Chest radiographs after dilatational percutaneous tracheotomy: are they necessary?

Routine Screening Radiography for Retained Wire Following Arch Bar Removal Is Not Indicated

PURPOSE

To estimate the screening test value of routine radiography after arch bar wire removal by assessing the incidence of retained wires and the importance of their sequelae.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective medical record review. Records of arch bar removal procedures were examined and divided into those screened with radiography after removal (screen group) and those that were not screened (comparison group). The incidence of retained wire was calculated for each group. Study variables included wire-related radiographic or clinical findings.

RESULTS

Records of 546 mandible fractures were reviewed; 95 met the study criteria. Most exclusions were due to lack of arch bars, missing postoperative radiographs, or insufficient postoperative documentation. Of the 55 records in the screen group, 1 wire was detected (2%); of the 40 records in the comparison group, 1 wire was detected (3%). The total incidence of retained wire findings was not statistically different between the 2 groups and there were no adverse wire-related sequelae reported by any of the 95 patients.

CONCLUSION

Because of the low incidence of retained wires and wire-related sequelae, routine imaging after wire removal is probably not an effective screening test for retained wire and should be limited to situations in which there is clinical suspicion of retained wire.

Evaluation of the Clinical Utility of Routine Daily Chest Radiography in Intensive Care Unit Patients With Tracheostomy Tubes: A Retrospective Review

BACKGROUND

The utilization of imaging procedures is under scrutiny due to high costs and radiation exposure to patients and staff associated with some radiologic procedures. Within our institution's intensive care unit (ICU), it is common for patients to undergo chest radiography (CR) not only immediately following tracheostomy tube placement but also on a daily basis, irrespective of the patient's clinical status. We hypothesize that the clinical utility of performing routine daily CR on patients with tracheostomy tubes is low and leads to unnecessary financial cost.

METHODS

A retrospective medical chart review was done on 761 CRs performed on 79 ICU patients with tracheostomy from April 2010 to July 2011. We searched the radiology reports of the 761 CRs for the presence of new radiographically detected complications and reviewed medical records to determine which complications were clinically suspected and which radiology reports led to changes in patient management.

RESULTS

Of the 761 CRs, only 18 (2.3%) radiographs revealed new complications. All complications were clinically suspected prior to imaging. Only 5 (0.7%) complications resulted in a management change. The most common management changes were a change in antibiotic regimen (0.3%) and ordering of diuretics (0.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Routine daily imaging of patients with tracheostomy in an ICU provides little clinical utility, and CR in this population should be performed selectively based on the patient's clinical status.

Is routine chest X-ray after surgical and percutaneous tracheostomy necessary in adults: a systemic review of the current literature

BACKGROUND

For many years, routine post-tracheostomy chest X-ray has been the standard of care for patients in many countries. However, recent evidence suggests that this is unnecessary and cost-ineffective.

OBJECTIVE

To review the current literature and examine the role of routine post-tracheostomy chest X-ray in adult patients.

TYPE OF REVIEW

Systemic review.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane) were searched using the keywords 'chest X-ray/radiography/radiograph' and 'tracheostomy/tracheotomy' in various permutations. Search period ranged from 1960 to 2012. Inclusion criteria included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomised control trials, prospective and retrospective case series. Paediatric and non-English articles were excluded. Abstracts and subsequently full text articles were screened by two of the authors independently. References from obtained articles were also examined.

EVALUATION METHOD

Specific outcome measures were collated to evaluate the usefulness of post-tracheostomy chest X-ray: Chest X-ray detected (tracheostomy-related) complication rates Proportion of cases requiring significant intervention Potential predictors of complications

RESULTS

Routine post-tracheostomy chest X-ray is of a low yield, and its findings had limited impact on patient management. Complication detection rates for surgical and percutaneous tracheostomy are 2.2% and 3.2%, respectively. Only 0.7% and 1.8% of chest X-rays performed in surgical and percutaneous tracheostomy cases, respectively, required intervention. Certain groups of patients, however, are at higher risks of complications, and may benefit from post-tracheostomy chest X-ray. For surgical tracheostomy, these groups include those with post-operative signs and symptoms of complications or had emergent or 'difficult' tracheostomies. For percutaneous tracheostomy, high-risk patients include trauma cases (unspecified), patients with post-procedural signs and symptoms of complications, patients who have high ventilatory requirements, difficult tracheostomy cases or tracheostomy cases performed without bronchoscopic guidance.

CONCLUSION

The practice of routine post-tracheostomy chest X-ray is debatable owing to its low yield and minimal impact on clinical management. However, certain groups of patients appear to be at higher risks of post-tracheostomy complications; currently, there is insufficient evidence to conclude the absolute need for routine chest X-ray in these groups of patients, although it may be prudent to do so based on available evidence in the literature and logical clinical reasoning.

Chest X-ray after tracheostomy is not necessary unless clinically indicated

BACKGROUND

Chest radiography is routinely used post-tracheostomy to evaluate for complications. Often, the chest X-ray findings do not change clinical management. The present study was conducted to evaluate the utility of post-tracheostomy X-rays.

METHOD

This retrospective review of 255 patients was performed at a single-center, university, level I trauma center. All patients underwent tracheostomy and were evaluated for postprocedure complications.

RESULTS

Of the 255 patients, 95.7% had no change in postprocedure chest X-ray findings. New significant chest X-ray findings were found in 4.3% of patients, including subcutaneous emphysema, pneumothorax, and new significant consolidation. Only three of these patients required change in clinical management, and all changes were based on clinical presentation alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Routine chest X-ray following tracheostomy fails to provide additional information beyond clinical examination. Therefore radiographic examination should be performed only after technically difficult procedures or if the patient experiences clinical deterioration. Significant cost savings and minimization of radiation exposure can be achieved when chest radiography after tracheostomy is performed exclusively for clinical indications.

Role of routine chest radiography after percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy

BACKGROUND

The role of routine chest radiography (CXR) after percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PDT) has been questioned.

METHODS

We performed a prospective observational study, on a mixed medical/surgical critical care unit in a university teaching hospital. We studied all patients undergoing PDT as part of their critical care management from November 1, 2003 until July 31, 2007. All PDTs were performed under bronchoscopic guidance. After PDT, we reviewed the immediate post-procedural films to assess the utility of routine postoperative CXR. For the purposes of CXR review, we considered a procedure to be either uncomplicated or technically difficult. Clinically relevant CXR findings were new barotrauma (pneumothorax, pneumomediastinum) or a significant change in consolidation from the pre-procedure film.

RESULTS

A total of 384 patients underwent PDT during the study period. Of these, 345 had immediate post-procedural CXRs available for review. There were 252 PDTs (73%) documented as uncomplicated. There were 93 (27%) technically difficult procedures, with 107 adverse events recorded. In 82 (24%) procedures, these difficulties were described as minor procedural complications [multiple attempts at needle insertion (> or = 3), minor bleeding or tracheal ring fracture]. Significant complications (mal-placement in the anterior mediastinum and major bleeding) were documented in 12 (3.5%) patients. New abnormalities were noted on 8 (2.3%) immediate post-procedural CXRs. In only one patient was there a new CXR change in an uncomplicated PDT.

CONCLUSIONS

Immediate CXR after uncomplicated PDT performed under bronchoscopic guidance rarely reveals unexpected radiological abnormalities. The role of CXR after PDT appears to be restricted to those patients undergoing technically difficult and complicated procedures. A change in practice to this effect will lead to reductions in both medical costs and exposure of staff and patients to ionizing radiation.