Specialty Sections From CHEST® Physician

THORACIC ONCOLOGY AND CHEST PROCEDURES NETWORK

Interventional Procedures Section

More than 1.5 million Americans are diagnosed with an incidental CT scan-detected lung nodule annually. Advanced bronchoscopy, as a diagnostic tool for evaluation of these nodules, has evolved rapidly, incorporating a range of techniques and tools beyond CT scan-guided biopsies to assess peripheral lesions. The primary goal is to provide patients with accurate benign or malignant diagnoses. However, accurately determining the effectiveness of innovative technologies in providing a diagnosis remains challenging, in part due to limitations in study design and outcome reporting, along with the scarcity of comparative and randomized controlled studies.^1,2 Current literature shows significant variability in diagnostic yield definition, lacking generalizability.

clasikukesehafrespamawroswubecruswophodrakaciwragacrashegafrobaruceceslojewrefroranowraswevasouawidrohonehawilufraracouuwubolisliseclamocrinatovokachigechauetrephawostithigugihichepogastonecramegabru

To address this issue, an official research statement by the American Thoracic Society and CHEST defines the diagnostic yield as “the proportion of all individuals undergoing the diagnostic procedure under evaluation in whom a specific malignant or benign diagnosis is established.”³ To achieve this measure, the numerator includes all patients with lung nodules in whom the result of a diagnostic procedure establishes a specific benign or malignant diagnosis that is readily sufficient to inform patient care without additional diagnostic workup, and the denominator should include all patients in whom the procedure was attempted or performed. This standardized definition is crucial for ensuring consistency across studies, allowing for comparison or pooling of results, enhancing the reliability of diagnostic yield data, and informing clinical decisions.

rohicodremutrugispanaslucacleslispebathobibrepojanucrutrelagislejebeswegopranivukestupesecridroslifroroseslocrofratritoslosibewijaclegiphaclathahehitreslaka

References

1. Tanner NT, Yarmus L, Chen A, et al. Standard bronchoscopy with fluoroscopy vs thin bronchoscopy and radial endobronchial ultrasound for biopsy of pulmonary lesions: a multicenter, prospective, randomized trial. Chest. 2018;154(5):1035-1043.

2. Ost DE, Ernst A, Lei X, et al. Diagnostic yield and complications of bronchoscopy for peripheral lung lesions. Results of the AQuIRE Registry. Am J Resp Crit Care Med. 2016;193(1):68-77.

3. Gonzalez AV, Silvestri GA, Korevaar DA, et al. Assessment of advanced diagnostic bronchoscopy outcomes for peripheral lung lesions: a Delphi consensus definition of diagnostic yield and recommendations for patient-centered study designs. An official American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physicians research statement. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2024;209(6):634-646.

THORACIC ONCOLOGY AND CHEST PROCEDURES NETWORK

Interventional Procedures Section

More than 1.5 million Americans are diagnosed with an incidental CT scan-detected lung nodule annually. Advanced bronchoscopy, as a diagnostic tool for evaluation of these nodules, has evolved rapidly, incorporating a range of techniques and tools beyond CT scan-guided biopsies to assess peripheral lesions. The primary goal is to provide patients with accurate benign or malignant diagnoses. However, accurately determining the effectiveness of innovative technologies in providing a diagnosis remains challenging, in part due to limitations in study design and outcome reporting, along with the scarcity of comparative and randomized controlled studies.^1,2 Current literature shows significant variability in diagnostic yield definition, lacking generalizability.

clasikukesehafrespamawroswubecruswophodrakaciwragacrashegafrobaruceceslojewrefroranowraswevasouawidrohonehawilufraracouuwubolisliseclamocrinatovokachigechauetrephawostithigugihichepogastonecramegabru

To address this issue, an official research statement by the American Thoracic Society and CHEST defines the diagnostic yield as “the proportion of all individuals undergoing the diagnostic procedure under evaluation in whom a specific malignant or benign diagnosis is established.”³ To achieve this measure, the numerator includes all patients with lung nodules in whom the result of a diagnostic procedure establishes a specific benign or malignant diagnosis that is readily sufficient to inform patient care without additional diagnostic workup, and the denominator should include all patients in whom the procedure was attempted or performed. This standardized definition is crucial for ensuring consistency across studies, allowing for comparison or pooling of results, enhancing the reliability of diagnostic yield data, and informing clinical decisions.

rohicodremutrugispanaslucacleslispebathobibrepojanucrutrelagislejebeswegopranivukestupesecridroslifroroseslocrofratritoslosibewijaclegiphaclathahehitreslaka

References

1. Tanner NT, Yarmus L, Chen A, et al. Standard bronchoscopy with fluoroscopy vs thin bronchoscopy and radial endobronchial ultrasound for biopsy of pulmonary lesions: a multicenter, prospective, randomized trial. Chest. 2018;154(5):1035-1043.

2. Ost DE, Ernst A, Lei X, et al. Diagnostic yield and complications of bronchoscopy for peripheral lung lesions. Results of the AQuIRE Registry. Am J Resp Crit Care Med. 2016;193(1):68-77.

3. Gonzalez AV, Silvestri GA, Korevaar DA, et al. Assessment of advanced diagnostic bronchoscopy outcomes for peripheral lung lesions: a Delphi consensus definition of diagnostic yield and recommendations for patient-centered study designs. An official American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physicians research statement. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2024;209(6):634-646.

THORACIC ONCOLOGY AND CHEST PROCEDURES NETWORK

Interventional Procedures Section

More than 1.5 million Americans are diagnosed with an incidental CT scan-detected lung nodule annually. Advanced bronchoscopy, as a diagnostic tool for evaluation of these nodules, has evolved rapidly, incorporating a range of techniques and tools beyond CT scan-guided biopsies to assess peripheral lesions. The primary goal is to provide patients with accurate benign or malignant diagnoses. However, accurately determining the effectiveness of innovative technologies in providing a diagnosis remains challenging, in part due to limitations in study design and outcome reporting, along with the scarcity of comparative and randomized controlled studies.^1,2 Current literature shows significant variability in diagnostic yield definition, lacking generalizability.

clasikukesehafrespamawroswubecruswophodrakaciwragacrashegafrobaruceceslojewrefroranowraswevasouawidrohonehawilufraracouuwubolisliseclamocrinatovokachigechauetrephawostithigugihichepogastonecramegabru

To address this issue, an official research statement by the American Thoracic Society and CHEST defines the diagnostic yield as “the proportion of all individuals undergoing the diagnostic procedure under evaluation in whom a specific malignant or benign diagnosis is established.”³ To achieve this measure, the numerator includes all patients with lung nodules in whom the result of a diagnostic procedure establishes a specific benign or malignant diagnosis that is readily sufficient to inform patient care without additional diagnostic workup, and the denominator should include all patients in whom the procedure was attempted or performed. This standardized definition is crucial for ensuring consistency across studies, allowing for comparison or pooling of results, enhancing the reliability of diagnostic yield data, and informing clinical decisions.

rohicodremutrugispanaslucacleslispebathobibrepojanucrutrelagislejebeswegopranivukestupesecridroslifroroseslocrofratritoslosibewijaclegiphaclathahehitreslaka

References

1. Tanner NT, Yarmus L, Chen A, et al. Standard bronchoscopy with fluoroscopy vs thin bronchoscopy and radial endobronchial ultrasound for biopsy of pulmonary lesions: a multicenter, prospective, randomized trial. Chest. 2018;154(5):1035-1043.

2. Ost DE, Ernst A, Lei X, et al. Diagnostic yield and complications of bronchoscopy for peripheral lung lesions. Results of the AQuIRE Registry. Am J Resp Crit Care Med. 2016;193(1):68-77.

3. Gonzalez AV, Silvestri GA, Korevaar DA, et al. Assessment of advanced diagnostic bronchoscopy outcomes for peripheral lung lesions: a Delphi consensus definition of diagnostic yield and recommendations for patient-centered study designs. An official American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physicians research statement. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2024;209(6):634-646.

SLEEP MEDICINE NETWORK

Nonrespiratory Sleep Section

There has been a recent interest in post–intensive care syndrome (PICS), as an increasing number of patients are surviving critical illness. PICS is defined as “new onset or worsening of impairments in physical, cognitive, and/or mental health that arises after an ICU stay and persists beyond hospital discharge.¹ We know that poor sleep is a common occurrence in the ICU, which can contribute to cognitive impairment and could be due to various risk factors, including age, individual comorbidities, reason for admission, and ICU interventions.² Sleep impairment after hospital discharge is highly prevalent for up to 1 year after hospitalization.

vuclirekalamuphathugetewrastiswosojulusadrepreswispatiwrosaswabiworidruslemislorilacojutraprichuphuswustuclecrasiphipritochaphevanamogestogestefr

The most common sleep impairment described after hospital discharge from the ICU is insomnia, which coexists with anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder.³ When patients are seen in a post-ICU clinic, a multimodal strategy is needed for the treatment of insomnia, which includes practicing good sleep hygiene, cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I), and pharmacotherapy if indicated.

Louis_Mariam_FLA_2023_web.jpg

References

1. Rawal G, Yadav S, Kumar R. Post-intensive care syndrome: an overview. J Transl Int Med. 2017;5(2):90-92.

2. Zampieri FG, et al. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2023;20(11):1558-1560.

3. Altman MT, Knauert MP, Pisani MA. Sleep disturbance after hospitalization and critical illness: a systematic review. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2017;14(9):1457-1468.

4. Edinger JD, Arnedt JT, Bertisch SM, et al. Behavioral and psychological treatments for chronic insomnia disorder in adults: an American Academy of Sleep Medicine clinical practice guideline. J Clin Sleep Med. 2021;17(2):255-262.

SLEEP MEDICINE NETWORK

Nonrespiratory Sleep Section

There has been a recent interest in post–intensive care syndrome (PICS), as an increasing number of patients are surviving critical illness. PICS is defined as “new onset or worsening of impairments in physical, cognitive, and/or mental health that arises after an ICU stay and persists beyond hospital discharge.¹ We know that poor sleep is a common occurrence in the ICU, which can contribute to cognitive impairment and could be due to various risk factors, including age, individual comorbidities, reason for admission, and ICU interventions.² Sleep impairment after hospital discharge is highly prevalent for up to 1 year after hospitalization.

vuclirekalamuphathugetewrastiswosojulusadrepreswispatiwrosaswabiworidruslemislorilacojutraprichuphuswustuclecrasiphipritochaphevanamogestogestefr

The most common sleep impairment described after hospital discharge from the ICU is insomnia, which coexists with anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder.³ When patients are seen in a post-ICU clinic, a multimodal strategy is needed for the treatment of insomnia, which includes practicing good sleep hygiene, cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I), and pharmacotherapy if indicated.

