Chest tubes

The insertion of a chest tube is a common therapeutic procedure routinely employed to restore the natural negative pressure in the pleural space and ensure complete pulmonary reexpansion through the drainage of a pathologic collection of fluid and/or air from the thoracic cavity. The method for inserting the tube, as well as management and withdrawal of the drain unit, should be guided by clinical judgement and amended depending on different circumstances. Similarly, the selection of the appropriate size and type of chest tube to be placed varies according to indications. Despite their widespread use, just a few evidence based guidance on insertion and management of chest drains are currently available. Among these, the British Thoracic Society (BTS) stated in 2003 clinical practice guidelines for the insertion of a chest drain; moreover, the BTS Pleural Disease Guideline Group recently reviewed indications on management of spontaneous pneumothorax and malignant pleural effusion.

Association between depression and hypertension using classic and revised blood pressure thresholds

Background In a primary care population, the relationship between treatment of depression and hypertension (HTN) under the recently revised American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association HTN thresholds for diagnosing HTN is unknown. Objective To compare the association between changes in severity of co-occurring depression and HTN over time using the newly revised versus previous HTN guidelines. Methods In this retrospective cohort study, outpatients ≥18 years (n = 3018) with clinically significant depressive symptoms and elevated blood pressure at baseline were divided into a ‘revised’ guideline group (baseline blood pressure ≥130/80 mmHg), a ‘classic’ guideline group (≥140/90 mmHg) and a ‘revised-minus-classic’ group (≥130/80 and <140/90 mmHg). Depressive symptom change was assessed using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). Correlations between changes in PHQ-9 scores and HTN levels by group over a 6- to 18-month observation period were assessed using robust regression analysis. Results There were demographic and clinical differences between groups. A total of 41% of study subjects (1252/3018) had a visit during the follow-up period where additional PHQ-9 and HTN results were available. Depressive symptom change was unrelated to change in blood pressure in the revised and revised-minus-classic groups. The classic HTN group demonstrated a clinically insignificant change in systolic blood pressure for each unit change in PHQ-9 score (β = 0.23, P-value =0.02). Conclusions Although a statistically significant association between reduced HTN levels and improvement in depressive symptoms was demonstrated under classic HTN guidelines, there was no clinically meaningful association between treatment of depression and improved HTN levels under either guideline.

