HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Author home page(s): Armin Ernst Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Feller-Kopman, D. Articles by Ernst, A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Feller-Kopman, D. Articles by Ernst, A. Related Collections Pleura Related Article

---

Original Articles: General Thoracic

Large-Volume Thoracentesis and the Risk of Reexpansion Pulmonary Edema

^a Department of Interventional Pulmonology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
^b Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts

Accepted for publication June 13, 2007.

^_* Address correspondence to Dr Feller-Kopman, Interventional Pulmonology, Johns Hopkins Hospital, 1830 East Monument St, Fifth Floor, Baltimore, MD 21205 (Email: dfellerk{at}jhmi.edu).

Background: To avoid reexpansion pulmonary edema (RPE), thoracenteses are often limited to draining no more than 1 L. There are, however, significant clinical benefits to removing more than 1 L of fluid. The purpose of this study was to define the incidence of RPE among patients undergoing large-volume (1 L) thoracentesis.

Methods: One hundred eighty-five patients undergoing large-volume thoracentesis were included in this study. The volume of fluid removed, absolute pleural pressure, pleural elastance, and symptoms during thoracentesis were compared in patients who did and did not experience RPE.

Results: Of the 185 patients, 98 (53%) had between 1 L and 1.5 L withdrawn, 40 (22%) had between 1.5 L and 2 L withdrawn, 38 (20%) had between 2 L and 3 L withdrawn, and 9 (5%) had more than 3 L withdrawn. Only 1 patient (0.5%, 95% confidence interval: 0.01% to 3%) experienced clinical RPE. Four patients (2.2%, 95% confidence interval: 0.06% to 5.4%) had radiographic RPE (diagnosed only on postprocedure imaging without clinical symptoms). The incidence of RPE was not associated with the absolute change in pleural pressure, pleural elastance, or symptoms during thoracentesis.

Conclusions: Clinical and radiographic RPE after large-volume thoracentesis is rare and independent of the volume of fluid removed, pleural pressures, and pleural elastance. The recommendation to terminate thoracentesis after removing 1 L of fluid needs to be reconsidered: large effusions can, and should, be drained completely as long as chest discomfort or end-expiratory pleural pressure less than –20 cm H₂O does not develop.

Related Article

Invited commentary

Mark S. Soberman
Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2007 84: 1661-1662. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. Feller-Kopman, M. J. Parker, and R. M. Schwartzstein Assessment of Pleural Pressure in the Evaluation of Pleural Effusions Chest, January 1, 2009; 135(1): 201 - 209. [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. Apostolakis and I. Koniari Re-expansion pulmonary oedema: is its prevention possible? Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery, June 1, 2008; 7(3): 489 - 490. [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Echevarria, D. Twomey, J. Dunning, and B. Chanda Does re-expansion pulmonary oedema exist? Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery, June 1, 2008; 7(3): 485 - 489. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. S. Soberman Invited commentary Ann. Thorac. Surg., November 1, 2007; 84(5): 1661 - 1662. [Full Text] [PDF]