Louis_Mariam_FLA_2023_web.jpg

References

1. Rawal G, Yadav S, Kumar R. Post-intensive care syndrome: an overview. J Transl Int Med. 2017;5(2):90-92.

2. Zampieri FG, et al. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2023;20(11):1558-1560.

3. Altman MT, Knauert MP, Pisani MA. Sleep disturbance after hospitalization and critical illness: a systematic review. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2017;14(9):1457-1468.

4. Edinger JD, Arnedt JT, Bertisch SM, et al. Behavioral and psychological treatments for chronic insomnia disorder in adults: an American Academy of Sleep Medicine clinical practice guideline. J Clin Sleep Med. 2021;17(2):255-262.

SLEEP MEDICINE NETWORK

Nonrespiratory Sleep Section

There has been a recent interest in post–intensive care syndrome (PICS), as an increasing number of patients are surviving critical illness. PICS is defined as “new onset or worsening of impairments in physical, cognitive, and/or mental health that arises after an ICU stay and persists beyond hospital discharge.¹ We know that poor sleep is a common occurrence in the ICU, which can contribute to cognitive impairment and could be due to various risk factors, including age, individual comorbidities, reason for admission, and ICU interventions.² Sleep impairment after hospital discharge is highly prevalent for up to 1 year after hospitalization.

vuclirekalamuphathugetewrastiswosojulusadrepreswispatiwrosaswabiworidruslemislorilacojutraprichuphuswustuclecrasiphipritochaphevanamogestogestefr

The most common sleep impairment described after hospital discharge from the ICU is insomnia, which coexists with anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder.³ When patients are seen in a post-ICU clinic, a multimodal strategy is needed for the treatment of insomnia, which includes practicing good sleep hygiene, cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I), and pharmacotherapy if indicated.

Louis_Mariam_FLA_2023_web.jpg

References

1. Rawal G, Yadav S, Kumar R. Post-intensive care syndrome: an overview. J Transl Int Med. 2017;5(2):90-92.

2. Zampieri FG, et al. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2023;20(11):1558-1560.

3. Altman MT, Knauert MP, Pisani MA. Sleep disturbance after hospitalization and critical illness: a systematic review. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2017;14(9):1457-1468.

4. Edinger JD, Arnedt JT, Bertisch SM, et al. Behavioral and psychological treatments for chronic insomnia disorder in adults: an American Academy of Sleep Medicine clinical practice guideline. J Clin Sleep Med. 2021;17(2):255-262.

DIFFUSE LUNG DISEASE AND LUNG TRANSPLANT NETWORK

Interstitial Lung Disease Section

Interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) are a diverse group of relentlessly progressive fibroinflammatory disorders. Pharmacotherapy includes antifibrotics and immunosuppressants as foundational strategies to mitigate loss of lung function. There has been a growing interest in telomere length and its response to immunosuppression in the ILD community.

u

Telomeres are repetitive nucleotide sequences that “cap” chromosomes and protect against chromosomal shortening during cell replication. Genetic and environmental factors can lead to premature shortening of telomeres. Once a critical length is reached, the cell enters senescence. Short telomere length has been linked to rapid progression, worse outcomes, and poor response to immunosuppressants in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF).

tupreslopridritruphimaspuchiuakuwratrotruspitotratichefrucrujurodraswutofrocesephatrawewochugunecububebicucenichutuchifriwodacuspepheduclorudrewrorefruswalobrubrucohowripreslubichakadiuihetesloducliprathucha

References

1. Zhang D, Adegunsoye A, Oldham JM, et al. Telomere length and immunosuppression in non-idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis interstitial lung disease. Eur Respir J. 2023;62(5):2300441.

DIFFUSE LUNG DISEASE AND LUNG TRANSPLANT NETWORK

Interstitial Lung Disease Section

Interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) are a diverse group of relentlessly progressive fibroinflammatory disorders. Pharmacotherapy includes antifibrotics and immunosuppressants as foundational strategies to mitigate loss of lung function. There has been a growing interest in telomere length and its response to immunosuppression in the ILD community.

u

Telomeres are repetitive nucleotide sequences that “cap” chromosomes and protect against chromosomal shortening during cell replication. Genetic and environmental factors can lead to premature shortening of telomeres. Once a critical length is reached, the cell enters senescence. Short telomere length has been linked to rapid progression, worse outcomes, and poor response to immunosuppressants in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF).

tupreslopridritruphimaspuchiuakuwratrotruspitotratichefrucrujurodraswutofrocesephatrawewochugunecububebicucenichutuchifriwodacuspepheduclorudrewrorefruswalobrubrucohowripreslubichakadiuihetesloducliprathucha

References

1. Zhang D, Adegunsoye A, Oldham JM, et al. Telomere length and immunosuppression in non-idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis interstitial lung disease. Eur Respir J. 2023;62(5):2300441.

DIFFUSE LUNG DISEASE AND LUNG TRANSPLANT NETWORK

Interstitial Lung Disease Section

Interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) are a diverse group of relentlessly progressive fibroinflammatory disorders. Pharmacotherapy includes antifibrotics and immunosuppressants as foundational strategies to mitigate loss of lung function. There has been a growing interest in telomere length and its response to immunosuppression in the ILD community.

u

Telomeres are repetitive nucleotide sequences that “cap” chromosomes and protect against chromosomal shortening during cell replication. Genetic and environmental factors can lead to premature shortening of telomeres. Once a critical length is reached, the cell enters senescence. Short telomere length has been linked to rapid progression, worse outcomes, and poor response to immunosuppressants in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF).

tupreslopridritruphimaspuchiuakuwratrotruspitotratichefrucrujurodraswutofrocesephatrawewochugunecububebicucenichutuchifriwodacuspepheduclorudrewrorefruswalobrubrucohowripreslubichakadiuihetesloducliprathucha

References

1. Zhang D, Adegunsoye A, Oldham JM, et al. Telomere length and immunosuppression in non-idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis interstitial lung disease. Eur Respir J. 2023;62(5):2300441.

AIRWAYS DISORDERS NETWORK

Asthma and COPD Section

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) has been increasingly recognized as a prevalent cause of lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) among adults in the United States. The risk of hospitalization and mortality from RSV-associated respiratory failure is higher in those with chronic lung disease. In adults aged 65 years or older, RSV has shown to cause up to 160,000 hospitalizations and 10,000 deaths annually.

clapheluvesifraturusedrespomujispeshustujophumowrihucricraprumiuebruphagaspimowratraphustostihechiphobebrochadodruwrewradrucluuinabrobretresojapadidijadrawewikuthalesocricrasocriclibaphauitrajebawronukocheuupheshagapeclibrogas

In 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the adjuvanted RSVPreF3 vaccine (Arexvy, GSK) and the bivalent RSVPreF vaccine (Abrysvo, Pfizer). Both vaccines have been shown to significantly reduce the risk of developing RSV LRTI and are currently recommended for single-dose administration in adults 60 years or older—irrespective of comorbidities.

RSV has been well established as a major cause of LRTI and morbidity among infants. Maternal vaccination with RSVPreF in patients who are pregnant is suggested between 32 0/7 and 36 6/7 weeks of gestation if the date of delivery falls during RSV season to prevent severe illness in young infants in their first months of life. At present, there are no data supporting vaccine administration to patients who are pregnant delivering outside of the RSV season.

wradrasluwrewreshotohigicawrephispitreramofragecherijemudugopucubiphedridrinokothaswodidokacrurorituswebuduswudecliposwesluchouepesapresudrafranicuphakapruthidadaclubes

Resources

1. Melgar M, Britton A, Roper LE, et al. Use of respiratory syncytial virus vaccines in older adults: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices - United States, 2023. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72(29):793-801.

2. Healthcare Providers: RSV Vaccination for Adults 60 Years of Age and Over. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated March 1, 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/rsv/hcp/older-adults.html

3. Ault KA, Hughes BL, Riley LE. Maternal Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccination. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Updated December 11, 2023. https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/practice-advisory/articles/2023/09/maternal-respiratory-syncytial-virus-vaccination

AIRWAYS DISORDERS NETWORK

Asthma and COPD Section

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) has been increasingly recognized as a prevalent cause of lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) among adults in the United States. The risk of hospitalization and mortality from RSV-associated respiratory failure is higher in those with chronic lung disease. In adults aged 65 years or older, RSV has shown to cause up to 160,000 hospitalizations and 10,000 deaths annually.

clapheluvesifraturusedrespomujispeshustujophumowrihucricraprumiuebruphagaspimowratraphustostihechiphobebrochadodruwrewradrucluuinabrobretresojapadidijadrawewikuthalesocricrasocriclibaphauitrajebawronukocheuupheshagapeclibrogas

In 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the adjuvanted RSVPreF3 vaccine (Arexvy, GSK) and the bivalent RSVPreF vaccine (Abrysvo, Pfizer). Both vaccines have been shown to significantly reduce the risk of developing RSV LRTI and are currently recommended for single-dose administration in adults 60 years or older—irrespective of comorbidities.

RSV has been well established as a major cause of LRTI and morbidity among infants. Maternal vaccination with RSVPreF in patients who are pregnant is suggested between 32 0/7 and 36 6/7 weeks of gestation if the date of delivery falls during RSV season to prevent severe illness in young infants in their first months of life. At present, there are no data supporting vaccine administration to patients who are pregnant delivering outside of the RSV season.

wradrasluwrewreshotohigicawrephispitreramofragecherijemudugopucubiphedridrinokothaswodidokacrurorituswebuduswudecliposwesluchouepesapresudrafranicuphakapruthidadaclubes

Resources

1. Melgar M, Britton A, Roper LE, et al. Use of respiratory syncytial virus vaccines in older adults: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices - United States, 2023. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72(29):793-801.

2. Healthcare Providers: RSV Vaccination for Adults 60 Years of Age and Over. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated March 1, 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/rsv/hcp/older-adults.html

3. Ault KA, Hughes BL, Riley LE. Maternal Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccination. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Updated December 11, 2023. https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/practice-advisory/articles/2023/09/maternal-respiratory-syncytial-virus-vaccination

AIRWAYS DISORDERS NETWORK

Asthma and COPD Section

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) has been increasingly recognized as a prevalent cause of lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) among adults in the United States. The risk of hospitalization and mortality from RSV-associated respiratory failure is higher in those with chronic lung disease. In adults aged 65 years or older, RSV has shown to cause up to 160,000 hospitalizations and 10,000 deaths annually.

clapheluvesifraturusedrespomujispeshustujophumowrihucricraprumiuebruphagaspimowratraphustostihechiphobebrochadodruwrewradrucluuinabrobretresojapadidijadrawewikuthalesocricrasocriclibaphauitrajebawronukocheuupheshagapeclibrogas

In 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the adjuvanted RSVPreF3 vaccine (Arexvy, GSK) and the bivalent RSVPreF vaccine (Abrysvo, Pfizer). Both vaccines have been shown to significantly reduce the risk of developing RSV LRTI and are currently recommended for single-dose administration in adults 60 years or older—irrespective of comorbidities.

