American Journal of Emergency Medicine 33 (2015) 60–66

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

American Journal of Emergency Medicine journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ajem

Original Contribution

Pneumothorax is a rare complication of thoracic central venous catheterization in community EDs☆ David R. Vinson, MD a,b,⁎, Dustin W. Ballard, MD a,c, Luke G. Hance, BS, Matthew D. Stevenson, BS d, Victoria A. Clague, MD a,e, Adina S. Rauchwerger, MPH f, Mary E. Reed, DrPH f, Dustin G. Mark, MD a,g, for the Kaiser Permanente CREST Network Investigators a

The Permanente Medical Group, Oakland, CA Department of Emergency Medicine, Kaiser Permanente Roseville Medical Center, Roseville, CA c Department of Emergency Medicine, Kaiser Permanente San Rafael Medical Center, San Rafael, CA d Loma Linda University School of Medicine, Loma Linda, CA e Department of Radiology, Kaiser Permanente San Rafael Medical Center, San Rafael, CA f Kaiser Permanente Division of Research, Oakland, CA g Department of Emergency Medicine, Kaiser Permanente Oakland Medical Center, Oakland, CA b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 29 August 2014 Received in revised form 8 October 2014 Accepted 9 October 2014

a b s t r a c t Study objectives: The rate of iatrogenic pneumothorax associated with thoracic central venous catheterization in community emergency departments (EDs) is poorly described, although such information is vital to inform the procedure’s risk/benefit analysis. We undertook this multicenter study to estimate the incidence of immediate catheter-related pneumothorax in community EDs and to determine associations with site of access, failed access, and positive pressure ventilation. Methods: This was a secondary analysis of 2 retrospective cohort studies of adults who underwent attempted thoracic central venous catheterization in 1 of 21 EDs. Pneumothorax was identified by postprocedural anteroposterior chest radiograph or emergent evacuation for presumed tension pneumothorax. Frequencies were compared using Fisher's exact test. Results: Among 1249 patient encounters, the initial vein of catheterization was internal jugular in 1054 cases (84.4%) and subclavian in 195 cases (15.6%). Success at the initial internal jugular vein was more common than at the initial subclavian vein (95.4% vs 83.6%, P b .001). Periprocedural positive pressure ventilation was administered in 316 patients (25.3%). We identified 6 pneumothoraces (0.5%; 95% confidence interval, 0.2%-1.1%). The incidence of pneumothorax was higher with the subclavian vein than the internal jugular vein (2.3% vs 0.1%, P b .001), with failed access at the initial vein (2.5% vs 0.3%, P = .05), and among patients receiving positive pressure ventilation (1.6% vs 0.1%, P b .01). Conclusion: The incidence of pneumothorax from thoracic central venous catheterization in community EDs is low. The risk of pneumothorax is higher with a subclavian vein approach, failed access at the initial vein, and positive pressure ventilation. © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Central venous catheterization can be a mainstay for the delivery of fluids and medications to patients without peripheral access and those who are critically ill or injured. The success and safety of the procedure have improved significantly in this era of ultrasound use [1,2]. Yet there remain valid concerns about mechanical, infectious, and thromboembolic complications. Among the most threatening mechanical complications ☆ Sources of support: The study was supported by the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Community Benefit Program, Oakland, CA, and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Palo Alto, CA. ⁎ Corresponding author at: Department of Emergency Medicine, Kaiser Permanente Roseville Medical Center, 1600 Eureka Rd, Roseville, CA 95661. Tel.: +1 916 973 6901x1613. E-mail address: [email protected] (D.R. Vinson). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2014.10.020 0735-6757/© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

that immediately attend thoracic central line placement is pneumothorax. Iatrogenic pneumothorax directly effects patient morbidity, as it often requires an evacuation procedure. Moreover, this complication is known to increase health care resource use and mortality. The US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality found in 2012 that iatrogenic pneumothorax was associated with 4.4 days of extra hospitalization, more than $17,000 in additional hospital charges, and 7.0% excess mortality [3]. The rates of central venous catheterization in emergency medicine have been on the rise [4,5]. Nearly all emergency medicine research on central venous catheterization, however, has been performed in an academic setting [6–12]. Moreover, the bulk of the literature on the incidence of iatrogenic pneumothorax has examined the procedure in the hands of intensivists, anesthesiologists, and surgeons. Less is known about the safety of the procedure in the community emergency department (ED) setting, where the majority of emergency care in the