ESHRE guideline: female fertility preservation†

STUDY QUESTION What is the recommended management for women and transgender men with regards to fertility preservation (FP), based on the best available evidence in the literature? SUMMARY ANSWER The ESHRE Guideline on Female Fertility Preservation makes 78 recommendations on organization of care, information provision and support, pre-FP assessment, FP interventions and after treatment care. Ongoing developments in FP are also discussed. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY The field of FP has grown hugely in the last two decades, driven by the increasing recognition of the importance of potential loss of fertility as a significant effect of the treatment of cancer and other serious diseases, and the development of the enabling technologies of oocyte vitrification and ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OTC) for subsequent autografting. This has led to the widespread, though uneven, provision of FP for young women. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION The guideline was developed according to the structured methodology for development of ESHRE guidelines. After formulation of key questions by a group of experts, literature searches and assessments were performed. Papers published up to 1 November 2019 and written in English were included in the review. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Based on the collected evidence, recommendations were formulated and discussed until consensus was reached within the guideline group. A stakeholder review was organized after finalization of the draft. The final version was approved by the guideline group and the ESHRE Executive Committee. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE This guideline aims to help providers meet a growing demand for FP options by diverse groups of patients, including those diagnosed with cancer undergoing gonadotoxic treatments, with benign diseases undergoing gonadotoxic treatments or those with a genetic condition predisposing to premature ovarian insufficiency, transgender men (assigned female at birth), and women requesting oocyte cryopreservation for age-related fertility loss. The guideline makes 78 recommendations on information provision and support, pre-FP assessment, FP interventions and after treatment care, including 50 evidence-based recommendations—of which 31 were formulated as strong recommendations and 19 as weak—25 good practice points and 3 research only recommendations. Of the evidence-based recommendations, 1 was supported by high-quality evidence, 3 by moderate-quality evidence, 17 by low-quality evidence and 29 by very low-quality evidence. To support future research in the field of female FP, a list of research recommendations is provided. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Most interventions included are not well studied in FP patients. As some interventions, e.g. oocyte and embryo cryopreservation, are well established for treatment of infertility, technical aspects, feasibility and outcomes can be extrapolated. For other interventions, such as OTC and IVM, more evidence is required, specifically pregnancy outcomes after applying these techniques for FP patients. Such future studies may require the current recommendations to be revised. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The guideline provides clinicians with clear advice on best practice in female FP, based on the best evidence currently available. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to stimulate further studies in FP. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) The guideline was developed and funded by ESHRE, covering expenses associated with the guideline meetings, with the literature searches and with the dissemination of the guideline. The guideline group members did not receive payment. R.A.A. reports personal fees and non-financial support from Roche Diagnostics, personal fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, IBSA and Merck Serono, outside the submitted work; D.B. reports grants from Merck Serono and Goodlife, outside the submitted work; I.D. reports consulting fees from Roche and speaker’s fees from Novartis; M.L. reports personal fees from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, Takeda, and Theramex, outside the submitted work. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. DISCLAIMER This guideline represents the views of ESHRE, which were achieved after careful consideration of the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. In the absence of scientific evidence on certain aspects, a consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders has been obtained. Adherence to these clinical practice guidelines does not guarantee a successful or specific outcome, nor does it establish a standard of care. Clinical practice guidelines do not replace the need for application of clinical judgment to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type. ESHRE makes no warranty, express or implied, regarding the clinical practice guidelines and specifically excludes any warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular use or purpose. (Full disclaimer available at www.eshre.eu/guidelines.) †ESHRE Pages content is not externally peer reviewed. The manuscript has been approved by the Executive Committee of ESHRE.

