Evidence Hub

An integrated approach to diagnosis and management of severe haemoptysis in patients admitted to the intensive care unit: a case series from a referral centre

M. Fartoukh, A. Khalil, L. Louis, M. Carette, B. Bazelly, J. Cadranel, C. Mayaud, A. Parrot

Respiratory Research, 2007

196 participants · 91 citations

Abstract

BackgroundLimited data are available concerning patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) for severe haemoptysis. We reviewed a large series of patients managed in a uniform way to describe the clinical spectrum and outcome of haemoptysis in this setting, and better define the indications for bronchial artery embolisation (BAE).MethodsA retrospective chart review of 196 patients referred for severe haemoptysis to a respiratory intermediate care ward and ICU between January 1999 and December 2001. A follow-up by telephone interview or a visit.ResultsPatients (148 males) were aged 51 (± sd, 16) years, with a median cumulated amount of bleeding averaging 200 ml on admission. Bronchiectasis, lung cancer, tuberculosis and mycetoma were the main underlying causes. In 21 patients (11%), no cause was identified. A first-line bronchial arteriography was attempted in 147 patients (75%), whereas 46 (23%) received conservative treatment. Patients who underwent BAE had a higher respiratory rate, greater amount of bleeding, persistent bloody sputum and/or evidence of active bleeding on fiberoptic bronchoscopy. When completed (n = 131/147), BAE controlled haemoptysis in 80% of patients, both in the short and long (> 30 days) terms. Surgery was mostly performed when bronchial arteriography had failed and/or bleeding recurred early after completed BAE. Bleeding was controlled by conservative measures alone in 44 patients. The ICU mortality rate was low (4%).ConclusionPatients with…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case report, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 196 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free