Abstract: Poster Presentations |

Thoracentesis Performed by an Experienced Pulmonologist Without Ultrasound FREE TO VIEW

Yossef Aelony, MD*
Author and Funding Information

KaiserPermanente, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA


Chest. 2004;126(4_MeetingAbstracts):893S. doi:10.1378/chest.126.4_MeetingAbstracts.893S-a
Text Size: A A A
Published online


PURPOSE:  Recent publications suggest that pleural ultrasound (U/S) needs to be routinely performed at the time of thoracentesis. (see CHEST: Feb,2003). We decided to contrarily assess the risks of NOT using U/S in a real world setting.

METHODS:  Consecutive thoracentesis procedures using a commercial kit (Pharmaseal*) & a #14 angiocatheter without U/S guidance were prospectively analyzed for success and morbidity in an inpatient/outpatient pulmonary practice, with 100% followup. The usual end-point of fluid removal was cessation of drainage, achievement of 1500 ml, or symptoms of severe cough, chest tightness, or dyspnea. Monometric measuresments were not used.

RESULTS:  A total of 123 Thoracenteses in 85 patients were performed, equally divided between males and females, right & left side. Simultaneous cope needle pleural biopsy was done in 7 instances. Large effusions (>1000 ml ) were removed in 32 cases (26%). A prior chest CT scan had been done in 16 patients (13%). There were 4 (3%) small pneumothoraces, 2 of which were associated with pleural biopsy. None required placement of a chest tube or any other intervention for the small air pocket. No patients had ‘re-expansion pulmonary edema’. No pleural hemorrhage or cutaneous hematoma was observed. No vasovagal reactions, although atropine was not given prophylactically Four ‘failings’ occurred:one dry tap with 30 mL hemoptysis–indicating an inaccurate choice of site for puncture–required further imaging to localize an anteriorly loculated parapneumonic effusion. Three dry or insufficient taps required a 2nd puncture at the same sitting in order to reach the fluid. The first case (1%) & possibly the last 3 (2%) might have benefited from ultrasonic guidance.

CONCLUSION:  In this real world setting of inpatient and outpatient thoracenteses performed by an experienced pulmonologist, situations where U/S could benefit patients were rare (≤ 3%).

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS:  Although U/S is helpful in difficult presentations of pleural disease and in training programs, this study suggests it is superfluous for routine cases in a pulmonary practice.

DISCLOSURE:  Y. Aelony, None.

Wednesday, October 27, 2004

12:30 PM - 2:00 PM




Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

CHEST Journal Articles
PubMed Articles
  • CHEST Journal
    Print ISSN: 0012-3692
    Online ISSN: 1931-3543