Successful Needle Aspiration of a Traumatic Pneumothorax: A Case Report and Literature Review.

Traumatic pneumothorax (PTX) occurs in up to 50% of patients with severe polytrauma and chest injuries. Patients with a traumatic PTX with clinical signs of tension physiology and hemodynamic instability are typically treated with an urgent decompressive thoracostomy, tube thoracostomy, or needle decompression. There is recent evidence that non-breathless patients with a hemodynamically stable traumatic PTX can be managed conservatively through observation or a percutaneous pigtail catheter. We present here a 52-year-old woman who presented to the emergency department with a 55 mm traumatic PTX. Following aspiration of 1500 mL of air, a clinical improvement was immediately observed, allowing the patient to be discharged shortly thereafter. In hemodynamically stable patients with a post-traumatic PTX, without specific risk factors or oxygen desaturation, observation or simple needle aspiration can be a reasonable approach. Although the recent medical literature supports conservative management of small traumatic PTXs, guidelines are lacking for hemodynamically stable patients with a significantly large PTX. This case report documents our successful experience with needle aspiration in such a setting of large traumatic PTX. We aimed in this article to review the available literature on needle aspiration and conservative treatment of traumatic pneumothorax. A total of 12 studies were selected out of 190 articles on traumatic PTX where conservative treatment and chest tube decompression were compared. Our case report offers a novel contribution by illustrating the successful resolution of a sizable pneumothorax through needle aspiration, suggesting that even a large PTX in a hemodynamically stable patient, without other risk conditions, can be successfully treated conservatively with simple needle aspiration in order to avoid tube thoracostomy complications.

Edoxaban and/or colchicine in outpatients with COVID-19: rationale and design of the CONVINCE trial.

BACKGROUND: An excessive inflammatory response and a hypercoagulable state are not infrequent in patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) and are associated with adverse clinical outcomes. However, the optimal treatment strategy for COVID-19 patients managed in the out-of-hospital setting is still uncertain. DESIGN: The CONVINCE (NCT04516941) is an investigator-initiated, open-label, blinded-endpoint, 2 × 2 factorial design randomized trial aimed at assessing two independently tested hypotheses (anticoagulation and anti-inflammatory ones) in COVID-19 patients. Adult symptomatic patients (≥18 years of age) within 7 days from reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection managed at home or in nursery settings were considered for eligibility. Eligible patients fulfilling all inclusion and no exclusion criteria were randomized to edoxaban versus no treatment (anticoagulation hypothesis) and colchicine versus no treatment (anti-inflammatory hypothesis) in a 1 : 1:1 : 1 ratio. The study had two co-primary endpoints (one for each randomization), including the composite of major vascular thrombotic events at 25 ±â€Š3 days for the anticoagulation hypothesis and the composite of SARS-CoV-2 detection rates at 14 ±â€Š3 days by RT-PCR or freedom from death or hospitalizations (anti-inflammatory hypothesis). Study endpoints will be adjudicated by a blinded Clinical Events Committee. With a final sample size of 420 patients, this study projects an 80% power for each of the two primary endpoints appraised separately. CONCLUSION: The CONVINCE trial aims at determining whether targeting anticoagulation and/or anti-inflammatory pathways may confer benefit in COVID-19 patients managed in the out-of-hospital setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04516941.

Biochemical but not imaging parameters are predictive of outcome in septic shock: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Septic shock is a severe form of sepsis marked by hypotension with an ominous outcome despite the introduction of modern intensive care. The aim of the present study is to obtain a panel with biomarkers, echocardiographic and vascular parameters to better risk stratify patients and identify those at higher risk of ominous outcome. METHODS: Between May 2013 and April 2016, 35 consecutive patients admitted at the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of ASST Great Metropolitan Hospital Niguarda with the diagnosis of severe sepsis or septic shock were enrolled. All patients underwent rest echocardiography and several circulating biomarkers of myocardial damage or oxidative stress. RESULTS: The multivariate Cox's proportional hazard model showed that the only independent prognostic predictor for 30-day mortality was the angiopoietin-2, (HR 1.017, 95% CI 1.000-1.034; P = 0.049). An angiopoietin-2 concentrations ≥ of 33,418 pg/mL was identified as the optimal threshold for the discrimination between survivors and non survivors at the time of admission in ICU, with a sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of 68%. CONCLUSIONS: Septic shock has a poor in-hospital outcome even when the best of care is implemented. Among the biochemical parameters angiopoietin was able to identify patients at risk of death. The lowest the value at admission, the highest the risk of in-hospital death. No echocardiographic nor vascular parameter was able to predict outcome in this setting.

Enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized COVID-19 patients: The X-COVID-19 Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: It is uncertain whether higher doses of anticoagulants than recommended for thromboprophylaxis are necessary in COVID-19 patients hospitalized in general wards METHODS: This is a multicentre, open-label, randomized trial performed in 9 Italian centres, comparing 40 mg b.i.d. versus 40 mg o.d. enoxaparin in COVID-19 patients, between April 30 2020 and April 25 2021. Primary efficacy outcome was in-hospital incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE): asymptomatic or symptomatic proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) diagnosed by serial compression ultrasonography (CUS), and/or symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) diagnosed by computed tomography angiography (CTA). Secondary endpoints included each individual component of the primary efficacy outcome and a composite of death, VTE, mechanical ventilation, stroke, myocardial infarction, admission to ICU. Safety outcomes included major bleeding. RESULTS: The study was interrupted prematurely due to slow recruitment. We included 183 (96%) of the 189 enrolled patients in the primary analysis (91 in b.i.d., 92 in o.d.). Primary efficacy outcome occurred in 6 patients (6.5%, 0 DVT, 6 PE) in the o.d. group and 0 in the b.id. group (ARR 6.5, 95% CI: 1.5-11.6). The absence of concomitant DVT and imaging characteristics suggests that most pulmonary artery occlusions were actually caused by local thrombi rather than PE. Statistically nonsignificant differences in secondary and safety endpoints were observed, with two major bleeding events in each arm. CONCLUSIONS: No DVT developed in COVID-19 patients hospitalized in general wards, independently of enoxaparin dosing used for thromboprophylaxis. Pulmonary artery occlusions developed only in the o.d. group. Our trial is underpowered and with few events.

