There is still a very good point here: we don't tap the lungs to make patients live longer. We tap the lungs to help them breathe better. So, the outcomes of this trial are not "pragmatic" or "practical," in my opinoin.
I tend to agree. I think the internet concluded prematurely that “thoracenteses don’t help effusions from heart failure” based on this small trial. I think they probably don’t help usually, and that was suggested not proven here in my opinion.
Nice data to look at, but does not look like this is an ICU specific population, and also does not capture if the patient was able to avoid mechanical ventilation or be liberated from mechanical ventilation sooner.
There is still a very good point here: we don't tap the lungs to make patients live longer. We tap the lungs to help them breathe better. So, the outcomes of this trial are not "pragmatic" or "practical," in my opinoin.
I tend to agree. I think the internet concluded prematurely that “thoracenteses don’t help effusions from heart failure” based on this small trial. I think they probably don’t help usually, and that was suggested not proven here in my opinion.
Nice data to look at, but does not look like this is an ICU specific population, and also does not capture if the patient was able to avoid mechanical ventilation or be liberated from mechanical ventilation sooner.
Good points. I guess every once in a while the “Pulm” side of PulmCCM lives up to its name.
I’ve been meaning to look at that question: does thoracentesis help vented patients (vent days, ICU LOS etc).
My last look at it was there was no evidence for it (which is not evidence of absence of benefit).
There was a paper in Chest about 10-15 years ago that claimed a benefit and then was retracted.