [93.5%] in the intervention group and in 118 of 143 [82.5%] in the conservative-management group), the risk difference of -11.0 percentage points (95% CI, -18.4 to -3.5) was outside the prespecified noninferiority margin. Conservative management resulted in a lower risk of serious adverse events or pneumothorax recurrence than interventional management. CONCLUSIONS: Although the primary outcome was not statistically robust to conservative assumptions about missing data, the trial provides modest evidence that conservative management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax was noninferior to interventional management, with a lower risk of serious adverse events. (Funded by the Emergency Medicine Foundation and others; PSP Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12611000184976.).

Prehospital continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for acute respiratory distress: a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) versus usual care for prehospital patients with severe respiratory distress. METHODS: We conducted a parallel group, individual patient, non-blinded randomised controlled trial in Western Australia between March 2016 and December 2018. Eligible patients were aged ≥40 years with acute severe respiratory distress of non-traumatic origin and unresponsive to initial treatments by emergency medical service (EMS) paramedics. Patients were randomised (1:1) to usual care or usual care plus CPAP. The primary outcomes were change in dyspnoea score and change in RR at ED arrival, and hospital length of stay. RESULTS: 708 patients were randomly assigned (opaque sealed envelope) to usual care (n=346) or CPAP (n=362). Compared with usual care, patients randomised to CPAP had a greater reduction in dyspnoea scores (usual care -1.0, IQR -3.0 to 0.0 vs CPAP -3.5, IQR -5.2 to -2.0), median difference -2.0 (95% CI -2.5 to -1.6); and RR (usual care -4.0, IQR -9.0 to 0.0 min-1 vs CPAP -8.0, IQR -14.0 to -4.0 min-1), median difference -4.0 (95% CI -5.0 to -4.0) min-1. There was no difference in hospital length of stay (usual care 4.2, IQR 2.1 to 7.8 days vs CPAP 4.8, IQR 2.5 to 7.9 days) for the n=624 cases admitted to hospital, median difference 0.36 (95% CI -0.17 to 0.90). CONCLUSIONS: The use of prehospital CPAP by EMS paramedics reduced dyspnoea and tachypnoea in patients with acute respiratory distress but did not impact hospital length of stay. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12615001180505.

Models of care for severe asthma: the role of primary care.

Severe asthma encompasses treatment-refractory asthma and difficult-to-treat asthma. There are a number of barriers in primary, secondary and tertiary settings which compromise optimal care for severe asthma in Australia. Guidelines recommend a multidimensional assessment of severe asthma, which includes confirming the diagnosis, severity and phenotype and identifying and treating comorbidities and risk factors. This approach has been found to improve severe asthma symptoms and quality of life and reduce exacerbations. Primary care providers can contribute significantly to the multidimensional approach for severe asthma by performing spirometry, optimising therapy and addressing risk factors such as non-adherence and smoking before referring the patient to a respiratory physician for review. Primary care practitioners are encouraged to remain engaged with the management of a patient with severe asthma following specialist review by assisting with community-based allied health referrals, managing general medical comorbidities and administering prescribed biological therapies. Specialists can support primary care by providing advice to individuals with indeterminate diagnosis, streamlining investigation and management of unrecognised risk factors and complex comorbidities, optimising treatment for severe or difficult asthma including assessment of suitability for and, if appropriate, initiating advanced therapies such as biological therapies. When discharging patients back to primary care, specialists should provide clear recommendations regarding ongoing management and should specify the indications requiring further specialist review, ideally offering a streamlined re-referral pathway.

Paramedic Differentiation of Asthma and COPD in the Prehospital Setting Is Difficult.

INTRODUCTION: Separate clinical practice guidelines (CPG) for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) often guide prehospital care. However, having distinct CPGs implies that paramedics can accurately differentiate these conditions. We compared the accuracy of paramedic identification of these two conditions against the emergency department (ED) discharge diagnosis. METHODS: A retrospective cohort of all patients transported to ED by ambulance in Perth, Western Australia between July 2012 and June 2013; and identified as "asthma" or "COPD" by paramedics. We linked ambulance data to emergency department discharge diagnosis. RESULTS: Of 1,067 patients identified by paramedics as having asthma, 41% had an ED discharge diagnosis of asthma, i.e., positive predictive value (PPV) = 41% (95% CI 38-44%). Of 1,048 patients recorded as COPD, 57% had an ED discharge diagnosis of COPD (PPV 57%; 95% CI 54-60%). Sensitivity for the paramedic identification of patients diagnosed with asthma or COPD in the ED was 66% for asthma (95% CI 63-70%) and 39% for COPD (95% CI 36-41%). Paramedics reported wheezing in 86% of asthma and 55% of COPD patients. CONCLUSION: Differentiating between asthma and COPD in the prehospital setting is difficult. A single CPG for respiratory distress would be more useful for the clinical management of these patients by paramedics.

Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of invasive versus conservative management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax.

INTRODUCTION: Current management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax (PSP) is variable, with little evidence from randomised controlled trials to guide treatment. Guidelines emphasise intervention in many patients, which involves chest drain insertion, hospital admission and occasionally surgery. However, there is evidence that conservative management may be effective and safe, and it may also reduce the risk of recurrence. Significant questions remain regarding the optimal initial approach to the management of PSP. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This multicentre, prospective, randomised, open label, parallel group, non-inferiority study will randomise 342 participants with a first large PSP to conservative or interventional management. To maintain allocation concealment, randomisation will be performed in real time by computer and stratified by study site. Conservative management will involve a period of observation prior to discharge, with intervention for worsening symptoms or physiological instability. Interventional treatment will involve insertion of a small bore drain. If drainage continues after 1 hour, the patient will be admitted. If drainage stops, the drain will be clamped for 4 hours. The patient will be discharged if the lung remains inflated. Otherwise, the patient will be admitted. The primary end point is the proportion of participants with complete lung re-expansion by 8 weeks. Secondary end points are as follows: days in hospital, persistent air leak, predefined complications and adverse events, time to resolution of symptoms, and pneumothorax recurrence during a follow-up period of at least 1 year. The study has 95% power to detect an absolute non-inferiority margin of 9%, assuming 99% successful expansion at 8 weeks in the invasive treatment arm. The primary analysis will be by intention to treat. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Local ethics approval has been obtained for all sites. Study findings will be disseminated by publication in a high-impact international journal and presentation at major international Emergency Medicine and Respiratory meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12611000184976; Pre-results.