ESHRE guideline: ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI†

STUDY QUESTION What is the recommended management of ovarian stimulation, based on the best available evidence in the literature? SUMMARY ANSWER The guideline development group formulated 84 recommendations answering 18 key questions on ovarian stimulation. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI has been discussed briefly in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline on fertility problems, and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologist has published a statement on ovarian stimulation in assisted reproduction. There are, to our knowledge, no evidence-based guidelines dedicated to the process of ovarian stimulation. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION The guideline was developed according to the structured methodology for development of ESHRE guidelines. After formulation of key questions by a group of experts, literature searches and assessments were performed. Papers published up to 8 November 2018 and written in English were included. The critical outcomes for this guideline were efficacy in terms of cumulative live birth rate per started cycle or live birth rate per started cycle, as well as safety in terms of the rate of occurrence of moderate and/or severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Based on the collected evidence, recommendations were formulated and discussed until consensus was reached within the guideline group. A stakeholder review was organized after finalization of the draft. The final version was approved by the guideline group and the ESHRE Executive Committee. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE The guideline provides 84 recommendations: 7 recommendations on pre-stimulation management, 40 recommendations on LH suppression and gonadotrophin stimulation, 11 recommendations on monitoring during ovarian stimulation, 18 recommendations on triggering of final oocyte maturation and luteal support and 8 recommendations on the prevention of OHSS. These include 61 evidence-based recommendations—of which only 21 were formulated as strong recommendations—and 19 good practice points and 4 research-only recommendations. The guideline includes a strong recommendation for the use of either antral follicle count or anti-Müllerian hormone (instead of other ovarian reserve tests) to predict high and poor response to ovarian stimulation. The guideline also includes a strong recommendation for the use of the GnRH antagonist protocol over the GnRH agonist protocols in the general IVF/ICSI population, based on the comparable efficacy and higher safety. For predicted poor responders, GnRH antagonists and GnRH agonists are equally recommended. With regards to hormone pre-treatment and other adjuvant treatments (metformin, growth hormone (GH), testosterone, dehydroepiandrosterone, aspirin and sildenafil), the guideline group concluded that none are recommended for increasing efficacy or safety. LIMITATIONS, REASON FOR CAUTION Several newer interventions are not well studied yet. For most of these interventions, a recommendation against the intervention or a research-only recommendation was formulated based on insufficient evidence. Future studies may require these recommendations to be revised. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The guideline provides clinicians with clear advice on best practice in ovarian stimulation, based on the best evidence available. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to promote further studies in ovarian stimulation. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) The guideline was developed and funded by ESHRE, covering expenses associated with the guideline meetings, with the literature searches and with the dissemination of the guideline. The guideline group members did not receive payment. F.B. reports research grant from Ferring and consulting fees from Merck, Ferring, Gedeon Richter and speaker’s fees from Merck. N.P. reports research grants from Ferring, MSD, Roche Diagnositics, Theramex and Besins Healthcare; consulting fees from MSD, Ferring and IBSA; and speaker’s fees from Ferring, MSD, Merck Serono, IBSA, Theramex, Besins Healthcare, Gedeon Richter and Roche Diagnostics. A.L.M reports research grants from Ferring, MSD, IBSA, Merck Serono, Gedeon Richter and TEVA and consulting fees from Roche, Beckman-Coulter. G.G. reports consulting fees from MSD, Ferring, Merck Serono, IBSA, Finox, Theramex, Gedeon-Richter, Glycotope, Abbott, Vitrolife, Biosilu, ReprodWissen, Obseva and PregLem and speaker’s fees from MSD, Ferring, Merck Serono, IBSA, Finox, TEVA, Gedeon Richter, Glycotope, Abbott, Vitrolife and Biosilu. E.B. reports research grants from Gedeon Richter; consulting and speaker’s fees from MSD, Ferring, Abbot, Gedeon Richter, Merck Serono, Roche Diagnostics and IBSA; and ownership interest from IVI-RMS Valencia. P.H. reports research grants from Gedeon Richter, Merck, IBSA and Ferring and speaker’s fees from MSD, IBSA, Merck and Gedeon Richter. J.U. reports speaker’s fees from IBSA and Ferring. N.M. reports research grants from MSD, Merck and IBSA; consulting fees from MSD, Merck, IBSA and Ferring and speaker’s fees from MSD, Merck, IBSA, Gedeon Richter and Theramex. M.G. reports speaker’s fees from Merck Serono, Ferring, Gedeon Richter and MSD. S.K.S. reports speaker’s fees from Merck, MSD, Ferring and Pharmasure. E.K. reports speaker’s fees from Merck Serono, Angellini Pharma and MSD. M.K. reports speaker’s fees from Ferring. T.T. reports speaker’s fees from Merck, MSD and MLD. The other authors report no conflicts of interest. Disclaimer This guideline represents the views of ESHRE, which were achieved after careful consideration of the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. In the absence of scientific evidence on certain aspects, a consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders has been obtained. Adherence to these clinical practice guidelines does not guarantee a successful or specific outcome, nor does it establish a standard of care. Clinical practice guidelines do not replace the need for application of clinical judgment to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type. ESHRE makes no warranty, express or implied, regarding the clinical practice guidelines and specifically excludes any warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular use or purpose. (Full disclaimer available at www.eshre.eu/guidelines.) †ESHRE Pages content is not externally peer reviewed. The manuscript has been approved by the Executive Committee of ESHRE.

Early Discontinuation of Ethambutol in Pulmonary Tuberculosis Treatment Based on Results of the GenoType MTBDRplus Assay: a Prospective, Multicenter, Noninferiority Randomized Trial in South Korea

