Could skipping the chest tube be just as safe for a collapsed lung?
NCT ID NCT07331805
First seen Jun 27, 2026 · Last updated Jun 27, 2026
Summary
This study compares two approaches for treating a large primary spontaneous pneumothorax (collapsed lung) in stable adults: active observation (monitoring without an invasive procedure) versus standard chest tube drainage. About 436 participants will be randomly assigned to one of the two groups. The goal is to see if conservative management works just as well at fully re-expanding the lung by 8 weeks, while possibly causing fewer complications and shorter hospital stays.
What this could mean
Our plain-language read of the trial. This is informational only — not medical advice or a prediction.
- What this could lead to
- If successful, this could show that many people with a large collapsed lung can be safely managed without an invasive chest tube, reducing hospital stays and complications.
- What could go wrong
- This is an early-stage trial (not yet recruiting) with a non-inferiority design, so it may not prove conservative management is as effective. The condition can recur, and some patients may still need a chest tube if they worsen.
This is an AI summary of the original study and may miss details. Read our disclaimer.
Get updates
Get notified about this study
Sign up to get updates when this study changes or when new studies for CONSERVATIVE MANAGEMENT (ACTIVE OBSERVATION) are added.
By submitting, you agree to our Terms of use
Conditions
The condition(s) this trial relates to.
As listed by the trial registrant
The condition terms exactly as the trial's registrant entered them.