RSV has been well established as a major cause of LRTI and morbidity among infants. Maternal vaccination with RSVPreF in patients who are pregnant is suggested between 32 0/7 and 36 6/7 weeks of gestation if the date of delivery falls during RSV season to prevent severe illness in young infants in their first months of life. At present, there are no data supporting vaccine administration to patients who are pregnant delivering outside of the RSV season.

wradrasluwrewreshotohigicawrephispitreramofragecherijemudugopucubiphedridrinokothaswodidokacrurorituswebuduswudecliposwesluchouepesapresudrafranicuphakapruthidadaclubes

Resources

1. Melgar M, Britton A, Roper LE, et al. Use of respiratory syncytial virus vaccines in older adults: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices - United States, 2023. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72(29):793-801.

2. Healthcare Providers: RSV Vaccination for Adults 60 Years of Age and Over. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated March 1, 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/rsv/hcp/older-adults.html

3. Ault KA, Hughes BL, Riley LE. Maternal Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccination. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Updated December 11, 2023. https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/practice-advisory/articles/2023/09/maternal-respiratory-syncytial-virus-vaccination

To continue to bring awareness to our members, we once again discuss this new add-on Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System code finalized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for January 1, 2024. This add-on code is for new (99202-99205) and established (99212-99215) office visits. CMS created this add-on code to address the additional costs and resources associated with providing longitudinal care.

G2211 – Visit complexity inherent to evaluation and management (E/M) associated with medical care services that serve as the continuing focal point for all needed health care services and/or with medical care services that are part of ongoing care related to a patient’s single, serious condition, or a complex condition (Add-on code; list separately in addition to office/outpatient (O/O) E/M visit, new or established)

The documentation should demonstrate the intent and need for ongoing care. Otherwise, no additional documentation is required. CMS pays $16.04 for each service (wRVU = 0.33). It may be reported each time the patient is seen, and there is currently no limit to how often it may be used. Also, there is no additional copay requirement for patients.

Do’s and don’ts

Do report in the following situations when longitudinal care is provided:

• The provider has or intends to have a long-term, ongoing relationship with the patient (ie, G2211 can be used for a new patient visit)
• Audio/video virtual visits
• May be reported with Prolonged Care Services G2212
• When advanced practice providers or physician colleagues in the same specialty practice see the patient (ie, if you see the patient for an urgent visit, but the patient is usually followed by your partner, you can still use G2211)
• When working with graduate medical education trainees (along with the -GC modifier), and as long as the conditions described in the description of G2211 are met

Do NOT report in the following situations:

• If modifier -25 is appended to the E/M service when another service is provided on the same day (eg, pulmonary function tests, 6-minute walk tests, immunization)
• Audio-only virtual visits, hospital, skilled nursing facility, or long-term acute care hospital
• If the patient is not expected to return for ongoing care
• If the reason for longitudinal care does not include a “single, serious condition or a complex condition” (eg, annual visits for a stable 6 mm lung nodule)

CMS expects that this will be billed with 38% of all E/M services initially and potentially up to 54% over time. We feel this is reimbursement for the work being done to care for our patients with single, serious, or complex conditions. Both Medicare and Medicare Advantage plans are expected to reimburse for this service. Whether other payers will do the same is unclear, but it will become clear with time and further negotiation at the local level. In the meantime, members are encouraged to report this code for all appropriate patient encounters.
 

Questions and answers — G2211

Question: What private insurances cover G2211?

Answer: As of March 1, 2024, four national payers have confirmed coverage of G2211:

• Cigna (Medicare Advantage only),
• Humana (commercial and Medicare Advantage),
• United Healthcare (commercial and Medicare Advantage), and
• Aetna (Medicare Advantage).

Question: What needs to be documented for G2211?

Answer: CMS states, “You must document the reason for billing the office and outpatient (O/O) and evaluation and management (E/M). The visits themselves would need to be medically reasonable and necessary for the practitioner to report G2211. In addition, the documentation would need to illustrate medical necessity of the O/O E/M visit. We [CMS] haven’t required additional documentation.”

American Thoracic Society (ATS) and CHEST also recommend including a detailed assessment and plan for the visit, as well as any follow-up. The complexity of the visit should be clear in your documentation to support the medical necessity for reporting the G2211.
 

Question: How can a provider show that a new patient visit (99202-99205) is part of continuing care?

Answer: The treating practitioner should make sure their documentation supports their intent to provide ongoing care to the patient. Establishing such intent goes beyond a statement that the provider plans to provide ongoing care or schedule a follow-up visit. The circumstances of the visit should support the extra work involved in becoming the focal point of the patient’s care or providing ongoing care for a serious or complex condition.

Question: Dr. Red works at a primary care practice, is the focal point for a patient’s care, and has reported G2211. If Dr. Yellow, who is in the same specialty, or Mr. Green, a nurse practitioner, is covering for Dr. Red, and the patient comes in for a visit, can they report G2211 for that visit?

Answer: Yes. The same specialty/same provider rules would apply in this situation. But remember that Dr. Yellow’s or Mr. Green’s documentation for that encounter must support the code.

Question: Can a resident report G2211 under the primary care exemption?

Answer: Yes, according to CMS staff, so long as the service and the documentation meet all the requirements for the exemption and the visit complexity code. For example, the resident can only report low-level E/M codes, and the resident must be “the focal point for that person’s care.”

Question: Are there frequency limits for how often we can report G2211, either for a single patient in a given time period or by a provider or a practice?

Answer: Not at this time, but make sure your providers are following the rules for reporting the code. “There’s got to be documentation that suggests why the practitioner believes they are treating the patient on this long-standing, longitudinal trajectory, and we’ll be able to see how that interaction is happening,” senior CMS staff said. CMS staff further issued a subtle warning to providers by reminding them that CMS has a very strong integrity program. Your practice can avoid problems with thorough training, frequent chart review, and encouraging the team to ask questions until you feel that everyone is comfortable with the code.

Question: Are there any limits on the specialties that can report the code? Is it just for primary care providers?

Answer: No. Remember that a provider who is managing a single serious or complex condition can also report the code. But CMS expects the documentation to support the ongoing nature of the treatment. If a patient sees a provider as a one-off encounter, perhaps to manage an acute problem, that visit wouldn’t qualify. But if the provider clearly documents that they are actively managing the patient’s condition, the encounters could qualify.

Question: Will CMS issue a list of conditions that meet the code’s serious or complex condition requirement?

Answer: CMS has included the examples of HIV and sickle cell anemia in existing guidance, and it plans to issue a few more examples “that help folks understand what is expected.” However, it won’t be a complete list of every condition that might qualify.

Originally published in the May 2023 issue of the American Thoracic Society’s ATS Coding & Billing Quarterly. Republished with permission from the American Thoracic Society.

To continue to bring awareness to our members, we once again discuss this new add-on Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System code finalized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for January 1, 2024. This add-on code is for new (99202-99205) and established (99212-99215) office visits. CMS created this add-on code to address the additional costs and resources associated with providing longitudinal care.

G2211 – Visit complexity inherent to evaluation and management (E/M) associated with medical care services that serve as the continuing focal point for all needed health care services and/or with medical care services that are part of ongoing care related to a patient’s single, serious condition, or a complex condition (Add-on code; list separately in addition to office/outpatient (O/O) E/M visit, new or established)

The documentation should demonstrate the intent and need for ongoing care. Otherwise, no additional documentation is required. CMS pays $16.04 for each service (wRVU = 0.33). It may be reported each time the patient is seen, and there is currently no limit to how often it may be used. Also, there is no additional copay requirement for patients.

Do’s and don’ts

Do report in the following situations when longitudinal care is provided:

• The provider has or intends to have a long-term, ongoing relationship with the patient (ie, G2211 can be used for a new patient visit)
• Audio/video virtual visits
• May be reported with Prolonged Care Services G2212
• When advanced practice providers or physician colleagues in the same specialty practice see the patient (ie, if you see the patient for an urgent visit, but the patient is usually followed by your partner, you can still use G2211)
• When working with graduate medical education trainees (along with the -GC modifier), and as long as the conditions described in the description of G2211 are met

Do NOT report in the following situations:

• If modifier -25 is appended to the E/M service when another service is provided on the same day (eg, pulmonary function tests, 6-minute walk tests, immunization)
• Audio-only virtual visits, hospital, skilled nursing facility, or long-term acute care hospital
• If the patient is not expected to return for ongoing care
• If the reason for longitudinal care does not include a “single, serious condition or a complex condition” (eg, annual visits for a stable 6 mm lung nodule)

CMS expects that this will be billed with 38% of all E/M services initially and potentially up to 54% over time. We feel this is reimbursement for the work being done to care for our patients with single, serious, or complex conditions. Both Medicare and Medicare Advantage plans are expected to reimburse for this service. Whether other payers will do the same is unclear, but it will become clear with time and further negotiation at the local level. In the meantime, members are encouraged to report this code for all appropriate patient encounters.
 

Questions and answers — G2211

Question: What private insurances cover G2211?

Answer: As of March 1, 2024, four national payers have confirmed coverage of G2211:

• Cigna (Medicare Advantage only),
• Humana (commercial and Medicare Advantage),
• United Healthcare (commercial and Medicare Advantage), and
• Aetna (Medicare Advantage).

Question: What needs to be documented for G2211?

Answer: CMS states, “You must document the reason for billing the office and outpatient (O/O) and evaluation and management (E/M). The visits themselves would need to be medically reasonable and necessary for the practitioner to report G2211. In addition, the documentation would need to illustrate medical necessity of the O/O E/M visit. We [CMS] haven’t required additional documentation.”

American Thoracic Society (ATS) and CHEST also recommend including a detailed assessment and plan for the visit, as well as any follow-up. The complexity of the visit should be clear in your documentation to support the medical necessity for reporting the G2211.
 

Question: How can a provider show that a new patient visit (99202-99205) is part of continuing care?

Answer: The treating practitioner should make sure their documentation supports their intent to provide ongoing care to the patient. Establishing such intent goes beyond a statement that the provider plans to provide ongoing care or schedule a follow-up visit. The circumstances of the visit should support the extra work involved in becoming the focal point of the patient’s care or providing ongoing care for a serious or complex condition.

Question: Dr. Red works at a primary care practice, is the focal point for a patient’s care, and has reported G2211. If Dr. Yellow, who is in the same specialty, or Mr. Green, a nurse practitioner, is covering for Dr. Red, and the patient comes in for a visit, can they report G2211 for that visit?

Answer: Yes. The same specialty/same provider rules would apply in this situation. But remember that Dr. Yellow’s or Mr. Green’s documentation for that encounter must support the code.

Question: Can a resident report G2211 under the primary care exemption?

Answer: Yes, according to CMS staff, so long as the service and the documentation meet all the requirements for the exemption and the visit complexity code. For example, the resident can only report low-level E/M codes, and the resident must be “the focal point for that person’s care.”

Question: Are there frequency limits for how often we can report G2211, either for a single patient in a given time period or by a provider or a practice?