D.R. Vinson et al. / American Journal of Emergency Medicine 33 (2015) 60–66

United States is provided [13]. A more accurate estimation of these contemporary complication rates is needed to help inform the risk/benefit calculus of this common procedure. This is particularly important because emergency physicians report that the risk of iatrogenic complications is an impediment to central venous catheterization [14]. In addition, informed consent undertaken by emergency physicians has resulted in as many as one-fourth of patients refusing central venous catheterization after hearing of the perceived procedural risks [15]. We undertook this secondary analysis of 2 retrospective cohort studies with 2 aims in mind: (1) to estimate the incidence of immediate iatrogenic pneumothorax following thoracic central venous catheterization in community EDs and (2) to determine the association between vein site (internal jugular vs subclavian), initial catheterization site failure, and positive pressure ventilation on pneumothorax rates. 2. Methods 2.1. Study design and setting This analysis includes adult (≥18 years) patients with sepsis undergoing attempted thoracic central venous catheterization identified from 2 retrospective cohort studies [15,16]. These prior studies were undertaken in 21 EDs within Kaiser Permanente (KP) Northern California, a large integrated health care delivery system that provides comprehensive care for more than 3.4 million members. The study facilities are nonrural community hospitals with inpatient bed capacities ranging from 50 to 325. The KP health system is supported by an Epic-based (Verona, WI) electronic health record implemented in 2005 [17]. KP Northern California EDs are staffed by approximately 500 residency-trained, board-certified (or board-eligible) emergency physicians. The mean annual census per department during 2011 was 43500 visits (range, 22000-78000). Seven of the 21 EDs serve as satellite clinical rotation sites for university Emergency Medicine residency training programs. One ED cohosts a residency training program with a university hospital. Thirteen EDs have no academic affiliation. Four medical centers had trauma center designation (level II or lower) at the time of the study. The study period followed the implementation of a protocol-driven approach to sepsis management that was part of a system-wide quality improvement initiative that included a training program at each facility on sepsis diagnoses, management, and ultrasound-guided thoracic central venous catheterization [15,16,18]. At the time of the study, all EDs had at least 1 ultrasound machine within the department for emergency physician use. The predominant catheterization device in use during the study period across all EDs was a triple-lumen central venous catheter with capability for continuously monitoring central venous oxygen saturation (PreSep Oximetry catheters; Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, Irvine, CA). The other components of our medical group’s performance improvement program have been previously reported [18]. Proceduralists used a standard modified Seldinger technique [19]. All patients undergoing attempted thoracic central venous catheterization in our EDs received postprocedural chest radiography to assess for line placement and pneumothorax. The KP Northern California Health Services Institutional Review Board approved this study. 2.2. Selection of participants Eligible cases were identified from 2 prior retrospective cohort studies. The first of these studies identified variables predictive of unattempted central venous catheterization in ED patients with severe sepsis or septic shock who met criteria for protocolized care between August 1, 2009, and August 31, 2010, in 5 community EDs in KP Northern California [15]. The second study quantified the rates of hemorrhagic complications of central line placement in septic patients with at least one hemostatic laboratory abnormality between March 1, 2010, and June 30, 2012, in 21 community EDs [16]. The primary outcome of interest for this present study, immediate pneumothorax after attempted

61

thoracic central venous catheterization, was included in the initial data abstraction objectives of the 2 initial studies. Our present study cohort is the population of ED patients enrolled in these 2 study cohorts who underwent attempted thoracic central venous catheterization. Patients that were eligible for study inclusion on different occasions (that is, during different patient encounters on different dates) were enrolled more than once. 2.3. Methods and measurements 2.3.1. Initial studies The general data collection methods and the variables identified for the 2 initial studies have been previously described [15,16]. Abstractors for these initial studies were blind to this study’s secondary aim of determining the associations of vein approach, failed access, and positive pressure ventilation with the incidence of pneumothorax. Abstractors were informed only of the aims of the initial 2 studies, which addressed rates and predictors of unattempted central lines and line-related hemorrhagic complications, respectively [15,16]. 2.3.2. The current study For this present study, we undertook additional data collection pertaining to periprocedural positive pressure ventilation. We electronically identified from the health care system’s comprehensive administrative databases which patients in our cohort had received positive pressure ventilation during their ED stay, including noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (continuous positive airway pressure ventilation and bilevel positive airway pressure ventilation) and invasive positive pressure ventilation (ie, mechanical ventilation). We then manually reviewed the electronic health records of each of these cases to ascertain the temporal relationship of the positive pressure ventilation with the attempted thoracic central venous catheterization(s). Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation was categorized as occurring only before (but not during or after), before and after (and maybe during), and only after the central venous catheterization. Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation that occurred before (but not during or after) the vein catheterization was not considered periprocedural positive pressure ventilation for the purposes of this study and is not reported. For patients receiving noninvasive positive pressure ventilation both before and after attempted central venous catheterization, we sought to determine if the positive pressure ventilation was continued or interrupted during the catheterization attempt. Invasive positive pressure ventilation was categorized as having been initiated before or after the vein catheterization. Our primary outcome was a postprocedural pneumothorax. An immediate pneumothorax was defined as an appropriately sided collection of air in the pleural space identified on the initial postprocedural anteroposterior chest radiograph (supine or upright) in a boardcertified radiologist’s official interpretation or by emergent evacuation of a presumed tension pneumothorax. Subsequent chest films were also reviewed for patients who underwent further ED or postintubation imaging. It is known that anteroposterior chest radiography is not the most sensitive test for pneumothorax [20]. However, because it is the standard diagnostic modality widely used for this purpose both in emergency clinical practice and in clinical research, it is the diagnostic method we used. Additional data collection was undertaken for this study with regard to the cases of pneumothorax. To ensure that we identified all cases of immediate postcatheterization pneumothorax in our cohort, we searched the health care system’s administrative databases for a discharge diagnosis of iatrogenic pneumothorax from the index hospitalization using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD9) code 512.1. An ICD-9 code in isolation has been shown to be specific but insensitive for the detection of complications of thoracic central venous catheterization, which is why we used it as an adjunct to our comprehensive manual chart review [21]. Cases identified with a pneumothorax diagnosis on hospital discharge prompted a manual review of