ABSTRACT No studies have investigated whether the discontinuation of ethambutol (EMB) based on susceptibility to isoniazid and rifampin, as determined by the GenoType MTBDRplus assay, would be appropriate. We aimed to determine the feasibility of discontinuing EMB before the end of the intensive phase of treatment based on the results of the MTBDRplus assay in patients with pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB). This prospective, multicenter noninferiority randomized trial was conducted at 12 referral centers in South Korea in drug-susceptible PTB patients who initiated the standard four-drug regimen for PTB. Based on the results of the assay, EMB was discontinued in the MTBDRplus group after confirmation that the M. tuberculosis isolate was susceptible to isoniazid and rifampin. The time point for EMB discontinuation in the guideline group was determined using the results of the phenotypic drug susceptibility test based on the South Korean national tuberculosis guidelines. The primary outcome was treatment success. Secondary outcomes included the 1-year rates of recurrence and adverse events. Of 600 randomized patients, the treatment outcome analysis was performed for 493 patients (MTBDRplus group, 244 patients; guideline group, 249 patients). Treatment success rates were 93.9% (229/244) in the MTBDRplus group and 93.6% (233/249) in the guideline group and did not differ between groups (relative risk, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.95 to 1.06). The 1-year recurrence rates in the two groups (0.9% and 0.5%, respectively) and adverse drug reactions did not differ between the groups. In conclusion, the early discontinuation of EMB based on the results of the MTBDRplus assay did not affect the treatment outcomes in patients with PTB. (This clinical trial has been registered with the Clinical Research Information Service of the Republic of Korea [https://cris.nih.go.kr/cris/] under registration no. KCT0000610.)

Is a government-regulated rehabilitation guideline more effective than general practitioner education or preferred-provider rehabilitation in promoting recovery from acute whiplash-associated disorders? A pragmatic randomised controlled trial

ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of a government-regulated rehabilitation guideline compared with education and activation by general practitioners, and to a preferred-provider insurance-based rehabilitation programme on self-reported global recovery from acute whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) grade I–II.DesignPragmatic randomised clinical trial with blinded outcome assessment.SettingMultidisciplinary rehabilitation clinics and general practitioners in Ontario, Canada.Participants340 participants with acute WAD grade I and II. Potential participants were sampled from a large automobile insurer when reporting a traffic injury.InterventionsParticipants were randomised to receive one of three protocols: government-regulated rehabilitation guideline, education and activation by general practitioners or a preferred-provider insurance-based rehabilitation.Primary and secondary outcome measuresOur primary outcome was time to self-reported global recovery. Secondary outcomes included time on insurance benefits, neck pain intensity, whiplash-related disability, health-related quality of life and depressive symptomatology at 6 weeks and 3, 6, 9 and 12 months postinjury.ResultsThe median time to self-reported global recovery was 59 days (95% CI 55 to 68) for the government-regulated guideline group, 105 days (95% CI 61 to 126) for the preferred-provider group and 108 days (95% CI 93 to 206) for the general practitioner group; the difference was not statistically significant (Χ2=3.96; 2 df: p=0.138). We found no clinically important differences between groups in secondary outcomes. Post hoc analysis suggests that the general practitioner (hazard rate ratio (HRR)=0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.77) and preferred-provider groups (HRR=0.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.96) had slower recovery than the government-regulated guideline group during the first 80 days postinjury. No major adverse events were reported.ConclusionsTime-to-recovery did not significantly differ across intervention groups. We found no differences between groups with regard to neck-specific outcomes, depression and health-related quality of life.Trial registration numberNCT00546806.

Standardised Warfarin Reversal Expedites Time to Theatre for Fractured Neck of Femur Surgery and Improves Mortality Rates: A Matched Cohort Study

Background. This study aims to evaluate outcomes for warfarinised hip fracture patients and compare them with a matched nonwarfarinised group, before and after the introduction of national hip fracture guidelines in the United Kingdom. Methods. A retrospective cohort study of 1743 hip fracture patients was undertaken. All patients admitted taking warfarin were identified. These patients were then matched to nonwarfarinised patients using nearest neighbour propensity score matching, accounting for age, sex, hip fracture type, and Nottingham Hip Fracture Score. A pre-guideline group (no standardised warfarin reversal regimen) and a post-guideline group (standardised regimen) were identified. Outcomes assessed included time to INR less than 1.7, time to theatre, length of stay, and 30-day and 1-year mortality. Results. Forty-six warfarinised hip fracture patients were admitted in the pre-guideline group (mean age 80.5, F:M 3:1) and 48 in the post-guideline group (mean age 81.2 years, F:M 3:1). Post-guideline patients were reversed to a safe operative INR level within 18 hours of admission, decreasing the time to first dose vitamin K (p<0.001). 70% of warfarinised patients were operated upon within 36 hours, compared to 19.6% with no regimen (p<0.05). After anticoagulation reversal protocol, thirty-day mortality decreased from 15.2% to 8.3% and 1-year mortality from 43.5% to 33% for warfarinised patients, which is comparable to nonwarfarinised matched patients. There was no significant change in the length of stay pre- and post-guideline for both groups of patients. Conclusions. Proactive anticoagulant management and expedient surgery reduces morbidity and mortality when managing this surgically challenging subset of hip fracture patients.