Answer: Not at this time, but make sure your providers are following the rules for reporting the code. “There’s got to be documentation that suggests why the practitioner believes they are treating the patient on this long-standing, longitudinal trajectory, and we’ll be able to see how that interaction is happening,” senior CMS staff said. CMS staff further issued a subtle warning to providers by reminding them that CMS has a very strong integrity program. Your practice can avoid problems with thorough training, frequent chart review, and encouraging the team to ask questions until you feel that everyone is comfortable with the code.

Question: Are there any limits on the specialties that can report the code? Is it just for primary care providers?

Answer: No. Remember that a provider who is managing a single serious or complex condition can also report the code. But CMS expects the documentation to support the ongoing nature of the treatment. If a patient sees a provider as a one-off encounter, perhaps to manage an acute problem, that visit wouldn’t qualify. But if the provider clearly documents that they are actively managing the patient’s condition, the encounters could qualify.

Question: Will CMS issue a list of conditions that meet the code’s serious or complex condition requirement?

Answer: CMS has included the examples of HIV and sickle cell anemia in existing guidance, and it plans to issue a few more examples “that help folks understand what is expected.” However, it won’t be a complete list of every condition that might qualify.

Originally published in the May 2023 issue of the American Thoracic Society’s ATS Coding & Billing Quarterly. Republished with permission from the American Thoracic Society.

To continue to bring awareness to our members, we once again discuss this new add-on Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System code finalized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for January 1, 2024. This add-on code is for new (99202-99205) and established (99212-99215) office visits. CMS created this add-on code to address the additional costs and resources associated with providing longitudinal care.

G2211 – Visit complexity inherent to evaluation and management (E/M) associated with medical care services that serve as the continuing focal point for all needed health care services and/or with medical care services that are part of ongoing care related to a patient’s single, serious condition, or a complex condition (Add-on code; list separately in addition to office/outpatient (O/O) E/M visit, new or established)

The documentation should demonstrate the intent and need for ongoing care. Otherwise, no additional documentation is required. CMS pays $16.04 for each service (wRVU = 0.33). It may be reported each time the patient is seen, and there is currently no limit to how often it may be used. Also, there is no additional copay requirement for patients.

Do’s and don’ts

Do report in the following situations when longitudinal care is provided:

• The provider has or intends to have a long-term, ongoing relationship with the patient (ie, G2211 can be used for a new patient visit)
• Audio/video virtual visits
• May be reported with Prolonged Care Services G2212
• When advanced practice providers or physician colleagues in the same specialty practice see the patient (ie, if you see the patient for an urgent visit, but the patient is usually followed by your partner, you can still use G2211)
• When working with graduate medical education trainees (along with the -GC modifier), and as long as the conditions described in the description of G2211 are met

Do NOT report in the following situations:

• If modifier -25 is appended to the E/M service when another service is provided on the same day (eg, pulmonary function tests, 6-minute walk tests, immunization)
• Audio-only virtual visits, hospital, skilled nursing facility, or long-term acute care hospital
• If the patient is not expected to return for ongoing care
• If the reason for longitudinal care does not include a “single, serious condition or a complex condition” (eg, annual visits for a stable 6 mm lung nodule)

CMS expects that this will be billed with 38% of all E/M services initially and potentially up to 54% over time. We feel this is reimbursement for the work being done to care for our patients with single, serious, or complex conditions. Both Medicare and Medicare Advantage plans are expected to reimburse for this service. Whether other payers will do the same is unclear, but it will become clear with time and further negotiation at the local level. In the meantime, members are encouraged to report this code for all appropriate patient encounters.
 

Questions and answers — G2211

Question: What private insurances cover G2211?

Answer: As of March 1, 2024, four national payers have confirmed coverage of G2211:

• Cigna (Medicare Advantage only),
• Humana (commercial and Medicare Advantage),
• United Healthcare (commercial and Medicare Advantage), and
• Aetna (Medicare Advantage).

Question: What needs to be documented for G2211?

Answer: CMS states, “You must document the reason for billing the office and outpatient (O/O) and evaluation and management (E/M). The visits themselves would need to be medically reasonable and necessary for the practitioner to report G2211. In addition, the documentation would need to illustrate medical necessity of the O/O E/M visit. We [CMS] haven’t required additional documentation.”

American Thoracic Society (ATS) and CHEST also recommend including a detailed assessment and plan for the visit, as well as any follow-up. The complexity of the visit should be clear in your documentation to support the medical necessity for reporting the G2211.
 

Question: How can a provider show that a new patient visit (99202-99205) is part of continuing care?

Answer: The treating practitioner should make sure their documentation supports their intent to provide ongoing care to the patient. Establishing such intent goes beyond a statement that the provider plans to provide ongoing care or schedule a follow-up visit. The circumstances of the visit should support the extra work involved in becoming the focal point of the patient’s care or providing ongoing care for a serious or complex condition.

Question: Dr. Red works at a primary care practice, is the focal point for a patient’s care, and has reported G2211. If Dr. Yellow, who is in the same specialty, or Mr. Green, a nurse practitioner, is covering for Dr. Red, and the patient comes in for a visit, can they report G2211 for that visit?

Answer: Yes. The same specialty/same provider rules would apply in this situation. But remember that Dr. Yellow’s or Mr. Green’s documentation for that encounter must support the code.

Question: Can a resident report G2211 under the primary care exemption?

Answer: Yes, according to CMS staff, so long as the service and the documentation meet all the requirements for the exemption and the visit complexity code. For example, the resident can only report low-level E/M codes, and the resident must be “the focal point for that person’s care.”

Question: Are there frequency limits for how often we can report G2211, either for a single patient in a given time period or by a provider or a practice?

Answer: Not at this time, but make sure your providers are following the rules for reporting the code. “There’s got to be documentation that suggests why the practitioner believes they are treating the patient on this long-standing, longitudinal trajectory, and we’ll be able to see how that interaction is happening,” senior CMS staff said. CMS staff further issued a subtle warning to providers by reminding them that CMS has a very strong integrity program. Your practice can avoid problems with thorough training, frequent chart review, and encouraging the team to ask questions until you feel that everyone is comfortable with the code.

Question: Are there any limits on the specialties that can report the code? Is it just for primary care providers?

Answer: No. Remember that a provider who is managing a single serious or complex condition can also report the code. But CMS expects the documentation to support the ongoing nature of the treatment. If a patient sees a provider as a one-off encounter, perhaps to manage an acute problem, that visit wouldn’t qualify. But if the provider clearly documents that they are actively managing the patient’s condition, the encounters could qualify.

Question: Will CMS issue a list of conditions that meet the code’s serious or complex condition requirement?

Answer: CMS has included the examples of HIV and sickle cell anemia in existing guidance, and it plans to issue a few more examples “that help folks understand what is expected.” However, it won’t be a complete list of every condition that might qualify.

Originally published in the May 2023 issue of the American Thoracic Society’s ATS Coding & Billing Quarterly. Republished with permission from the American Thoracic Society.

Intravenous albumin is a human-derived blood product studied widely in a variety of patient populations. Despite its frequent use in critical care, few high-quality studies have demonstrated improvements in patient-important outcomes. It is important for intensivists to think critically about prescribing albumin and individualize the prescription for each patient, as albumin use is not without risk. Compared with crystalloids, albumin increases the risk of fluid overload and bleeding and infections in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.^1,2 In addition, albumin is costly, and its production is fraught with donor supply chain ethical concerns (the majority of albumin is derived from paid plasma donors).

brotra

Albumin use is highly variable between countries, hospitals, and even clinicians within the same specialty due to several factors, including the perception of minimal risk with albumin, concerns regarding insufficient short-term hemodynamic response to crystalloid, and lack of high-quality evidence to inform clinical practice. We will discuss when intensivists should consider albumin use (with prescription personalized to patient context) and when it should be avoided due to the concerns for patient harm.

An intensivist might consider albumin as a reasonable treatment option in patients with cirrhosis undergoing large volume paracentesis to prevent paracentesis-induced circulatory dysfunction, and in patients with cirrhosis and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP), as data suggests use in this setting leads to a reduction in mortality.³ Clinicians should be aware that even for these widely accepted albumin indications, which are supported by published guidelines, the certainty of evidence is low, recommendations are weak (conditional), and, therefore, albumin should always be personalized to the patient based on volume of paracentesis fluid removed, prior history of hypotension after procedures, and degree of renal dysfunction.⁴

stastuspicutritethichestosaposadaswawustohanogoswophiclotemugubrecraprutawrukuuagamodrocidivitrachiuobrewreduvivicrospithidocrerakuclokurapafracravouomivebrecabauadaphefrespawospafrichavosleraclovorikachapavupapropis

copishujetomubeswiuelidreuenocrodrovothanucrebupredotreroslodrobrishapricrobrolofropuclagikegiswuphomabishacloshasticledrocrojasurepopucrecibribanouimadedrechuuecoposlepodratrishipo

As with any intervention, the use of albumin is associated with risks. In patients undergoing on-pump cardiac surgery, the ALBICS study showed that albumin did not reduce the risk of major adverse events and, instead, increased risk of bleeding, resternotomy, and infection.² The ATTIRE trial showed that in patients hospitalized with decompensated cirrhosis and serum albumin <30 g/L, albumin failed to reduce infection, renal impairment, or mortality while increasing life-threatening adverse events, including pulmonary edema and fluid overload.¹ Similarly, in patients with cirrhosis and extraperitoneal infections, albumin showed no benefit in reducing renal impairment or mortality, and its use was associated with higher rates of pulmonary edema.⁶ Lastly, critically ill patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) who received fluid resuscitation with albumin have been shown to experience higher mortality compared with saline.⁷ Thus, based on current evidence, intravenous albumin is not recommended for patients undergoing cardiac surgery (priming of the bypass circuit or volume replacement), patients hospitalized with decompensated cirrhosis and hypoalbuminemia, patients hospitalized with cirrhosis and extraperitoneal infections, and critically ill patients with TBI.⁴

sheketroslepakih

spavolecrusponosistulachufrisinusaswoguhalepifratrachuwipreshocifruphorebricobrivetrunadejaduguladuspidrothosporatogestewusluraphibritujoswosugokustiswawajosliswowoswiphicrabrapaswothivadeswashelegogawr

High-quality evidence is currently lacking in many clinical settings, and large randomized controlled trials are underway to provide further insights into the utility of albumin. These trials will address albumin use in the following: acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy (ALTER-AKI, NCT04705896), inpatients with community-acquired pneumonia (NCT04071041), high-risk cardiac surgery (ACTRN1261900135516703), and septic shock (NCT03869385).

uupovouodefruprocrishechisosperukopanonisloslutefrafrofrijejoslacopujinasepisporechochagawrishakuswuprushoswadileprimagaspogufrutrepruclodrathaspikuwoswuslatrostastesapuprustoclebroswethewuphucredrobrespesulowroslokowrimac

Financial/nonfinancial disclosures

Nicole Relke: None. Mark Hewitt: None. Bram Rochwerg: None. Jeannie Callum: Research support from Canadian Blood Services and Octapharma.