62

D.R. Vinson et al. / American Journal of Emergency Medicine 33 (2015) 60–66

their electronic health records, including physician notes and radiology reports, to determine if the patients had an iatrogenic pneumothorax from an attempted thoracic central line during their ED stay that had been missed on initial data abstraction. All cases of postprocedural pneumothorax underwent additional manual chart review by a co-investigator (VAC, a board-certified radiologist) to report the nature of the diagnostic chest radiograph (supine or upright) and to measure the size of the pneumothorax, reported as a percentage. This was calculated using a formula that accounts for whether the examination was performed supine or upright and assesses the average interpleural distance based on 3 measurements from the chest wall to the pleural margin [22,23]. We also report the presence and degree of mediastinal shift (absent, small, moderate, or large). In addition, we determined the nature of the therapeutic intervention (pigtail catheter with Heimlich valve or tube thoracostomy) and describe the duration and outcome of the drainage treatment. Five percent of all cases (n = 65) were randomly selected for independent review by a second investigator to assess for interrater reliability on site of catheterization, success of catheterization, and pneumothorax outcome, reported as percentage of agreement. 3. Statistical analysis Continuous variables are presented as means with standard deviation, and categorical data are presented as the percentage of frequency of occurrence. Frequencies observed between groups were compared using Fisher's exact test. Confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the modified Wald method. A 2-tailed P value of less than .05 was considered to indicate statistical significance. 4. Results Our cohort was comprised of 1229 patients, 20 of whom were eligible for the study on 2 separate occasions, bringing the total number of eligible patient encounters (or cases) to 1249. The mean age of the cohort was 67.5 years (± 15.2); 543 patients (44.2%) were female. The proceduralists were predominantly attendings (n = 1083, 86.7%). The first site of attempted thoracic central venous access was internal jugular in 1054 cases (84.4%) and subclavian in 195 cases (15.6%). The approach to the latter (infraclavicular vs supraclavicular) was rarely documented, but nearly all of our physicians report undertaking the more common infraclavicular approach: a large survey found that only 2% of emergency physicians in these 21 EDs performed more than 2 supraclavicular subclavian catheterizations per year [14]. The right side was strongly favored over the left for both the initial internal jugular (n = 965, 91.6%) and the initial subclavian (n = 150, 76.9%) vein catheterization attempts. The success rate at the first thoracic vein site was 93.5% (n = 1168). Success at the initial internal jugular vein was more common than at the initial subclavian vein (95.4% vs 83.6%, P b .001) (Table 1). Eighty-one cases (6.5%) experienced a failed catheterization at one or more central vein sites. Of these 81 cases, 77 underwent attempted catheterization at a second site, 13 of which failed (13/77, 16.9%). These 13 cases all underwent attempted catheterization at a third site, only one of which failed. Overall, 44 cases (3.5%) underwent attempts at both internal jugular and subclavian veins (41 switched veins for the second attempt and 3 for the third attempt). Table 1 describes the location of the thoracic central vein catheterization attempts. Counting each central vein catheterization site as a separate attempt, there were 1347 total catheterization attempts, 1327 of which were thoracic in location. We report the incidence per patient encounter (or case, n = 1249) and not per thoracic central venous catheterization attempt (n = 1327). We identified 6 pneumothoraces (0.5%; 95% CI, 0.2%-1.1%). All 6 were detected by both manual chart review and electronic ICD-9 code search, which was 100% sensitive. No additional pneumothoraces

Table 1 Initial and second central vein catheterization attempts N = 1249 patient encounters Thoracic central vein site

n (%)

Initial internal jugular Success Failure Subsequent postjugular site Contralateral internal jugular Subclavian Femoral None Initial subclavian Success Failure Subsequent postsubclavian site Contralateral subclavian Internal jugular Femoral None

1054 (84.4) 1005 (95.4) 49 (4.6) 16 22 8 3 195 (15.6) 163 (83.6) 32 (16.4) 6 19 6 1

were identified from the ICD-9 code search that had not already been identified by manual chart review. All cases of pneumothorax were detected on postcatheterization chest radiograph. None had received emergency preradiographic drainage for presumed tension pneumothorax. The proceduralists were ED attendings in all 6 cases. The size of the pneumothoraces and degree of mediastinal shift are reported in Table 2. Five of the 6 pneumothoraces occurred following attempted subclavian vein catheterization, 4 successful and 1 unsuccessful (Table 2). The unsuccessful subclavian vein catheterization was followed by a successful ultrasound-guided internal jugular catheterization on the same side prior to the radiographic diagnosis of pneumothorax. One patient developed a pneumothorax following an isolated failed internal jugular vein catheterization. When stratified by vein, the incidence of pneumothorax was significantly higher in cases who had received an attempted subclavian vein catheterization than in those who received only an attempted internal jugular vein catheterization (2.3% vs 0.1%, P b .001, Table 3). The incidence of immediate pneumothorax was higher in cases in which the initial catheterization was unsuccessful compared with their successful counterparts (2.5% vs 0.3%), but the difference did not quite reach statistical significance (P = .05) (Table 3). Of the 1249 cases, 316 (25.3%) received periprocedural positive pressure ventilation during their ED stay. The nature and timing of ventilation support are reported in Table 3. Five of the 6 pneumothoraces occurred in patients receiving mechanical ventilation either during the line placement or just after (Table 2). The incidence of pneumothorax was higher among patients receiving positive pressure ventilation than in those who did not (1.6% vs 0.1%, P b .01). Table 3 reports the association of site of catheterization, initial vein success, and positive pressure ventilation with pneumothorax. All 6 of the pneumothoraces received pleural space drainage: 4 received anteriorly placed pigtail catheters with a Heimlich valve, and 2 received laterally placed tube thoracostomies. Outcomes of these drainage procedures are reported in Table 2. The effect of 1 pigtail catheter on a mechanically ventilated patient was deemed unsuccessful on chest radiograph the following day and was replaced by tube thoracostomy. The number of needle passes was poorly documented, as was the use of static or dynamic ultrasound. These variables were therefore not reported. Percentage of agreement between the 2 abstractors on site of vein access, catheterization success, and pneumothorax was 100%. 5. Limitations This study suffers from the biases and data collection limitations that accompany a retrospective design. These are mitigated, however, by the blinding of the abstractors to the study’s secondary