ESHRE guideline: recurrent pregnancy loss

STUDY QUESTION What is the recommended management of women with recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) based on the best available evidence in the literature? SUMMARY ANSWER The guideline development group formulated 77 recommendations answering 18 key questions on investigations and treatments for RPL, and on how care should be organized. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY A previous guideline for the investigation and medical treatment of recurrent miscarriage was published in 2006 and is in need of an update. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION The guideline was developed according to the structured methodology for development of ESHRE guidelines. After formulation of key questions by a group of experts, literature searches and assessments were performed. Papers published up to 31 March 2017 and written in English were included. Cumulative live birth rate, live birth rate and pregnancy loss rate (or miscarriage rate) were considered the critical outcomes. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Based on the collected evidence, recommendations were formulated and discussed until consensus was reached within the guideline group. A stakeholder review was organized after finalization of the draft. The final version was approved by the guideline group and the ESHRE Executive Committee. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE The guideline provides 38 recommendations on risk factors, prevention and investigations in couples with RPL, and 39 recommendations on treatments. These include 60 evidence-based recommendations – of which 31 were formulated as strong recommendations and 29 as conditional – and 17 good practice points. The evidence supporting investigations and treatment of couples with RPL is limited and of moderate quality. Of the evidence-based recommendations, only 10 (16.3%) were supported by moderate quality evidence. The remaining recommendations were supported by low (35 recommendations: 57.4%), or very low quality evidence (16 recommendations: 26.2%). There were no recommendations based on high quality evidence. Owing to the lack of evidence-based investigations and treatments in RPL care, the guideline also clearly mentions investigations and treatments that should not be used for couples with RPL. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Several investigations and treatments are offered to couples with RPL, but most of them are not well studied. For most of these investigations and treatments, a recommendation against the intervention or treatment was formulated based on insufficient evidence. Future studies may require these recommendations to be revised. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The guideline provides clinicians with clear advice on best practice in RPL, based on the best evidence available. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to stimulate further studies in RPL. One of the most important consequences of the limited evidence is the absence of evidence for a definition of RPL. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) The guideline was developed and funded by ESHRE, covering expenses associated with the guideline meetings, with the literature searches and with the dissemination of the guideline. The guideline group members did not receive payment. J.E. reports position funding from CARE Fertility. S.L. reports position funding from SpermComet Ltd. S.M. reports research grants, consulting and speaker’s fees from GSK, BMS/Pfizer, Sanquin, Aspen, Bayer and Daiichi Sankyo. S.Q. reports speaker’s fees from Ferring. The other authors report no conflicts of interest. ESHRE Pages are not externally peer reviewed. This article has been approved by the Executive Committee of ESHRE.

‘Don't forget the children’ – test before it is too late

In 2009, ‘Don’t forget the children’ guideline recommended that all new HIV-positive patients attending adult HIV services should have any existing children identified and tested for HIV alongside a coherent documentation process. A retrospective case note review was performed on 173 HIV-positive women registered at the Royal South Hants adult HIV service until 31 January 2014. Data were assessed as a whole (n = 173) and, in addition, two comparator groups were formulated: (a) pre-guidelines (n = 108) and (b) post-guidelines (n = 65). Out of 80 children eligible for HIV testing, only 43 (54%) had clear documentation of a test result, and in the remaining 37 (46%), it was either not considered or not followed through. Documentation of need for testing increased significantly from 67% in pre-guideline group to 100% in the post-guideline group (p < 0.001). The median time from recognition of need to test to actual testing remained 24 months in both groups. Although this audit demonstrated improvement in identification of at-risk children and their testing, there is still need for improvement.