Introduction
Treatment of prolonged air leak due to secondary spontaneous pneumothorax is challenging. Autologous blood patch pleurodesis (ABPP) is a treatment option. Previous evidence is reliant on single-centre series and underpowered trials and is mostly described in air leaks post cardiothoracic intervention. There are no United Kingdom (UK) wide data.
Methods
Members of the UK Pleural Society were surveyed for their practice and for patients who underwent blood patch. There were 16 respondents from 333 members. Twelve had performed the procedure, and six had kept records and could submit data. Basic demographics, intervention and clinical details of patients were then collected. The study was sponsored by the Audit Department of Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (reference 8124), and Caldicott Clearance for data sharing was provided by the Trust’s Information Goverance Board (reference C4221). There was no requirement for informed consent.
Results
Data for 12 patients that received ABPP between 2014 and 2022 in six respiratory centres were assessed. The aetiology of the secondary pneumothoraces was mostly due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and end-stage interstitial lung disease. The patients had a median age of 75 years. The median air leak time before ABPP was 17 days. A total of 50–100 ml of blood was used for ABPP. Five patients had two attempts at ABPP. Air leak resolved in six patients (50%). Four patients had pleural apposition prior to ABPP. Four patients were diagnosed with hospital-acquired pneumonia following ABPP.
Conclusion
This is the only UK-wide retrospective case series of ABPP of ‘medical’ patients with secondary pneumothorax. There is widespread variation in care. No formal conclusions can be drawn, and much larger robust datasets are required. An application has been made to the European Respiratory Society to incorporate ABPP within the International Collaborative Effusion database.
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41030-022-00212-w.
IntroductionPseudomonas aeruginosa increases morbidity and mortality in respiratory disease. To date the long-term ventilation population does not have clear guidelines regarding its management.MethodWe undertook a retrospective observational study in a regional long-term ventilation population (837 patients). We defined the primary outcome as P. aeruginosa isolation. In addition positive cultures for copathogens (Serratia, Proteus species, Stenotrophomonas, Burkholderia cepacia complex and nontuberculous mycobacteria) were recorded. Logistic regression and odds ratios were calculated.Results17.6% of the cohort isolated P. aeruginosa, and this pathogen was cultured more frequently in patients with a tracheostomy (logistic regression coefficient 2.90, p≤0.0001) and cystic fibrosis/bronchiectasis (logistic regression coefficient 2.48, p≤0.0001). 6.3% of patients were ventilated via tracheostomy. In the P. aeruginosa positive cohort 46.9% of patients were treated with a long-term macrolide, 36.7% received a nebulised antibiotic and 21.1% received both. Tracheostomised P. aeruginosa positive patients received a nebulised antibiotic more frequently (OR 2.63, 95% CI 1.23–5.64, p=0.013). Copathogens were isolated in 33.3% of the P. aeruginosa cohort. In this cohort patients with a tracheostomy grew a copathogen more frequently than those without (OR 2.75, 95% CI 1.28–5.90).ConclusionsP. aeruginosa isolation is common within the adult long-term ventilation population and is significantly associated with tracheostomy, cystic fibrosis and bronchiectasis. Further research and international guidelines are needed to establish the prognostic impact of P. aeruginosa and to guide on antimicrobial management. The increased risk of P. aeruginosa should be considered when contemplating long-term ventilation via tracheostomy.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.