D.R. Vinson et al. / American Journal of Emergency Medicine 33 (2015) 60–66

63

Table 2 Characteristics of ED cases with iatrogenic pneumothorax subsequent to thoracic central venous catheterization Patient demographics Age (y) sex

Attempted initial vein access, side (if unsuccessful, second site; timing)

Type and timing of positive pressure ventilation

Type of post-CVC CXR; side of PTX

Size (AID)

Degree of mediastinal shift

Initial means of ED evacuation

Pneumothorax outcome

91 M

Subclavian, right

None

Upright; right

25% (2.3)

Small

Pigtail catheter

63 F

Subclavian, right (IJ, right; before diagnostic CXR)

Supine; right

34% (2.5)

Moderate

Pigtail catheter

80 M

IJ, left (IJ, left; after diagnostic CXR)

Noninvasive before and during CVC; invasive after CVC and before CXR Invasive before, during, and after CVC

Pigtail catheter removed on hospital day 8 without sequelae Pigtail catheter removed on hospital day 7 without sequelae

Supine; left

30% (2.1)

Small

Tube thoracostomy

65 F

Subclavian, left

Invasive before, during, and after CVC

Supine; left

39% (3.0)

Large

Tube thoracostomy

80 F

Subclavian, right

Supine; right

50% (4.7)

Large

Pigtail catheter

76 F

Subclavian, right

Invasive before, during, and after CVC Invasive before, during, and after CVC

Supine

29% (2.0)

Small

Pigtail catheter

Unclear: the patient expired the next day from refractory septic shock with the chest tube in place Unclear: the patient expired the next day from refractory septic shock and ischemic bowel with the chest tube in place Pigtail catheter removed on hospital day 6 without sequelae Pneumothorax persisted despite pigtail; inpatient tube thoracostomy performed the next day; removed on hospital day 10 without sequelae

CVC, central venous catheterization; IJ, internal jugular; CXR, chest radiograph; AID, average intrapleural distance (cm); PTX, pneumothorax.

aim, the redundancy of our data collection and chart review methods, and our high interrater reliability. The physician population may limit the study’s generalizability. The proceduralists were predominately residency-trained, board-certified emergency physicians who work in medium and large nonrural community EDs. The setting, training, and experience of the emergency physicians may not reflect those of smaller rural EDs in the US or large academic level I trauma centers [13]. This limitation is tempered by the diverse facility with central venous catheterization these same physicians report. A survey of this population (78% response rate, 367/472) performed in 2010, during the study period, found that 15% stated that they were “not really comfortable placing thoracic central lines.” When asked about their experience in the entire preceding year, 12% reported placing 2 or fewer central lines, whereas 20% reported placing 20 or more [14]. This broad diversity might expand the study’s external validity. Another shortcoming is our inability to report rates of ultrasound use. We know from the aforementioned survey, however, that a large

number of our emergency physicians use adjunct ultrasound to place thoracic central lines [14]. Ultrasound use has been shown to reduce the complication rate of thoracic central venous catheterization [1,2]. A recent large meta-analysis of randomized studies comparing realtime ultrasound guidance with anatomic landmark techniques found that ultrasound significantly reduced the risk of cannulation failure (pooled relative risk, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.10-0.32; P b .001) and reduced the occurrence of iatrogenic pneumothorax (pooled relative risk, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06-0.73; P = .01) [2]. Lastly, we had too few outcomes to undertake multivariate analysis, preventing us from identifying the independent contribution of our predictor variables to the pneumothorax outcome. 6. Discussion This large multicenter retrospective study found that the overall incidence of iatrogenic pneumothorax among community ED patients

Table 3 Association of site of catheterization, initial vein success, and positive pressure ventilation with pneumothorax in ED patients undergoing thoracic central venous catheterization

Vein of catheterization attempt Internal jugular only Subclavian only or subclavian with internal jugular Success at initial thoracic central vein site Yes No Periprocedural positive pressure ventilation No Yes Invasive Before/during catheterization Initiated after catheterizationb Noninvasive Before/after catheterizationc Initiated after catheterization

Cases N = 1249 n (%)

Immediate pneumothorax N = 6 n

Pneumothorax incidence (%) (95% CI)

P value

1032 (82.6) 217 (17.4)

1 5

0.1 (0-0.6) 2.3 (0.8-5.4)

b.001

1168 (93.5) 81 (6.5)

4 2

0.3 (0.1-0.9) 2.5 (0.2-9.1)

.05

933 (74.7) 316 (25.3) 234 (74.1) 175 59 82 (25.9) 61 21

1 5a

0.1 (0-0.7) 1.6 (0.6-3.8)

b.01

a Four cases were receiving mechanical ventilation before, during, and after central venous catheterization; 1 case was receiving noninvasive positive pressure ventilation before and during central venous catheterization and then mechanical ventilation after the catheterization (Table 2). b Seven of the 59 cases who received invasive positive pressure ventilation after placement of a thoracic central venous catheter had also received precatheterization noninvasive positive pressure ventilation; one of these developed a pneumothorax. Because of incomplete documentation, we cannot report how many of these 7 cases had their noninvasive positive pressure ventilation interrupted during the thoracic central vein catheterization itself. c Because of incomplete documentation, we cannot report how many of these 61 cases had their noninvasive positive pressure ventilation interrupted during the thoracic central vein catheterization itself.

