Equipment and procedural setup for interventional pulmonology procedures in the intensive care unit.

Procedural setup is an important aspect of any procedure. Interventional pulmonologists provide a procedural practice and have additional expertise in performing high-risk procedures needed in the critically ill patients in intensive care. Taking the time to plan the procedure setup in advance and having all necessary equipment readily available at the patient's bedside is imperative for procedural services. This is especially essential to ensure patient safety, minimize risk of complications, and improve success for specialized procedures performed by interventional pulmonary in the intensive care unit. In this review we describe the equipment and procedural setup ideal for both pleural and airway procedures. These include flexible diagnostic and therapeutic bronchoscopy, ultrasound guided thoracentesis, chest tube insertion, difficult airway management, and bedside percutaneous dilatation tracheostomy. We provide a guide checklist for these procedures emphasizing the practical aspects of each procedure from selecting the appropriate size endotracheal tube to operator positioning to ensure efficiency and best access. The components of procedural setup are discussed in relation to patient factors that include patient positioning and anesthesia, personnel in the procedure team and the equipment itself. We further briefly describe the additional equipment needed for specialized techniques in therapeutic bronchoscopy used by interventional pulmonologists.

Improved Diagnostic Yield and Specimen Quality With Endobronchial Ultrasound-Guided Forceps Biopsies: A Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) transbronchial needle aspiration (TBNA) has a high diagnostic yield when evaluating mediastinal and hilar lymphadenopathy (LAD). Having previously demonstrated the safety of EBUS-guided cautery-assisted transbronchial nodal forceps biopsy (ca-TBFB), we report disease-specific improvements in diagnostic yield and tissue acquisition when supplementing the EBUS-TBNA-based standard of care (SOC) with ca-TBFB. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 213 patients who sequentially underwent SOC and ca-TBFB during the same procedure. We determined 3 clinical scenarios of interest based on preprocedural imaging: isolated mediastinal/hilar LAD, LAD associated with a nodule or mass suspicious for malignancy, and LAD associated with parenchymal findings suggestive of sarcoidosis. Using validated methods, we assessed diagnostic yield on a per-patient basis and specimen quality on a per-node basis on the 136 patients meeting diagnostic criteria. RESULTS: Administration of disease-specific SOC with ca-TBFB yielded gains that varied by diagnosis. Diagnostic yields of SOC and its supplementation with ca-TBFB were 91.8% and 93.4% (P = .50) of the 61 patients diagnosed with solid-organ malignancy, 62.7% and 94.9% (P < .001) of the 59 patients diagnosed with sarcoidosis, and 62.5% and 93.8% (P = .042) of the 16 patients diagnosed with lymphoma, the. For each disease process, specimens obtained with ca-TBFB exhibited statistically higher quality. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest that relative to SOC, ca-TBFB improves diagnostic yield for sarcoidosis and lymphoma while providing uniformly better tissue quality and cellularity. We propose a protocol for use of this innovative technique.

Safety and Tolerability of Vacuum Versus Manual Drainage During Thoracentesis: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Pleural effusions may be aspirated manually or via vacuum during thoracentesis. This study compares the safety, pain level, and time involved in these techniques. METHODS: We randomized 100 patients receiving ultrasound-guided unilateral thoracentesis in an academic medical center from December 2015 through September 2017 to either vacuum or manual drainage. Without using pleural manometry, the effusion was drained completely or until the development of refractory symptoms. Measurements included self-reported pain before and during the procedure (from 0 to 10), time for completion of drainage, and volume removed. Primary outcomes were rates of all-cause complications and of early termination of the procedure with secondary outcomes of change in pain score, drainage time, volume removed, and inverse rate of removal. RESULTS: Patient characteristics in the manual (n=49) and vacuum (n=51) groups were similar. Rate of all-cause complications was higher in the vacuum group (5 vs. 0; P=0.03): pneumothorax (n=3), surgically treated hemothorax with subsequent death (n=1) and reexpansion pulmonary edema causing respiratory failure (n=1), as was rate of early termination (8 vs. 1; P=0.018). The vacuum group exhibited greater pain during drainage (P<0.05), shorter drainage time (P<0.01), no association with volume removed (P>0.05), and lower inverse rate of removal (P≤0.01). CONCLUSION: Despite requiring less time, vacuum aspiration during thoracentesis was associated with higher rates of complication and of early termination of the procedure and greater pain. Although larger studies are needed, this pilot study suggests that manual aspiration provides greater safety and patient comfort.