References

1. China L, Freemantle N, Forrest E, et al. A randomized trial of albumin infusions in hospitalized patients with cirrhosis. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(9):808-817. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2022166

2. Pesonen E, Vlasov H, Suojaranta R, et al. Effect of 4% albumin solution vs ringer acetate on major adverse events in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2022;328(3):251-258. doi:10.1001/jama.2022.10461

3. Sort P, Navasa M, Arroyo V, et al. Effect of intravenous albumin on renal impairment and mortality in patients with cirrhosis and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. NEJM. 1999;341:403-409.

4. Callum J, Skubas NJ, Bathla A, et al. Use of intravenous albumin: a guideline from the international collaboration for transfusion medicine guidelines. Chest. 2024:S0012-3692(24)00285-X. doi:10.1016/j.chest.2024.02.049

5. Torp N. High doses of albumin increases mortality and complications in terlipressin treated patients with cirrhosis: insights from the ATTIRE trial. Paper presented at the AASLD; 2023; San Diego, CA. https://www.aasld.org/the-liver-meeting/high-doses-albumin-increases-mortality-and-complications-terlipressin-treated

6. Wong YJ, Qiu TY, Tam YC, Mohan BP, Gallegos-Orozco JF, Adler DG. Efficacy and safety of IV albumin for non-spontaneous bacterial peritonitis infection among patients with cirrhosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Liver Dis. 2020;52(10):1137-1142. doi:10.1016/j.dld.2020.05.047

7. Myburgh J, Cooper JD, Finfer S, et al. Saline or albumin for fluid resuscitation in patients with traumatic brain injury. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(9):874-884.

Intravenous albumin is a human-derived blood product studied widely in a variety of patient populations. Despite its frequent use in critical care, few high-quality studies have demonstrated improvements in patient-important outcomes. It is important for intensivists to think critically about prescribing albumin and individualize the prescription for each patient, as albumin use is not without risk. Compared with crystalloids, albumin increases the risk of fluid overload and bleeding and infections in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.^1,2 In addition, albumin is costly, and its production is fraught with donor supply chain ethical concerns (the majority of albumin is derived from paid plasma donors).

brotra

Albumin use is highly variable between countries, hospitals, and even clinicians within the same specialty due to several factors, including the perception of minimal risk with albumin, concerns regarding insufficient short-term hemodynamic response to crystalloid, and lack of high-quality evidence to inform clinical practice. We will discuss when intensivists should consider albumin use (with prescription personalized to patient context) and when it should be avoided due to the concerns for patient harm.

An intensivist might consider albumin as a reasonable treatment option in patients with cirrhosis undergoing large volume paracentesis to prevent paracentesis-induced circulatory dysfunction, and in patients with cirrhosis and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP), as data suggests use in this setting leads to a reduction in mortality.³ Clinicians should be aware that even for these widely accepted albumin indications, which are supported by published guidelines, the certainty of evidence is low, recommendations are weak (conditional), and, therefore, albumin should always be personalized to the patient based on volume of paracentesis fluid removed, prior history of hypotension after procedures, and degree of renal dysfunction.⁴

stastuspicutritethichestosaposadaswawustohanogoswophiclotemugubrecraprutawrukuuagamodrocidivitrachiuobrewreduvivicrospithidocrerakuclokurapafracravouomivebrecabauadaphefrespawospafrichavosleraclovorikachapavupapropis

copishujetomubeswiuelidreuenocrodrovothanucrebupredotreroslodrobrishapricrobrolofropuclagikegiswuphomabishacloshasticledrocrojasurepopucrecibribanouimadedrechuuecoposlepodratrishipo

As with any intervention, the use of albumin is associated with risks. In patients undergoing on-pump cardiac surgery, the ALBICS study showed that albumin did not reduce the risk of major adverse events and, instead, increased risk of bleeding, resternotomy, and infection.² The ATTIRE trial showed that in patients hospitalized with decompensated cirrhosis and serum albumin <30 g/L, albumin failed to reduce infection, renal impairment, or mortality while increasing life-threatening adverse events, including pulmonary edema and fluid overload.¹ Similarly, in patients with cirrhosis and extraperitoneal infections, albumin showed no benefit in reducing renal impairment or mortality, and its use was associated with higher rates of pulmonary edema.⁶ Lastly, critically ill patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) who received fluid resuscitation with albumin have been shown to experience higher mortality compared with saline.⁷ Thus, based on current evidence, intravenous albumin is not recommended for patients undergoing cardiac surgery (priming of the bypass circuit or volume replacement), patients hospitalized with decompensated cirrhosis and hypoalbuminemia, patients hospitalized with cirrhosis and extraperitoneal infections, and critically ill patients with TBI.⁴

sheketroslepakih

spavolecrusponosistulachufrisinusaswoguhalepifratrachuwipreshocifruphorebricobrivetrunadejaduguladuspidrothosporatogestewusluraphibritujoswosugokustiswawajosliswowoswiphicrabrapaswothivadeswashelegogawr

High-quality evidence is currently lacking in many clinical settings, and large randomized controlled trials are underway to provide further insights into the utility of albumin. These trials will address albumin use in the following: acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy (ALTER-AKI, NCT04705896), inpatients with community-acquired pneumonia (NCT04071041), high-risk cardiac surgery (ACTRN1261900135516703), and septic shock (NCT03869385).

uupovouodefruprocrishechisosperukopanonisloslutefrafrofrijejoslacopujinasepisporechochagawrishakuswuprushoswadileprimagaspogufrutrepruclodrathaspikuwoswuslatrostastesapuprustoclebroswethewuphucredrobrespesulowroslokowrimac

Financial/nonfinancial disclosures

Nicole Relke: None. Mark Hewitt: None. Bram Rochwerg: None. Jeannie Callum: Research support from Canadian Blood Services and Octapharma.

References

1. China L, Freemantle N, Forrest E, et al. A randomized trial of albumin infusions in hospitalized patients with cirrhosis. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(9):808-817. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2022166

2. Pesonen E, Vlasov H, Suojaranta R, et al. Effect of 4% albumin solution vs ringer acetate on major adverse events in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2022;328(3):251-258. doi:10.1001/jama.2022.10461

3. Sort P, Navasa M, Arroyo V, et al. Effect of intravenous albumin on renal impairment and mortality in patients with cirrhosis and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. NEJM. 1999;341:403-409.

4. Callum J, Skubas NJ, Bathla A, et al. Use of intravenous albumin: a guideline from the international collaboration for transfusion medicine guidelines. Chest. 2024:S0012-3692(24)00285-X. doi:10.1016/j.chest.2024.02.049

5. Torp N. High doses of albumin increases mortality and complications in terlipressin treated patients with cirrhosis: insights from the ATTIRE trial. Paper presented at the AASLD; 2023; San Diego, CA. https://www.aasld.org/the-liver-meeting/high-doses-albumin-increases-mortality-and-complications-terlipressin-treated

6. Wong YJ, Qiu TY, Tam YC, Mohan BP, Gallegos-Orozco JF, Adler DG. Efficacy and safety of IV albumin for non-spontaneous bacterial peritonitis infection among patients with cirrhosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Liver Dis. 2020;52(10):1137-1142. doi:10.1016/j.dld.2020.05.047

7. Myburgh J, Cooper JD, Finfer S, et al. Saline or albumin for fluid resuscitation in patients with traumatic brain injury. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(9):874-884.

Intravenous albumin is a human-derived blood product studied widely in a variety of patient populations. Despite its frequent use in critical care, few high-quality studies have demonstrated improvements in patient-important outcomes. It is important for intensivists to think critically about prescribing albumin and individualize the prescription for each patient, as albumin use is not without risk. Compared with crystalloids, albumin increases the risk of fluid overload and bleeding and infections in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.^1,2 In addition, albumin is costly, and its production is fraught with donor supply chain ethical concerns (the majority of albumin is derived from paid plasma donors).

brotra

Albumin use is highly variable between countries, hospitals, and even clinicians within the same specialty due to several factors, including the perception of minimal risk with albumin, concerns regarding insufficient short-term hemodynamic response to crystalloid, and lack of high-quality evidence to inform clinical practice. We will discuss when intensivists should consider albumin use (with prescription personalized to patient context) and when it should be avoided due to the concerns for patient harm.

An intensivist might consider albumin as a reasonable treatment option in patients with cirrhosis undergoing large volume paracentesis to prevent paracentesis-induced circulatory dysfunction, and in patients with cirrhosis and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP), as data suggests use in this setting leads to a reduction in mortality.³ Clinicians should be aware that even for these widely accepted albumin indications, which are supported by published guidelines, the certainty of evidence is low, recommendations are weak (conditional), and, therefore, albumin should always be personalized to the patient based on volume of paracentesis fluid removed, prior history of hypotension after procedures, and degree of renal dysfunction.⁴

stastuspicutritethichestosaposadaswawustohanogoswophiclotemugubrecraprutawrukuuagamodrocidivitrachiuobrewreduvivicrospithidocrerakuclokurapafracravouomivebrecabauadaphefrespawospafrichavosleraclovorikachapavupapropis

copishujetomubeswiuelidreuenocrodrovothanucrebupredotreroslodrobrishapricrobrolofropuclagikegiswuphomabishacloshasticledrocrojasurepopucrecibribanouimadedrechuuecoposlepodratrishipo

As with any intervention, the use of albumin is associated with risks. In patients undergoing on-pump cardiac surgery, the ALBICS study showed that albumin did not reduce the risk of major adverse events and, instead, increased risk of bleeding, resternotomy, and infection.² The ATTIRE trial showed that in patients hospitalized with decompensated cirrhosis and serum albumin <30 g/L, albumin failed to reduce infection, renal impairment, or mortality while increasing life-threatening adverse events, including pulmonary edema and fluid overload.¹ Similarly, in patients with cirrhosis and extraperitoneal infections, albumin showed no benefit in reducing renal impairment or mortality, and its use was associated with higher rates of pulmonary edema.⁶ Lastly, critically ill patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) who received fluid resuscitation with albumin have been shown to experience higher mortality compared with saline.⁷ Thus, based on current evidence, intravenous albumin is not recommended for patients undergoing cardiac surgery (priming of the bypass circuit or volume replacement), patients hospitalized with decompensated cirrhosis and hypoalbuminemia, patients hospitalized with cirrhosis and extraperitoneal infections, and critically ill patients with TBI.⁴

sheketroslepakih

spavolecrusponosistulachufrisinusaswoguhalepifratrachuwipreshocifruphorebricobrivetrunadejaduguladuspidrothosporatogestewusluraphibritujoswosugokustiswawajosliswowoswiphicrabrapaswothivadeswashelegogawr

High-quality evidence is currently lacking in many clinical settings, and large randomized controlled trials are underway to provide further insights into the utility of albumin. These trials will address albumin use in the following: acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy (ALTER-AKI, NCT04705896), inpatients with community-acquired pneumonia (NCT04071041), high-risk cardiac surgery (ACTRN1261900135516703), and septic shock (NCT03869385).

uupovouodefruprocrishechisosperukopanonisloslutefrafrofrijejoslacopujinasepisporechochagawrishakuswuprushoswadileprimagaspogufrutrepruclodrathaspikuwoswuslatrostastesapuprustoclebroswethewuphucredrobrespesulowroslokowrimac

Financial/nonfinancial disclosures

Nicole Relke: None. Mark Hewitt: None. Bram Rochwerg: None. Jeannie Callum: Research support from Canadian Blood Services and Octapharma.

