Adverse events related to thoracentesis and chest tube insertion: evaluation of the national collection of subject safety incidents in Japan

Food choking incidents in the hospital: incidents, characteristics, effectiveness of interventions, and mortality and morbidity outcomes

AIM

Foreign body airway obstruction (FBAO) due to food can occur wherever people eat, including in hospitals. We characterized in-hospital FBAO incidents and their outcomes.

METHODS

We searched the Japan Council for Quality Health Care nationwide in-hospital adverse events database for relevant events from 1,549 institutions. We included all patients with FBAO incidents due to food in the hospital from January 2010 to June 2021 and collected data on the characteristics, interventions, and outcomes. FBAO from non-food materials were excluded. Our primary outcomes were mortality and morbidity from FBAO incidents.

RESULTS

We identified 300 patients who had a FBAO incident from food. The most common age group was 80 - 89 years old (32.3%, n = 97/300). One-half (50.0%, n = 150/300) were witnessed events. Suction was the most common first intervention (31.3%, n = 94/300) and resulted in successful removal of foreign body in 17.0% of cases (n = 16/94). Back blows (16.0%, n = 48/300) and abdominal thrusts (8.1%, n = 24/300) were less frequently performed as the first intervention and the success rates were 10.4% (n = 5/48) and 20.8% (n = 5/24), respectively. About one-third of the patients (31%, n = 93/300) died and 26.7% (n = 80/300) had a high potential of residual disability from the incidents.

CONCLUSION

FBAO from food in the hospital is an uncommon but life-threatening event. The majority of patients who suffered from the in-hospital FBAO incidents did not receive effective interventions initially and many of them died or suffered residual disability.

Outcomes of Pigtail Catheter Placement versus Chest Tube Placement in Adult Thoracic Trauma Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

A debate currently exists regarding the efficacy of pigtail catheters vs chest tubes in the management of thoracic trauma. This meta-analysis aims to compare the outcomes of pigtail catheters vs chest tubes in adult trauma patients with thoracic injuries.

METHODS

This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using PRISMA guidelines and registered with PROSPERO. PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase, Ebsco, and ProQuest electronic databases were queried for studies comparing the use of pigtail catheters vs chest tubes in adult trauma patients from database inception to August 15th, 2022. The primary outcome was the failure rate of drainage tubes, defined as requiring a second tube placement or VATS, unresolved pneumothorax, hemothorax, or hemopneumothorax requiring additional intervention. Secondary outcomes were initial drainage output, ICU-LOS, and ventilator days.

RESULTS

A total of 7 studies satisfied eligibility criteria and were assessed in the meta-analysis. The pigtail group had higher initial output volumes vs the chest tube group, with a mean difference of 114.7 mL [95% CI (70.6 mL, 158.8 mL)]. Patients in the chest tube group also had a higher risk of requiring VATS vs the pigtail group, with a relative risk of 2.77 [95% CI (1.50, 5.11)].

CONCLUSIONS

In trauma patients, pigtail catheters rather than chest tubes are associated with higher initial output volume, reduced risk of VATS, and shorter tube duration. Considering the similar rates of failure, ventilator days, and ICU length-of-stay, pigtail catheters should be considered in the management of traumatic thoracic injuries.

STUDY TYPE

Systematic Review and meta-analysis.