Intercostal catheter insertion: are we really doing well?

Introduction: Intercostal catheters (ICC) are the standard management of chest trauma, but are associated with complications in up to 30%. The aim of this study was to evaluate errors in technique during ICC insertion to characterize the potential benefit of improved training programmes. Methods: Prospective audit of all ICC in trauma patients at a level 1 trauma centre for over 12 months. Exclusions were pigtail catheters and ICC inserted during thoracic surgery. Errors were identified from patient examination and chest imaging; they were defined as insertional, positional, incorrect size (<28 French) and lack of antibiotic prophylaxis. Ongoing complications unrelated to an error in technique, for example blocked tube, were not analysed. Results: Fifty‐seven patients received a total of 94 ICC during the study period. Patients were predominantly male (77%), mean age of 40 ± 20 years, mean injury severity score 27 ± 13, mean abbreviated injury scale chest 3.8 ± 0.72. 86% were blunt trauma and 14% penetrating chest injuries. Thirty‐six errors in technique occurred in 33 ICC insertions (38%). The most common errors were absence of prophylactic antibiotics (13%), ICC too far out (9%), kinked (6%) and wrong‐sized ICC (5%). Emergency had a significantly greater frequency of errors than other specialties (67%, relative risk 2.11, P= 0.002). The majority of ICC were inserted by registrars, and registrars made a greater number of errors than fellows or consultants (relative risk 2.00, P= 0.02). Discussion: This study identified a large number of preventable errors for ICC insertion in trauma patients. Standardized institutional credentialing systems may be required to ensure adequate proficiency of trainees performing this procedure.     

Immunotherapy: are we making a difference?

There is a 10-20 year history of immunotherapeutic approaches in metastatic renal cell cancer, which have produced a consistent demonstration of anti-tumour effect in a small percentage of patients. Clarification of dose and schedule of current agents continues to be modified. New technologies for immune system activation are attempting to enhance the response rate and improve outcome. Anti-proliferative effects of immunotherapy produce prolongation of stable disease, and new agents are being developed to enhance this approach.     

The evolving treatment of anal cancer: How are we doing?

HYPOTHESIS: The adaptation of new techniques in treatment of epidermoid carcinoma of the anal canal during the past 3 decades has improved clinical outcomes. DESIGN: Retrospective consecutive case review. SETTING: A university hospital and Veterans Affairs medical center. PATIENTS: Medical records of 76 consecutive patients treated for invasive epidermoid cancer of the anal canal between 1970 and 1999 were reviewed. Twenty-one patients were excluded because of inadequate staging information and/or follow-up of less than 12 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Locoregional recurrence, survival, colostomy-free survival, and morbidity. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients composed the study population. Ten were treated during decade 1 (1970-1979), 16 in decade 2 (1980-1989), and 29 in decade 3 (1990-1999). Mean age and sex distributions were similar. The prevailing primary treatment modality changed during the course of the study from sequential treatment (chemotherapy then radiation therapy then radical surgery) to concurrent chemoradiation (70% and 0% of cases, respectively, in decade 1 to 7% and 76% of cases, respectively, in decade 3). Locoregional control (50%, 81%, and 93%; P =.01), crude survival (median, 28, 30, and 76 months), and colostomy-free survival (mean, 13, 90, and 80 months) improved during the 3 decades. There were no differences in major complications during the 3 decades (40%, 56%, and 41%). CONCLUSION: Primary treatment with concurrent chemoradiation has improved the local recurrence, survival, and colostomy-free survival rates in patients with invasive epidermoid carcinoma of the anal canal without increasing major morbidity.     

Testing for substance use in trauma patients: are we doing enough?

HYPOTHESIS: Only a fraction of trauma patients are being tested for substance use, and the proportion of those tested may have decreased over time. DESIGN: Retrospective review of longitudinal data. SETTING: National Trauma Data Bank. PATIENTS: Individuals aged 15 to 50 years admitted with injuries from 1998 to 2003. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes of interest are the incidence of drug and alcohol testing and the results of these tests. The primary exposure of interest is year of admission. RESULTS: Half of patients admitted with injuries are being tested for alcohol use, and half of these patients have positive test results. Only 36.3% of patients admitted with injuries are tested for drug use, and 46.5% of these patients have positive test results. There have been no significant trends for either alcohol testing or results in the past 6 years. Compared with 1998, patients are significantly less likely to be tested for drugs, but more likely to have positive test results. CONCLUSIONS: Only a small proportion of patients who are admitted with injuries are tested for substance use. The proportion of patients tested for drugs has decreased significantly during the past 6 years. Routine testing would maximize identification of patients who may benefit from interventions. Several obstacles exist to routine screening, including legal and physician-related barriers. Future efforts to facilitate routine testing of trauma patients for substance use should concentrate on protecting patient confidentiality and educating physicians on the techniques and benefits of brief interventions.