64

D.R. Vinson et al. / American Journal of Emergency Medicine 33 (2015) 60–66

undergoing attempted thoracic central venous catheterization was very low. The rate was significantly higher with the subclavian vein compared with the internal jugular vein approach, with failed access at the initial vein site, and with periprocedural positive pressure ventilation. 6.1. Incidence of immediate and delayed pneumothorax Ours is one of the first studies to report the incidence of pneumothorax complicating thoracic central line placement in adults in the community ED setting. The overall low incidence we observed (0.5%), however, is consistent with the rates reported among adults in academic critical care settings (Table 4). Seven smaller randomized clinical trials in the last decade assessed pneumothorax risk in adults [10,24–28], as reported in a recent metaanalysis [2]. The combined incidence among 1752 adults was 1.6% (95% CI, 1.1%-2.3%). Small prospective studies in academic EDs demonstrate a similarly low incidence rate of pneumothorax complicating thoracic central venous catheterization [6,10,11]. The studies described in Table 4 did not report the rate of delayed pneumothorax, that is, cases with an initially negative chest radiograph result that were found on subsequent imaging hours to days later during their inpatient stay to have a pneumothorax. Some delayed pneumothoraces are detected when the patient develops suggestive symptoms or when they undergo imaging for other purposes and the pneumothorax is found incidentally. In our cohort, we searched the physician discharge summaries and the discharge diagnoses for evidence of delayed pneumothorax not attributable to a subsequent post-ED procedure (eg, thoracentesis). We identified only one delayed pneumothorax, detected during an inpatient computerized tomography of the abdomen, 40 hours after the ED central venous catheterization. Occult pneumothoraces are thought to be more common than recognized and are attributable to the insensitivity of the postprocedure chest radiograph [20,29]. Because the detection rate of occult pneumothoraces in a delayed fashion is low, these are often published as case reports [30–37]. One large retrospective study of 9637 outpatients with cancer receiving subclavian lines for chemotherapy found a low incidence of delayed pneumothorax (0.4%; 95% CI, 0.3%-0.5%) [38]. Patients in this series had been reimaged because of persistent or worsening symptoms or 24 hours after an unsuccessful insertion when a new central line was placed in the opposite subclavian vein. 6.2. Internal jugular vs subclavian The lower rate of pneumothorax we observed in internal jugular vein compared with subclavian vein catheterizations (approximately 0.1% vs 2.3%) is explicable anatomically given the greater proximity of the subclavian vein to the pleural dome. Our findings replicate what has been reported in recent large studies. Iovino et al [39] found similarly disparate rates of pneumothorax when comparing internal jugular with subclavian

vein catheterizations: 0 of 1113 (0%; 95% CI, 0%-0.4%) vs 17 of 554 (3.1%; 95% CI, 1.9%-4.9%) (P b .0001). Roux et al [40] reported a similar veinspecific pneumothorax rate discrepancy: 0.4% (95% CI, 0.1%-1.0%) of 1065 internal jugular vein catheterizations and 2.3% (95% CI, 1.3%-3.8%) of 621 subclavian vein catheterizations (P b .001). Pikwer et al [41] documented a rate of pneumothorax of 0.3% (95% CI, 0.1%-0.7%) among 1552 internal jugular vein catheterizations and 1.6% (95% CI, 0.7%-3.3%) among 424 subclavian vein catheterizations. Other studies concur: with regard to the risk of pneumothorax, the internal jugular vein approach is substantially safer than the subclavian vein approach [12,42,43]. 6.3. Failed catheterization at the initial vein We observed that patients whose first thoracic vein site was unsuccessfully cannulated had higher rates of iatrogenic pneumothorax. A failed catheterization attempt has been shown to be the strongest predictor of a line-related complication [44]. Each additional needle pass increases the mechanical complication rate [42,45], which is why some have recommended that the number of needle passes be restricted [46]. Ultrasound use reduces the risk of mechanical complications, pneumothorax included, by improving the odds of first-pass catheterization success [1,2,8,10,25,47]. 6.4. The effect of positive pressure ventilation We found a higher incidence of venous catheter-related pneumothorax among patients undergoing ED positive pressure ventilation. Positive pressure ventilation contributes to the development of pneumothorax in 2 ways. First, barotrauma from positive pressure ventilation alone can cause pneumothorax, independent of iatrogenic pleural violation during central venous catheterization [3]. This occurs more commonly in patients with underlying chronic pulmonary disease [48]. Second, positive pressure ventilation can enlarge the size of pneumothoraces, even transforming what would have been occult abnormalities into pneumothoraces sufficiently large to be detectable by plain chest radiograph [34]. Such a process also has been demonstrated in patients with traumatic pneumothoraces [20]. Positive pressure ventilation also increases the risk for tension pneumothorax, which is why drainage of even small pneumothoraces is customarily recommended in mechanically ventilated patients [48,49]. A pneumothorax in a mechanically ventilated patient carries a greater risk of serious barotrauma, which can even be life threatening [50]. Randomized trials undertaken on mechanically ventilated patients have found higher rates of iatrogenic pneumothorax than those reported above (Table 4) when experienced providers were using anatomic landmark techniques: 5.0% (10/201) with the subclavian approach [28] and 2.4% (11/450) with the internal jugular approach [25]. Those rates are significantly lower in studies in which real-time ultrasound guidance was used: 0 of 201 (95% upper confidence limit, 2.3%) with

Table 4 Rate of immediate pneumothorax from thoracic central venous catheterization in large studies of adults (n N 1000) Author (year) (ref)

Design

Setting

Proceduralists

Cases n

Veins

Ultrasound guidance

PTX n

% (95% CI)

Iovino et al (2001) [39]

Prospective multicenter

Surgical faculty

1667

IJ and SC

No

17

1.0 (0.6-1.6)

Pikwer et al (2009) [41]

Prospective single center

IJ and SC

No

13

0.6 (0.3-1.0)

Prospective single center

Anesthesia and intensive care faculty and directly supervised residents 2 oncologists and a nurse

1976a

Cavanna et al (2010) [58]

1978

IJ

Yes

0

0 (0-0.2)

Roux et al (2014) [40]

Prospective multicenter

Perioperative or oncology-hematology department Mostly operating room, perioperative, or intensive care unit Oncology-hematology department Intensive care unit

1686

IJ and SC

±

18

1.1 (0.7-1.7)

IJ, internal jugular; SC, subclavian; PTX, pneumothorax. a 124 patients were less than 18 years old.