Survival and quality of life after early discharge in low-risk pulmonary embolism.

INTRODUCTION: Early discharge of patients with acute low-risk pulmonary embolism requires validation by prospective trials with clinical and quality-of-life outcomes. METHODS: The multinational Home Treatment of Patients with Low-Risk Pulmonary Embolism with the Oral Factor Xa Inhibitor Rivaroxaban (HoT-PE) single-arm management trial investigated early discharge followed by ambulatory treatment with rivaroxaban. The study was stopped for efficacy after the positive results of the predefined interim analysis at 50% of the planned population. The present analysis includes the entire trial population (576 patients). In addition to 3-month recurrence (primary outcome) and 1-year overall mortality, we analysed self-reported disease-specific (Pulmonary Embolism Quality of Life (PEmb-QoL) questionnaire) and generic (five-level five-dimension EuroQoL (EQ-5D-5L) scale) quality of life as well as treatment satisfaction (Anti-Clot Treatment Scale (ACTS)) after pulmonary embolism. RESULTS: The primary efficacy outcome occurred in three (0.5%, one-sided upper 95% CI 1.3%) patients. The 1-year mortality was 2.4%. The mean±sd PEmb-QoL decreased from 28.9±20.6% at 3 weeks to 19.9±15.4% at 3 months, a mean change (improvement) of -9.1% (p<0.0001). Improvement was consistent across all PEmb-QoL dimensions. The EQ-5D-5L was 0.89±0.12 at 3 weeks after enrolment and improved to 0.91±0.12 at 3 months (p<0.0001). Female sex and cardiopulmonary disease were associated with poorer disease-specific and generic quality of life; older age was associated with faster worsening of generic quality of life. The ACTS burden score improved from 40.5±6.6 points at 3 weeks to 42.5±5.9 points at 3 months (p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Our results further support early discharge and ambulatory oral anticoagulation for selected patients with low-risk pulmonary embolism. Targeted strategies may be necessary to further improve quality of life in specific patient subgroups.

Early discharge and home treatment of patients with low-risk pulmonary embolism with the oral factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban: an international multicentre single-arm clinical trial.

AIMS: To investigate the efficacy and safety of early transition from hospital to ambulatory treatment in low-risk acute PE, using the oral factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a prospective multicentre single-arm investigator initiated and academically sponsored management trial in patients with acute low-risk PE (EudraCT Identifier 2013-001657-28). Eligibility criteria included absence of (i) haemodynamic instability, (ii) right ventricular dysfunction or intracardiac thrombi, and (iii) serious comorbidities. Up to two nights of hospital stay were permitted. Rivaroxaban was given at the approved dose for PE for ≥3 months. The primary outcome was symptomatic recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) or PE-related death within 3 months of enrolment. An interim analysis was planned after the first 525 patients, with prespecified early termination of the study if the null hypothesis could be rejected at the level of α = 0.004 (<6 primary outcome events). From May 2014 through June 2018, consecutive patients were enrolled in seven countries. Of the 525 patients included in the interim analysis, three (0.6%; one-sided upper 99.6% confidence interval 2.1%) suffered symptomatic non-fatal VTE recurrence, a number sufficiently low to fulfil the condition for early termination of the trial. Major bleeding occurred in 6 (1.2%) of the 519 patients comprising the safety population. There were two cancer-related deaths (0.4%). CONCLUSION: Early discharge and home treatment with rivaroxaban is effective and safe in carefully selected patients with acute low-risk PE. The results of the present trial support the selection of appropriate patients for ambulatory treatment of PE.

Emergency physician accuracy in interpreting electrocardiograms with potential ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: Is it enough?

BACKGROUND: Electrocardiogram (ECG) interpretation is widely performed by emergency physicians. We aimed to determine the accuracy of interpretation of potential ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) ECGs by emergency physicians. METHODS: Thirty-six ECGs resulted in putative STEMI diagnoses were selected. Participants were asked to focus on whether or not the ECG in question met the diagnostic criteria for an acutely blocked coronary artery causing a STEMI. Based on the coronary angiogram, a binary outcome of accurate versus inaccurate ECG interpretation was defined. We computed the overall sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs) for ECG interpretation. Data on participant training level, working experience and place were collected. RESULTS: 135 participants interpreted 4603 ECGs. Overall sensitivity to identify 'true' STEMI ECGs was 64.5% (95%CI: 62.8-66.3); specificity in determining 'false' ECGs was 78% (95%CI: 76-80.1). Overall accuracy was modest (69.1, 95%CI: 67.8-70.4). Higher accuracy in ECG interpretation was observed for attending physicians, participants working in tertiary care hospitals and those more experienced. CONCLUSION: The accuracy of interpretation of potential STEMI ECGs was modest among emergency physicians. The study supports the notion that ECG interpretation for establishing a STEMI diagnosis lacks the necessary sensitivity and specificity to be considered a reliable 'stand-alone' diagnostic test.