References

1. China L, Freemantle N, Forrest E, et al. A randomized trial of albumin infusions in hospitalized patients with cirrhosis. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(9):808-817. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2022166

2. Pesonen E, Vlasov H, Suojaranta R, et al. Effect of 4% albumin solution vs ringer acetate on major adverse events in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2022;328(3):251-258. doi:10.1001/jama.2022.10461

3. Sort P, Navasa M, Arroyo V, et al. Effect of intravenous albumin on renal impairment and mortality in patients with cirrhosis and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. NEJM. 1999;341:403-409.

4. Callum J, Skubas NJ, Bathla A, et al. Use of intravenous albumin: a guideline from the international collaboration for transfusion medicine guidelines. Chest. 2024:S0012-3692(24)00285-X. doi:10.1016/j.chest.2024.02.049

5. Torp N. High doses of albumin increases mortality and complications in terlipressin treated patients with cirrhosis: insights from the ATTIRE trial. Paper presented at the AASLD; 2023; San Diego, CA. https://www.aasld.org/the-liver-meeting/high-doses-albumin-increases-mortality-and-complications-terlipressin-treated

6. Wong YJ, Qiu TY, Tam YC, Mohan BP, Gallegos-Orozco JF, Adler DG. Efficacy and safety of IV albumin for non-spontaneous bacterial peritonitis infection among patients with cirrhosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Liver Dis. 2020;52(10):1137-1142. doi:10.1016/j.dld.2020.05.047

7. Myburgh J, Cooper JD, Finfer S, et al. Saline or albumin for fluid resuscitation in patients with traumatic brain injury. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(9):874-884.

PULMONARY VASCULAR AND CARDIOVASCULAR NETWORK

Pulmonary Vascular Disease Section

In the right clinical scenario, three key hemodynamic components obtained by right heart catheterization (RHC) define precapillary pulmonary hypertension (PH) warranting vasodilator treatment: mean pulmonary arterial pressure >20 mm Hg, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) ≤15 mm Hg, and pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) >2 Wood units.¹ While these cutoffs are straightforward, a gap in practical application is evidenced by considerable variability in how PH providers perform and interpret RHC hemodynamic information.

drespahuchishosofrotahahinouiprapratrupro

A recent survey of 145 PH providers conducted by CHEST’s Pulmonary Vascular Disease Section shed light on the current RHC practices in the US.² Regarding the respondents’ characteristics, 85% were in the 30-60 age range, 68% were males, and 71% were pulmonologists.

shuuuthiprugocawujipophibekosichuchokafravosijophosuspegavopedivatrothacamedisumuthiphesloclilekiuepapretupecrivaprocokowrasitrecawokuliclespibriclophijebrosop

About half of the providers perform the RHC themselves. Most review the hemodynamic tracings, but up to 21% rely on the final report alone. Regarding PCWP, most (86%) obtain it during end-expiration, but only 42% routinely measure a PCWP saturation for confirmation. When faced with PVR discrepancies between thermodilution and indirect Fick (IFick), up to 30% chose either IFick or didn’t know which one to trust. Nearly 20% repeat the RHC at least annually, and 80% whenever the patient declines.

wrihauenimuwruvasacrespuclubrilutrapraswujopidriswucridrosofrewromowrogostabrishephacristopukuvepubenawohiphodivitreprupho

References

1. Simonneau et al. Eur Resp J. 2019;53(1):1801913

2. Soto et al. CHEST. 2023;164(4):Supplement A5832-A5834

PULMONARY VASCULAR AND CARDIOVASCULAR NETWORK

Pulmonary Vascular Disease Section

In the right clinical scenario, three key hemodynamic components obtained by right heart catheterization (RHC) define precapillary pulmonary hypertension (PH) warranting vasodilator treatment: mean pulmonary arterial pressure >20 mm Hg, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) ≤15 mm Hg, and pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) >2 Wood units.¹ While these cutoffs are straightforward, a gap in practical application is evidenced by considerable variability in how PH providers perform and interpret RHC hemodynamic information.

drespahuchishosofrotahahinouiprapratrupro

A recent survey of 145 PH providers conducted by CHEST’s Pulmonary Vascular Disease Section shed light on the current RHC practices in the US.² Regarding the respondents’ characteristics, 85% were in the 30-60 age range, 68% were males, and 71% were pulmonologists.

shuuuthiprugocawujipophibekosichuchokafravosijophosuspegavopedivatrothacamedisumuthiphesloclilekiuepapretupecrivaprocokowrasitrecawokuliclespibriclophijebrosop

About half of the providers perform the RHC themselves. Most review the hemodynamic tracings, but up to 21% rely on the final report alone. Regarding PCWP, most (86%) obtain it during end-expiration, but only 42% routinely measure a PCWP saturation for confirmation. When faced with PVR discrepancies between thermodilution and indirect Fick (IFick), up to 30% chose either IFick or didn’t know which one to trust. Nearly 20% repeat the RHC at least annually, and 80% whenever the patient declines.

wrihauenimuwruvasacrespuclubrilutrapraswujopidriswucridrosofrewromowrogostabrishephacristopukuvepubenawohiphodivitreprupho

References

1. Simonneau et al. Eur Resp J. 2019;53(1):1801913

2. Soto et al. CHEST. 2023;164(4):Supplement A5832-A5834

PULMONARY VASCULAR AND CARDIOVASCULAR NETWORK

Pulmonary Vascular Disease Section

In the right clinical scenario, three key hemodynamic components obtained by right heart catheterization (RHC) define precapillary pulmonary hypertension (PH) warranting vasodilator treatment: mean pulmonary arterial pressure >20 mm Hg, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) ≤15 mm Hg, and pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) >2 Wood units.¹ While these cutoffs are straightforward, a gap in practical application is evidenced by considerable variability in how PH providers perform and interpret RHC hemodynamic information.

drespahuchishosofrotahahinouiprapratrupro

A recent survey of 145 PH providers conducted by CHEST’s Pulmonary Vascular Disease Section shed light on the current RHC practices in the US.² Regarding the respondents’ characteristics, 85% were in the 30-60 age range, 68% were males, and 71% were pulmonologists.

shuuuthiprugocawujipophibekosichuchokafravosijophosuspegavopedivatrothacamedisumuthiphesloclilekiuepapretupecrivaprocokowrasitrecawokuliclespibriclophijebrosop

About half of the providers perform the RHC themselves. Most review the hemodynamic tracings, but up to 21% rely on the final report alone. Regarding PCWP, most (86%) obtain it during end-expiration, but only 42% routinely measure a PCWP saturation for confirmation. When faced with PVR discrepancies between thermodilution and indirect Fick (IFick), up to 30% chose either IFick or didn’t know which one to trust. Nearly 20% repeat the RHC at least annually, and 80% whenever the patient declines.

wrihauenimuwruvasacrespuclubrilutrapraswujopidriswucridrosofrewromowrogostabrishephacristopukuvepubenawohiphodivitreprupho

References

1. Simonneau et al. Eur Resp J. 2019;53(1):1801913

2. Soto et al. CHEST. 2023;164(4):Supplement A5832-A5834

DIFFUSE LUNG DISEASE AND LUNG TRANSPLANT NETWORK

Pulmonary Physiology and Rehabilitation Section

Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) is a clinically useful modality to discriminate between cardiac, pulmonary, and musculoskeletal limitations to physical exertion. However, it is relatively underutilized due to the lack of local expertise necessary for accurate interpretation. Several studies have explored automation of CPET interpretation, the most notable of which utilized machine learning.¹

Recently, Schwendinger et al. investigated the ability of machine learning algorithms to not only categorize (pulmonary-vascular, mechanical-ventilatory, cardiocirculatory, and muscular), but also assign severity scores (0-6) to exercise limitations found in a group of 200 CPETs performed on adult patients referred to a lung clinic in Germany.² Decision trees were constructed for each of the limitation categories by identifying variables with the lowest Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), which were comparable to agreement within expert interpretations. Combining decision trees allowed for a more comprehensive analysis with identification of multiple abnormalities in the same test.

hajiclusoclivushenomurobriluswibrushuuoslichebaclathaciphouiristasithedracharobowrusothabiuubebecrauospocopetrotrauuheuadaprunubiuojaprasperibuhihochenocrebreslagesitespushiprostorodogumacicredruclolitechusuuujulicroshuswujojuwreshecaswoh

A major limitation to the study is limited applicability to general patient populations without suspected lung disease. This bias is reflected in the decision tree for cardiovascular limitation that relied on VO₂ peak and FEV₁ alone. The authors were unable to construct a decision tree for muscular limitations due to a lack of identified cases.

las

DIFFUSE LUNG DISEASE AND LUNG TRANSPLANT NETWORK

Pulmonary Physiology and Rehabilitation Section

Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) is a clinically useful modality to discriminate between cardiac, pulmonary, and musculoskeletal limitations to physical exertion. However, it is relatively underutilized due to the lack of local expertise necessary for accurate interpretation. Several studies have explored automation of CPET interpretation, the most notable of which utilized machine learning.¹

Recently, Schwendinger et al. investigated the ability of machine learning algorithms to not only categorize (pulmonary-vascular, mechanical-ventilatory, cardiocirculatory, and muscular), but also assign severity scores (0-6) to exercise limitations found in a group of 200 CPETs performed on adult patients referred to a lung clinic in Germany.² Decision trees were constructed for each of the limitation categories by identifying variables with the lowest Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), which were comparable to agreement within expert interpretations. Combining decision trees allowed for a more comprehensive analysis with identification of multiple abnormalities in the same test.

hajiclusoclivushenomurobriluswibrushuuoslichebaclathaciphouiristasithedracharobowrusothabiuubebecrauospocopetrotrauuheuadaprunubiuojaprasperibuhihochenocrebreslagesitespushiprostorodogumacicredruclolitechusuuujulicroshuswujojuwreshecaswoh

A major limitation to the study is limited applicability to general patient populations without suspected lung disease. This bias is reflected in the decision tree for cardiovascular limitation that relied on VO₂ peak and FEV₁ alone. The authors were unable to construct a decision tree for muscular limitations due to a lack of identified cases.

las

DIFFUSE LUNG DISEASE AND LUNG TRANSPLANT NETWORK

Pulmonary Physiology and Rehabilitation Section

Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) is a clinically useful modality to discriminate between cardiac, pulmonary, and musculoskeletal limitations to physical exertion. However, it is relatively underutilized due to the lack of local expertise necessary for accurate interpretation. Several studies have explored automation of CPET interpretation, the most notable of which utilized machine learning.¹