Residents of multiple specialties, direct supervision in ~23%

D.R. Vinson et al. / American Journal of Emergency Medicine 33 (2015) 60–66

the subclavian approach and 0 of 450 (95% upper confidence limit, 1.0%) with the internal jugular approach. A prospective case series of 290 mechanically ventilated patients undergoing subclavian vein catheterization via the supraclavicular approach found no cases of pneumothorax (95% upper confidence limit, 1.6%) [51]. Interestingly, few studies of pneumothorax complications from central venous catheterization even report the number of patients who were receiving periprocedural positive pressure ventilation, much less calculate the association of positive pressure ventilation with the incidence of iatrogenic pneumothorax. This is true for studies both of intensive care patients [27,42,52–54] and ED patients [7,10,11]. The risk of iatrogenic pneumothorax in our cohort was highest among mechanically ventilated patients undergoing central venous catheterization via the subclavian approach. As data from the literature suggest, the safest way to place a thoracic central line in a mechanically ventilated patient is to access the internal jugular vein using real-time ultrasound guidance to increase the odds of first-stick success [25]. Positive end-expiratory pressure should be removed throughout the procedure, and the puncture should be performed during the expiratory phase [52]. In a multicenter study in our health care delivery system, we found that 28% of 593 septic patients with an indication for central venous catheterization refused the procedure [15]. Their refusal to give informed consent is thought to be dependent in large part on the physician’s portrayal of the procedure’s risks and benefits. The high rate of refusal suggests that we might be misrepresenting the true risks associated with the procedure. This current study was undertaken to determine a more accurate estimate of the risks that attend thoracic central line placement. Our results comport with the literature to suggest that ED patients undergoing central venous catheterization by the internal jugular approach have a very low risk (0.1%) for developing a pneumothorax. Major bleeding is another mechanical complication of central venous catheterization that is also uncommon. One recent study from our research network demonstrated that the risk of major hemorrhage from central venous catheterization in patients with coagulopathy or thrombocytopenia is also very low (0.1%; 95% upper confidence limit, 0.6%) [16]. Knowing the rates of these mechanical complications can help inform our own risk/benefit calculus when considering thoracic central venous catheterization in the community ED setting. This knowledge can also shape the manner in which we explain the procedure to our patients as part of the informed consent process. 6.5. The evacuation of pneumothoraces All of our patients with a pneumothorax were treated with immediate evacuation, either by pigtail catheter or by tube thoracostomy. Studies suggest that small pneumothoraces (generally b15%) in asymptomatic, hemodynamically stable patients may require no treatment at all or at most high-flow oxygen through a nonrebreather mask to facilitate air resorption from the pleural space [38]. Patients receiving positive pressure ventilation are an exception, as even a small pneumothorax in a ventilated patient warrants evacuation to avoid enlargement and even transformation into a tension pneumothorax. The traditional method of pneumothorax evacuation had been tube thoracostomy. However, recent evidence suggests that a small pigtail catheter (14F) is just as effective as a larger chest tube (28F) [55] but with significantly less pain [56,57]. Our numbers are too small to comment on the relative effectiveness of the different evacuation approaches. In sum, we found that the incidence of immediate pneumothorax from thoracic central venous catheterization in community EDs is approximately 0.5%, a rate consistent with large prospective studies in academic settings. The risk is higher in patients undergoing a subclavian vein approach, in patients whose first vein site was unsuccessfully cannulated, and in patients receiving positive pressure ventilation. These data can help direct the risk/benefit calculus and the informed consent process for ED patients with indications for thoracic central venous catheterization.

