Background: Thoracentesis using suction is perceived to have increased risk of complications, including pneumothorax and re-expansion pulmonary oedema (REPO). Current guidelines recommend limiting drainage to 1.5 L to avoid REPO. Our purpose was to examine the incidence of complications with symptom-limited drainage of pleural fluid using suction and identify risk factors for REPO.Methods: A retrospective cohort study of all adult patients who underwent symptom-limited thoracentesis using suction at our institution between January 1, 2004 and August 31, 2018 was performed, and a total of 10 344 thoracenteses were included.Results: Pleural fluid ≥1.5 L was removed in 19% of the procedures. Thoracentesis was stopped due to chest discomfort (39%), complete drainage of fluid (37%) and persistent cough (13%). Pneumothorax based on chest radiography was detected in 3.98%, but only 0.28% required intervention. The incidence of REPO was 0.08%. The incidence of REPO increased with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) ≥3 compounded with ≥1.5 L (0.04–0.54%; 95% CI 0.13–2.06 L). Thoracentesis in those with ipsilateral mediastinal shift did not increase complications, but less fluid was removed (p<0.01).Conclusions: Symptom-limited thoracentesis using suction is safe even with large volumes. Pneumothorax requiring intervention and REPO are both rare. There were no increased procedural complications in those with ipsilateral mediastinal shift. REPO increased with poor ECOG PS and drainage ≥1.5 L. Symptom-limited drainage using suction without pleural manometry is safe.

Atelectasis during bronchoscopy under general anesthesia is very common and can have a detrimental effect on navigational and diagnostic outcomes. While the intraprocedural incidence and anatomic location have been previously described, the severity of atelectasis has not. We reviewed chest CT images of patients who developed atelectasis in the VESPA trial (Ventilatory Strategy to Prevent Atelectasis). By drawing boundaries at the posterior chest wall (A), the anterior aspect of the vertebral body (C), and mid-way between these two lines (B), we delineated at-risk lung zones 1, 2, and 3 (from posterior to anterior). An Atelectasis Severity Score System (“ASSESS”) was created, classifying atelectasis as “mild” (zone 1), “moderate” (zones 1–2), and “severe” (zones 1–2–3). A total of 43 patients who developed atelectasis were included in this study. A total of 32 patients were in the control arm, and 11 were in the VESPA arm; 20 patients (47%) had mild atelectasis, 20 (47%) had moderate atelectasis, and 3 (6%) had severe atelectasis. A higher BMI was associated with increased odds (1.5 per 1 unit change; 95% CI, 1.10–2.04) (p = 0.0098), and VESPA was associated with decreased odds (0.05; 95% CI, 0.01–0.47) (p = 0.0080) of developing moderate to severe atelectasis. ASSESS is a simple method used to categorize intra-bronchoscopy atelectasis, which allows for a qualitative description of this phenomenon to be developed. In the VESPA trial, a higher BMI was not only associated with increased incidence but also increased severity of atelectasis, while VESPA had the opposite effect. Preventive strategies should be strongly considered in patients with risk factors for atelectasis who have lesions located in zones 1 and 2, but not in zone 3.

Review Article Review of the clinical outcomes of therapeutic bronchoscopy for central airway obstruction An Thi Nhat Ho, Archan Shah, Ala Eddin S. Sagar

Background: CT-to-body divergence—described as the difference between preprocedural CT scans and intraprocedural lung architecture—is a significant barrier to improving diagnostic yield during navigational bronchoscopy. A major proposed contributor to CT-to-body divergence is the development of atelectasis, which can confound visualization of peripheral lung lesions via radial probe endobronchial ultrasound (RP-EBUS). High positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) ventilatory strategies have been used to decrease atelectasis, allowing the lesion to re-APPEAR on intraprocedure imaging. However, standardized PEEP levels may not be appropriate for all patients due to hemodynamic and ventilatory impacts. Methods: We performed a multicenter, prospective observational study in which patients were imaged with RP-EBUS under general anesthesia to determine if subsegmental atelectasis would resolve as incremental increases in PEEP were applied. Resolution of atelectasis was based on the transition from a non-aerated pattern to an aerated appearance on RP-EBUS. RP-EBUS images were reviewed by 3 experienced operators to determine correlation. Results: Forty-three patients underwent RP-EBUS examination following navigational bronchoscopy. Thirty-seven patients underwent incremental PEEP application and subsequent RP-EBUS imaging. Atelectasis was determined to have resolved in 33 patients (88.2%) following increased PEEP. The intraclass correlation coefficient between reviewers was 0.76. A recruitment maneuver was performed in 7 (16.3%) patients after atelectasis persisted at maximal PEEP. Atelectasis was not identified in the examined subsegments in 6 (10.8%) patients despite zero PEEP. Conclusion: RP-EBUS is an effective tool to monitor what pressure atelectasis within a lung segment has resolved with increasing levels of PEEP.