Recently, Schwendinger et al. investigated the ability of machine learning algorithms to not only categorize (pulmonary-vascular, mechanical-ventilatory, cardiocirculatory, and muscular), but also assign severity scores (0-6) to exercise limitations found in a group of 200 CPETs performed on adult patients referred to a lung clinic in Germany.² Decision trees were constructed for each of the limitation categories by identifying variables with the lowest Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), which were comparable to agreement within expert interpretations. Combining decision trees allowed for a more comprehensive analysis with identification of multiple abnormalities in the same test.

hajiclusoclivushenomurobriluswibrushuuoslichebaclathaciphouiristasithedracharobowrusothabiuubebecrauospocopetrotrauuheuadaprunubiuojaprasperibuhihochenocrebreslagesitespushiprostorodogumacicredruclolitechusuuujulicroshuswujojuwreshecaswoh

A major limitation to the study is limited applicability to general patient populations without suspected lung disease. This bias is reflected in the decision tree for cardiovascular limitation that relied on VO₂ peak and FEV₁ alone. The authors were unable to construct a decision tree for muscular limitations due to a lack of identified cases.

las

THORACIC ONCOLOGY AND CHEST PROCEDURES NETWORK

Pleural Disease Section

weprobrishashahosporodaspobiloclosevichustufrauakoswopacrogoshopruslichupubebewesahislostaguwroswuspitricrahewugicrulirupadrislumetejaswastethigutupashahishubrotamochigathethiriwipheswusputhaloprauowropacluchethodroch

Optimal management of primary spontaneous (PSP) and secondary spontaneous pneumothorax (SSP) remains an area of ongoing debate, with both CHEST and the British Thoracic Society (BTS) offering guidelines to address management decisions.

The consensus for treatment of PSP depends on the size of the pneumothorax; if smaller than 2-3 cm, the patient can be observed for 3-6 hours and if radiographically stable, can discharge home with close (within 48 hours) follow-up and repeat chest radiograph (CXR).^1,2 If symptomatic or large, an intervention is recommended or home discharge with a Heimlich valve and close follow up (48 hours) with interval CXR.¹ For the management of SSP, it is recommended that the patient remain hospitalized, with a lower threshold to intervene with chest tube placement.^1,2

nithiritrajophephogefricraduwrobrehipubroprefronapilijiboslimiswo

Both the 2001 CHEST guidelines and 2010 BTS guidelines recommend the use of a small bore pigtail catheter (<14 Fr) for management of PSP.^1,2 Expert consensus and retrospective studies recommend the use of a large bore chest tube (>28 French) in patients with secondary spontaneous pneumothorax and concomitant hemothorax, empyema, large air leaks, or mechanical ventilation.^3,4

For patients requiring pleurodesis, talc slurry is frequently used due to it being widely available and inexpensive.⁵ However, talc is associated with impurities and has been associated with severe pain, fever, dyspnea, and pneumonitis.^6,7 Other agents such as doxycycline have been studied but overall data is lacking. One study comparing doxycycline solution with talc slurry showed less recurrence of pneumothorax with talc as compared with doxycycline with no difference in side effects.⁸

phepredishithiwrunidraphutrehedoshestawrobotronacrejudurafrava

– Praneet Iyer, MD

Member-at-Large

– Cristina Salmon, MD

Fellow-in-Training

– John N. Shumar, DO

Member-at-Large

References

1. Baumann MH, AACP Pneumothorax Consensus Group, et al. Management of spontaneous pneumothorax: an American College of Chest Physicians Delphi consensus statement. CHEST. 2001;119:590-602. doi: 10.1378/chest.119.2.590

2. Roberts ME, Neville E, Berrisford RG, Antunes G, Ali NJ; BTS Pleural Disease Guideline Group Management of a malignant pleural effusion: British Thoracic Society pleural disease guideline 2010. Thorax. 2010;65:ii32-ii40. doi: 10.1136/thx.2010.136994

3. Lin YC, Tu CY, Liang SJ, et al. Pigtail catheter for the management of pneumothorax in mechanically ventilated patients. Am J Emerg Med. 2010;28(4):466-471. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2009.01.033. Epub 2010 Jan 28. PMID: 20466227.4. Baumann MH. Pleural Disease: An International Textbook. London: Arnold Publishers; 2003.

5. How CH, Hsu HH, Chen JS. Chemical pleurodesis for spontaneous pneumothorax. J Formos Med Assoc. 2013;112:749-755. 10.1016/j.jfma.2013.10.016

6. Rehse DH, Aye RW, Florence MG. Respiratory failure following talc pleurodesis. Am J Surg. 1999;177:437-440. Doi: 10.1016/S0002-9610(99)00075-6

7. Ferrer J, Villarino MA, Tura JM, et al. Talc preparations used for pleurodesis vary markedly from one preparation to another. CHEST. 2001;119:1901-1905. doi: 10.1378/chest.119.6.1901

8. Park EH, Kim JH, Yee J, et al. Comparisons of doxycycline solution with talc slurry for chemical pleurodesis and risk factors for recurrence in South Korean patients with spontaneous pneumothorax. Eur J Hosp Pharm. 2019;26(5):275-279. doi: 10.1136/ejhpharm-2017-001465. Epub 2018 Apr 18. PMID: 31656615; PMCID: PMC6788261.

THORACIC ONCOLOGY AND CHEST PROCEDURES NETWORK

Pleural Disease Section

weprobrishashahosporodaspobiloclosevichustufrauakoswopacrogoshopruslichupubebewesahislostaguwroswuspitricrahewugicrulirupadrislumetejaswastethigutupashahishubrotamochigathethiriwipheswusputhaloprauowropacluchethodroch

Optimal management of primary spontaneous (PSP) and secondary spontaneous pneumothorax (SSP) remains an area of ongoing debate, with both CHEST and the British Thoracic Society (BTS) offering guidelines to address management decisions.

The consensus for treatment of PSP depends on the size of the pneumothorax; if smaller than 2-3 cm, the patient can be observed for 3-6 hours and if radiographically stable, can discharge home with close (within 48 hours) follow-up and repeat chest radiograph (CXR).^1,2 If symptomatic or large, an intervention is recommended or home discharge with a Heimlich valve and close follow up (48 hours) with interval CXR.¹ For the management of SSP, it is recommended that the patient remain hospitalized, with a lower threshold to intervene with chest tube placement.^1,2

nithiritrajophephogefricraduwrobrehipubroprefronapilijiboslimiswo

Both the 2001 CHEST guidelines and 2010 BTS guidelines recommend the use of a small bore pigtail catheter (<14 Fr) for management of PSP.^1,2 Expert consensus and retrospective studies recommend the use of a large bore chest tube (>28 French) in patients with secondary spontaneous pneumothorax and concomitant hemothorax, empyema, large air leaks, or mechanical ventilation.^3,4

For patients requiring pleurodesis, talc slurry is frequently used due to it being widely available and inexpensive.⁵ However, talc is associated with impurities and has been associated with severe pain, fever, dyspnea, and pneumonitis.^6,7 Other agents such as doxycycline have been studied but overall data is lacking. One study comparing doxycycline solution with talc slurry showed less recurrence of pneumothorax with talc as compared with doxycycline with no difference in side effects.⁸

phepredishithiwrunidraphutrehedoshestawrobotronacrejudurafrava

– Praneet Iyer, MD

Member-at-Large

– Cristina Salmon, MD

Fellow-in-Training

– John N. Shumar, DO

Member-at-Large

References

1. Baumann MH, AACP Pneumothorax Consensus Group, et al. Management of spontaneous pneumothorax: an American College of Chest Physicians Delphi consensus statement. CHEST. 2001;119:590-602. doi: 10.1378/chest.119.2.590

2. Roberts ME, Neville E, Berrisford RG, Antunes G, Ali NJ; BTS Pleural Disease Guideline Group Management of a malignant pleural effusion: British Thoracic Society pleural disease guideline 2010. Thorax. 2010;65:ii32-ii40. doi: 10.1136/thx.2010.136994

3. Lin YC, Tu CY, Liang SJ, et al. Pigtail catheter for the management of pneumothorax in mechanically ventilated patients. Am J Emerg Med. 2010;28(4):466-471. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2009.01.033. Epub 2010 Jan 28. PMID: 20466227.4. Baumann MH. Pleural Disease: An International Textbook. London: Arnold Publishers; 2003.

5. How CH, Hsu HH, Chen JS. Chemical pleurodesis for spontaneous pneumothorax. J Formos Med Assoc. 2013;112:749-755. 10.1016/j.jfma.2013.10.016

6. Rehse DH, Aye RW, Florence MG. Respiratory failure following talc pleurodesis. Am J Surg. 1999;177:437-440. Doi: 10.1016/S0002-9610(99)00075-6

7. Ferrer J, Villarino MA, Tura JM, et al. Talc preparations used for pleurodesis vary markedly from one preparation to another. CHEST. 2001;119:1901-1905. doi: 10.1378/chest.119.6.1901

8. Park EH, Kim JH, Yee J, et al. Comparisons of doxycycline solution with talc slurry for chemical pleurodesis and risk factors for recurrence in South Korean patients with spontaneous pneumothorax. Eur J Hosp Pharm. 2019;26(5):275-279. doi: 10.1136/ejhpharm-2017-001465. Epub 2018 Apr 18. PMID: 31656615; PMCID: PMC6788261.

THORACIC ONCOLOGY AND CHEST PROCEDURES NETWORK

Pleural Disease Section

weprobrishashahosporodaspobiloclosevichustufrauakoswopacrogoshopruslichupubebewesahislostaguwroswuspitricrahewugicrulirupadrislumetejaswastethigutupashahishubrotamochigathethiriwipheswusputhaloprauowropacluchethodroch

Optimal management of primary spontaneous (PSP) and secondary spontaneous pneumothorax (SSP) remains an area of ongoing debate, with both CHEST and the British Thoracic Society (BTS) offering guidelines to address management decisions.