65

Acknowledgments We are grateful to the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Community Benefit Program and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation for their financial support. We also thank YunYi Hung, PhD, Kaiser Permanente Division of Research, for help with programming. We are also grateful to Francesco Iovino, MD, PhD, Assistant Professor, Division of General Surgery, Department of Anesthesiological, Surgical and Emergency Sciences, Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy, for providing unpublished details from his research on the safety of central venous catheterization. References [1] Lamperti M, Bodenham AR, Pittiruti M, Blaivas M, Augoustides JG, Elbarbary M, et al. International evidence-based recommendations on ultrasound-guided vascular access. Intensive Care Med 2012;38:1105–17. [2] Wu SY, Ling Q, Cao LH, Wang J, Xu MX, Zeng WA. Real-time two-dimensional ultrasound guidance for central venous cannulation: a meta-analysis. Anesthesiology 2013;118:361–75. [3] AHRQ quality indicators. Patient safety indicators #6: technical specifications. Iatrogenic pneumothorax rate [version 4.4]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ); 2012. [4] Glickman SW, Krubert C, Koppenhaver J, Glickman LT, Schulman KA, Cairns CB. Increased rate of central venous catheterization procedures in community EDs. Am J Emerg Med 2010;28:208–12. [5] Theodoro D, Owens PL, Olsen MA, Fraser V. Rates and timing of central venous cannulation among patients with sepsis and respiratory arrest admitted by the emergency department. Crit Care Med 2014;42:554–64. [6] Hrics P, Wilber S, Blanda MP, Gallo U. Ultrasound-assisted internal jugular vein catheterization in the ED. Am J Emerg Med 1998;16:401–3. [7] Miller AH, Roth BA, Mills TJ, Woody JR, Longmoor CE, Foster B. Ultrasound guidance versus the landmark technique for the placement of central venous catheters in the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med 2002;9:800–5. [8] Milling Jr TJ, Rose J, Briggs WM, Birkhahn R, Gaeta TJ, Bove JJ, et al. Randomized, controlled clinical trial of point-of-care limited ultrasonography assistance of central venous cannulation: the Third Sonography Outcomes Assessment Program (SOAP-3) Trial. Crit Care Med 2005;33:1764–9. [9] Milling T, Holden C, Melniker L, Briggs WM, Birkhahn R, Gaeta T. Randomized controlled trial of single-operator vs. two-operator ultrasound guidance for internal jugular central venous cannulation. Acad Emerg Med 2006;13:245–7. [10] Leung J, Duffy M, Finckh A. Real-time ultrasonographically-guided internal jugular vein catheterization in the emergency department increases success rates and reduces complications: a randomized, prospective study. Ann Emerg Med 2006;48: 540–7. [11] Theodoro D, Bausano B, Lewis L, Evanoff B, Kollef M. A descriptive comparison of ultrasound-guided central venous cannulation of the internal jugular vein to landmark-based subclavian vein cannulation. Acad Emerg Med 2010;17:416–22. [12] Theodoro D, Krauss M, Kollef M, Evanoff B. Risk factors for acute adverse events during ultrasound-guided central venous cannulation in the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med 2010;17:1055–61. [13] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Table 106. Hospitals, beds, and occupancy rates, by type of ownership and size of hospital: United States, selected years 1975–2010. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2012/106.pdf. [Accessed September 21, 2014]. [14] Ballard DW, Reed ME, Rauchwerger AS, Chettipally UK, Offerman SR, Mark DG, et al. Emergency Physician Perspectives on Central Venous Catheterization in the Emergency Department: A Survey-based Study. Acad Emerg Med 2014;21:623–30. [15] Vinson DR, Ballard DW, Stevenson MD, Mark DG, Reed ME, Rauchwerger AS, et al. Predictors of Unattempted Central Venous Catheterization in Septic Patients Eligible for Early Goal-directed Therapy. West J Emerg Med 2014;15:67–75. [16] Vinson DR, Ballard DW, Hance LG, Hung Y, Rauchwerger AS, Reed ME, et al. Bleeding complications of central venous catheterization in septic patients with abnormal hemostasis. Am J Emerg Med 2014;32:737–42. [17] Bornstein S. An integrated EHR at Northern California Kaiser Permanente: Pitfalls, challenges, and benefits experienced in transitioning. Appl Clin Inform 2012;3: 318–25. [18] Whippy A, Skeath M, Crawford B, Adams C, Marelich G, Alamshahi M, et al. Kaiser Permanente's performance improvement system, part 3: multisite improvements in care for patients with sepsis. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2011;37:483–93. [19] Graham AS, Ozment C, Tegtmeyer K, Lai S, Braner DA. Videos in clinical medicine. Central venous catheterization. N Engl J Med 2007;356:e21. [20] Ball CG, Kirkpatrick AW, Feliciano DV. The occult pneumothorax: what have we learned? Can J Surg 2009;52:E173–9. [21] Tukey MH, Borzecki AM, Wiener RS. Validity of ICD-9-CM Codes for the Identification of Complications Related to Central Venous Catheterization. Am J Med Qual 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1062860613512518 [Epub ahead of print]. [22] Choi BG, Park SH, Yun EH, Chae KO, Shinn KS. Pneumothorax size: correlation of supine anteroposterior with erect posteroanterior chest radiographs. Radiology 1998; 209:567–9. [23] Collins CD, Lopez A, Mathie A, Wood V, Jackson JE, Roddie ME. Quantification of pneumothorax size on chest radiographs using interpleural distances: regression

66

[24]

[25]

[26] [27] [28]

[29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]

[38]

[39] [40] [41]

D.R. Vinson et al. / American Journal of Emergency Medicine 33 (2015) 60–66 analysis based on volume measurements from helical CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995;165:1127–30. Cajozzo M, Quintini G, Cocchiera G, Greco G, Vaglica R, Pezzano G, et al. Comparison of central venous catheterization with and without ultrasound guide. Transfus Apher Sci 2004;31:199–202. Karakitsos D, Labropoulos N, De Groot E, Patrianakos AP, Kouraklis G, Poularas J, et al. Real-time ultrasound-guided catheterisation of the internal jugular vein: a prospective comparison with the landmark technique in critical care patients. Crit Care 2006;10:R162. Agarwal A, Singh DK, Singh AP. Ultrasonography: a novel approach to central venous cannulation. Indian J Crit Care Med 2009;13:213–6. Palepu GB, Deven J, Subrahmanyam M, Mohan S. Impact of ultrasonography on central venous catheter insertion in intensive care. Indian J Radiol Imaging 2009;19:191–8. Fragou M, Gravvanis A, Dimitriou V, Papalois A, Kouraklis G, Karabinis A, et al. Real-time ultrasound-guided subclavian vein cannulation versus the landmark method in critical care patients: a prospective randomized study. Crit Care Med 2011;39:1607–12. Ghane MR, Saburi A, Javadzadeh HR. A recommended method in order to interpret chest x-rays for diagnosing small size pneumothorax. Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci 2013;3:36–9. Mitchell A, Steer HW. Late appearance of pneumothorax after subclavian vein catheterisation: an anaesthetic hazard. Br Med J 1980;281:1339. Slezak FA, Williams GB. Delayed pneumothorax: a complication of subclavian vein catheterization. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 1984;8:571–4. Sivak SL. Late appearance of pneumothorax after subclavian venipuncture. Am J Med 1986;80:323–4. Plaus WJ. Delayed pneumothorax after subclavian vein catheterization. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 1990;14:414–5. Cronen MC, Cronen PW, Arino P, Ellis K. Delayed pneumothorax after subclavian vein catheterization and positive pressure ventilation. Br J Anaesth 1991;67:480–2. Spiliotis J, Kordossis T, Kalfarentzos F. The incidence of delayed pneumothorax as a complication of subclavian vein catheterisation. Br J Clin Pract 1992;46:171–2. Tyburski JG, Joseph AL, Thomas GA, Saxe JM, Lucas CE. Delayed pneumothorax after central venous access: a potential hazard. Am Surg 1993;59:587–9. Plewa MC, Ledrick D, Sferra JJ. Delayed tension pneumothorax complicating central venous catheterization and positive pressure ventilation. Am J Emerg Med 1995;13: 532–5. Laronga C, Meric F, Truong MT, Mayfield C, Mansfield P. A treatment algorithm for pneumothoraces complicating central venous catheter insertion. Am J Surg 2000; 180:523–6 [discussion 6–7]. Iovino F, Pittiruti M, Buononato M, Lo Schiavo F. Central venous catheterization: complications of different placements. Ann Chir 2001;126:1001–6. Roux D, Reignier J, Thiery G, Boyer A, Hayon J, Souweine B, et al. Acquiring procedural skills in ICUs: a prospective multicenter study. Crit Care Med 2014;42:886–95. Pikwer A, Baath L, Perstoft I, Davidson B, Akeson J. Routine chest X-ray is not required after a low-risk central venous cannulation. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2009; 53:1145–52.

[42] Eisen LA, Narasimhan M, Berger JS, Mayo PH, Rosen MJ, Schneider RF. Mechanical complications of central venous catheters. J Intensive Care Med 2006;21:40–6. [43] Fisher NC, Mutimer DJ. Central venous cannulation in patients with liver disease and coagulopathy–a prospective audit. Intensive Care Med 1999;25:481–5. [44] Mansfield PF, Hohn DC, Fornage BD, Gregurich MA, Ota DM. Complications and failures of subclavian-vein catheterization. N Engl J Med 1994;331:1735–8. [45] McGee DC, Gould MK. Preventing complications of central venous catheterization. N Engl J Med 2003;348:1123–33. [46] Takeyama H, Taniguchi M, Sawai H, Funahashi H, Akamo Y, Suzuki S, et al. Limiting vein puncture to three needle passes in subclavian vein catheterization by the infraclavicular approach. Surg Today 2006;36:779–82. [47] Hind D, Calvert N, McWilliams R, Davidson A, Paisley S, Beverley C, et al. Ultrasonic locating devices for central venous cannulation: meta-analysis. BMJ 2003;327:361. [48] Baumann MH, Noppen M. Pneumothorax. Respirology 2004;9:157–64. [49] Giacomini M, Iapichino G, Armani S, Cozzolino M, Brancaccio D, Gallieni M. How to avoid and manage a pneumothorax. J Vasc Access 2006;7:7–14. [50] Esteban A, Anzueto A, Frutos F, Alia I, Brochard L, Stewart TE, et al. Characteristics and outcomes in adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation: a 28-day international study. JAMA 2002;287:345–55. [51] Czarnik T, Gawda R, Perkowski T, Weron R. Supraclavicular approach is an easy and safe method of subclavian vein catheterization even in mechanically ventilated patients: analysis of 370 attempts. Anesthesiology 2009;111:334–9. [52] Lefrant JY, Muller L, De La Coussaye JE, Prudhomme M, Ripart J, Gouzes C, et al. Risk factors of failure and immediate complication of subclavian vein catheterization in critically ill patients. Intensive Care Med 2002;28:1036–41. [53] Merrer J, De Jonghe B, Golliot F, Lefrant JY, Raffy B, Barre E, et al. Complications of femoral and subclavian venous catheterization in critically ill patients: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2001;286:700–7. [54] Sznajder JI, Zveibil FR, Bitterman H, Weiner P, Bursztein S. Central vein catheterization. Failure and complication rates by three percutaneous approaches. Arch Intern Med 1986;146:259–61. [55] Kulvatunyou N, Vijayasekaran A, Hansen A, Wynne JL, O'Keeffe T, Friese RS, et al. Two-year experience of using pigtail catheters to treat traumatic pneumothorax: a changing trend. J Trauma 2011;71:1104–7. [56] Kulvatunyou N, Erickson L, Vijayasekaran A, Gries L, Joseph B, Friese RF, et al. Randomized clinical trial of pigtail catheter versus chest tube in injured patients with uncomplicated traumatic pneumothorax. Br J Surg 2014;101:17–22. [57] Voisin F, Sohier L, Rochas Y, Kerjouan M, Ricordel C, Belleguic C, et al. Ambulatory management of large spontaneous pneumothorax with pigtail catheters. Ann Emerg Med 2014;64:222–8. [58] Cavanna L, Civardi G, Vallisa D, Di Nunzio C, Cappucciati L, Berte R, et al. Ultrasoundguided central venous catheterization in cancer patients improves the success rate of cannulation and reduces mechanical complications: a prospective observational study of 1,978 consecutive catheterizations. World J Surg Oncol 2010;8:91.