The consensus for treatment of PSP depends on the size of the pneumothorax; if smaller than 2-3 cm, the patient can be observed for 3-6 hours and if radiographically stable, can discharge home with close (within 48 hours) follow-up and repeat chest radiograph (CXR).^1,2 If symptomatic or large, an intervention is recommended or home discharge with a Heimlich valve and close follow up (48 hours) with interval CXR.¹ For the management of SSP, it is recommended that the patient remain hospitalized, with a lower threshold to intervene with chest tube placement.^1,2

nithiritrajophephogefricraduwrobrehipubroprefronapilijiboslimiswo

Both the 2001 CHEST guidelines and 2010 BTS guidelines recommend the use of a small bore pigtail catheter (<14 Fr) for management of PSP.^1,2 Expert consensus and retrospective studies recommend the use of a large bore chest tube (>28 French) in patients with secondary spontaneous pneumothorax and concomitant hemothorax, empyema, large air leaks, or mechanical ventilation.^3,4

For patients requiring pleurodesis, talc slurry is frequently used due to it being widely available and inexpensive.⁵ However, talc is associated with impurities and has been associated with severe pain, fever, dyspnea, and pneumonitis.^6,7 Other agents such as doxycycline have been studied but overall data is lacking. One study comparing doxycycline solution with talc slurry showed less recurrence of pneumothorax with talc as compared with doxycycline with no difference in side effects.⁸

phepredishithiwrunidraphutrehedoshestawrobotronacrejudurafrava

– Praneet Iyer, MD

Member-at-Large

– Cristina Salmon, MD

Fellow-in-Training

– John N. Shumar, DO

Member-at-Large

References

1. Baumann MH, AACP Pneumothorax Consensus Group, et al. Management of spontaneous pneumothorax: an American College of Chest Physicians Delphi consensus statement. CHEST. 2001;119:590-602. doi: 10.1378/chest.119.2.590

2. Roberts ME, Neville E, Berrisford RG, Antunes G, Ali NJ; BTS Pleural Disease Guideline Group Management of a malignant pleural effusion: British Thoracic Society pleural disease guideline 2010. Thorax. 2010;65:ii32-ii40. doi: 10.1136/thx.2010.136994

3. Lin YC, Tu CY, Liang SJ, et al. Pigtail catheter for the management of pneumothorax in mechanically ventilated patients. Am J Emerg Med. 2010;28(4):466-471. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2009.01.033. Epub 2010 Jan 28. PMID: 20466227.4. Baumann MH. Pleural Disease: An International Textbook. London: Arnold Publishers; 2003.

5. How CH, Hsu HH, Chen JS. Chemical pleurodesis for spontaneous pneumothorax. J Formos Med Assoc. 2013;112:749-755. 10.1016/j.jfma.2013.10.016

6. Rehse DH, Aye RW, Florence MG. Respiratory failure following talc pleurodesis. Am J Surg. 1999;177:437-440. Doi: 10.1016/S0002-9610(99)00075-6

7. Ferrer J, Villarino MA, Tura JM, et al. Talc preparations used for pleurodesis vary markedly from one preparation to another. CHEST. 2001;119:1901-1905. doi: 10.1378/chest.119.6.1901

8. Park EH, Kim JH, Yee J, et al. Comparisons of doxycycline solution with talc slurry for chemical pleurodesis and risk factors for recurrence in South Korean patients with spontaneous pneumothorax. Eur J Hosp Pharm. 2019;26(5):275-279. doi: 10.1136/ejhpharm-2017-001465. Epub 2018 Apr 18. PMID: 31656615; PMCID: PMC6788261.

AIRWAYS DISORDERS NETWORK

Pediatric Chest Medicine Section

Children with severe lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) within the first 2 years of life had a 2.06-fold increased risk of developing pediatric OSA by age 5, according to a study comparing patients hospitalized with LRTI to controls without severe LRTI.¹ Prior studies linked LRTI and OSA, but the impact of LRTI severity was unknown.^2,3,4Using a case-control design, researchers analyzed data from 2,962 children enrolled in the Boston Birth Cohort (BBC): 235 children with severe LRTIs and 2,333 controls. They used Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and Cox proportional hazards models to evaluate the risk of OSA.

jujeleviclepridrebroclesahefroceswuthucrapristimiwecaspuwosouepauitetulusposleclubrimaswustomepruriwristarephogawrabrawethubashuspephiswegehubrasowrimuphidacresispithejurowrerojakethejustevajedrulaslutashodawrewivocl

Compared with patients with severe LRTIs, controls were more likely to have been full-term births, delivered vaginally, and breastfed. The OSA rate was significantly higher among children with severe LRTIs compared with controls (14.7% vs 6.8%). In the adjusted model controlling for relevant maternal and infant covariables, severe LRTI was significantly associated with increased OSA risk (HR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.41-3.02; P < .001). Other factors such as prematurity (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.01-1.77; P = .039) and maternal obesity (HR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.32-2.52; P < .001) were also associated with increased OSA risk.

Maria Gutierrez, MD, of the Division of Pediatric Allergy, Immunology, and Rheumatology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore led the research. The study was published in Pediatric Pulmonology (2023 Dec 2. doi: 10.1002/ppul.26810). Study limitations included the use of electronic medical record data and potential lack of generalizability. The BBC is supported by the NIH.

– Agnes S. Montgomery, MD

Fellow-in-Training


References

1. Gayoso-Liviac MG, Nino G, Montgomery AS, Hong X, Wang X, Gutierrez MJ. Infants hospitalized with lower respiratory tract infections during the first two years of life have increased risk of pediatric obstructive sleep apnea. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2024;59:679-687.

2. Snow A, Dayyat E, Montgomery‐Downs HE, Kheirandish‐Gozal L, Gozal D. Pediatric obstructive sleep apnea: a potential late consequence of respiratory syncytial virus bronchiolitis. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2009;44(12):1186‐1191.

3. Chen VC‐H, Yang Y‐H, Kuo T‐Y, et al. Increased incidence of obstructive sleep apnea in hospitalized children after enterovirus infection: a nationwide population‐based cohort study. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2018;37(9):872‐879.

4. Gutierrez MJ, Nino G, Landeo‐Gutierrez JS, et al. Lower respiratory tract infections in early life are associated with obstructive sleep apnea diagnosis during childhood in a large birth cohort. Sleep. 2021;44:12.
 

AIRWAYS DISORDERS NETWORK

Pediatric Chest Medicine Section

Children with severe lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) within the first 2 years of life had a 2.06-fold increased risk of developing pediatric OSA by age 5, according to a study comparing patients hospitalized with LRTI to controls without severe LRTI.¹ Prior studies linked LRTI and OSA, but the impact of LRTI severity was unknown.^2,3,4Using a case-control design, researchers analyzed data from 2,962 children enrolled in the Boston Birth Cohort (BBC): 235 children with severe LRTIs and 2,333 controls. They used Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and Cox proportional hazards models to evaluate the risk of OSA.

jujeleviclepridrebroclesahefroceswuthucrapristimiwecaspuwosouepauitetulusposleclubrimaswustomepruriwristarephogawrabrawethubashuspephiswegehubrasowrimuphidacresispithejurowrerojakethejustevajedrulaslutashodawrewivocl

Compared with patients with severe LRTIs, controls were more likely to have been full-term births, delivered vaginally, and breastfed. The OSA rate was significantly higher among children with severe LRTIs compared with controls (14.7% vs 6.8%). In the adjusted model controlling for relevant maternal and infant covariables, severe LRTI was significantly associated with increased OSA risk (HR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.41-3.02; P < .001). Other factors such as prematurity (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.01-1.77; P = .039) and maternal obesity (HR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.32-2.52; P < .001) were also associated with increased OSA risk.

Maria Gutierrez, MD, of the Division of Pediatric Allergy, Immunology, and Rheumatology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore led the research. The study was published in Pediatric Pulmonology (2023 Dec 2. doi: 10.1002/ppul.26810). Study limitations included the use of electronic medical record data and potential lack of generalizability. The BBC is supported by the NIH.

– Agnes S. Montgomery, MD

Fellow-in-Training


References

1. Gayoso-Liviac MG, Nino G, Montgomery AS, Hong X, Wang X, Gutierrez MJ. Infants hospitalized with lower respiratory tract infections during the first two years of life have increased risk of pediatric obstructive sleep apnea. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2024;59:679-687.

2. Snow A, Dayyat E, Montgomery‐Downs HE, Kheirandish‐Gozal L, Gozal D. Pediatric obstructive sleep apnea: a potential late consequence of respiratory syncytial virus bronchiolitis. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2009;44(12):1186‐1191.

3. Chen VC‐H, Yang Y‐H, Kuo T‐Y, et al. Increased incidence of obstructive sleep apnea in hospitalized children after enterovirus infection: a nationwide population‐based cohort study. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2018;37(9):872‐879.

4. Gutierrez MJ, Nino G, Landeo‐Gutierrez JS, et al. Lower respiratory tract infections in early life are associated with obstructive sleep apnea diagnosis during childhood in a large birth cohort. Sleep. 2021;44:12.
 

AIRWAYS DISORDERS NETWORK

Pediatric Chest Medicine Section

Children with severe lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) within the first 2 years of life had a 2.06-fold increased risk of developing pediatric OSA by age 5, according to a study comparing patients hospitalized with LRTI to controls without severe LRTI.¹ Prior studies linked LRTI and OSA, but the impact of LRTI severity was unknown.^2,3,4Using a case-control design, researchers analyzed data from 2,962 children enrolled in the Boston Birth Cohort (BBC): 235 children with severe LRTIs and 2,333 controls. They used Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and Cox proportional hazards models to evaluate the risk of OSA.

jujeleviclepridrebroclesahefroceswuthucrapristimiwecaspuwosouepauitetulusposleclubrimaswustomepruriwristarephogawrabrawethubashuspephiswegehubrasowrimuphidacresispithejurowrerojakethejustevajedrulaslutashodawrewivocl

Compared with patients with severe LRTIs, controls were more likely to have been full-term births, delivered vaginally, and breastfed. The OSA rate was significantly higher among children with severe LRTIs compared with controls (14.7% vs 6.8%). In the adjusted model controlling for relevant maternal and infant covariables, severe LRTI was significantly associated with increased OSA risk (HR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.41-3.02; P < .001). Other factors such as prematurity (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.01-1.77; P = .039) and maternal obesity (HR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.32-2.52; P < .001) were also associated with increased OSA risk.

Maria Gutierrez, MD, of the Division of Pediatric Allergy, Immunology, and Rheumatology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore led the research. The study was published in Pediatric Pulmonology (2023 Dec 2. doi: 10.1002/ppul.26810). Study limitations included the use of electronic medical record data and potential lack of generalizability. The BBC is supported by the NIH.

– Agnes S. Montgomery, MD

Fellow-in-Training


References

1. Gayoso-Liviac MG, Nino G, Montgomery AS, Hong X, Wang X, Gutierrez MJ. Infants hospitalized with lower respiratory tract infections during the first two years of life have increased risk of pediatric obstructive sleep apnea. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2024;59:679-687.

2. Snow A, Dayyat E, Montgomery‐Downs HE, Kheirandish‐Gozal L, Gozal D. Pediatric obstructive sleep apnea: a potential late consequence of respiratory syncytial virus bronchiolitis. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2009;44(12):1186‐1191.

3. Chen VC‐H, Yang Y‐H, Kuo T‐Y, et al. Increased incidence of obstructive sleep apnea in hospitalized children after enterovirus infection: a nationwide population‐based cohort study. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2018;37(9):872‐879.

4. Gutierrez MJ, Nino G, Landeo‐Gutierrez JS, et al. Lower respiratory tract infections in early life are associated with obstructive sleep apnea diagnosis during childhood in a large birth cohort. Sleep. 2021;44:12.