Do We Still Need Wall Suction for Chest Drainage?

Barozzi, Luca; Biagio, Livio San; Meneguzzi, Matteo; Courvoisier, Delphine S.; Cregan, Inez; Walpoth, Beat H.; Faggian, Giuseppe

doi:10.1016/j.hlc.2018.04.006

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While previous studies have mostly investigated differences between analog and digital drainage systems following thoracic surgery (11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16), there is little data published on the application of digital chest drainage systems in the cardiac surgery field comprising, to the best of our knowledge, merely conference abstracts from different studies (17)(18)(19).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reduction of drainage-associated complications in cardiac surgery with a digital drainage system: a randomized controlled trial

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Thoracic chest drains are placed after cardiac surgery allowing for the clearance of blood, fluid, and air to prevent post-operative complications. Despite its importance, there is little data on the application of digital chest drainage systems in cardiac surgery. Therefore, the differences between an analog and a digital chest drainage system in cardiac surgery patients were investigated in a randomized controlled trial. Methods: A total of 354 elective cardiac surgery patients were preoperatively randomized 1:1 between September 2016 and September 2017 to either an analog (Ocean) or a digital (Thopaz + ) chest drainage system aiming to compare drainage-associated postoperative outcome parameters.Results: A total of 340 patients were included in the analysis (analog: 188; digital: 152) with no significant differences in preoperative baseline parameters. Incidence of X-rays to detect air leaks was significantly lower in the digital group (analog: 20.2%; digital: 8.6%; P<0.01). Patients treated with the digital system showed a 3.3% reduction of re-thoracotomies, however, not statistically significant (analog: 5.3%; digital: 2.0%; P=0.19). Median total fluid amount did not significantly differ between study groups [median (P25; P75); analog: 705 (400; 1,333) mL; digital: 686 (404; 1,229) mL; P=0.83]; however, the use of the digital drainage system resulted in a quicker removal with a reduced median drainage duration of 16 hours (analog: 65 hours; digital: 49 hours; P≤0.01). Conclusions:The study provides evidence that digital drainage systems can be safely applied in cardiac surgery patients. The use of the digital management system led to a decreased incidence of drainageassociated complications as well as to shortened chest tube duration. Findings require confirmation by additional studies.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reduction of drainage-associated complications in cardiac surgery with a digital drainage system: a randomized controlled trial

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Promising Effects of Digital Chest Tube Drainage System for Pulmonary Resection: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Chang

Chen

Jhou

et al. 2022

JPM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The chest tube drainage system (CTDS) of choice for the pleural cavity after pulmonary resection remains controversial. This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to assess the length of hospital stay, chest tube placement duration, and prolonged air leak among different types of CTDS. Methods: This systemic review and NMA included 21 randomized controlled trials (3399 patients) in PubMed and Embase until 1 June 2021. We performed a frequentist random effect in our NMA, and a P-score was adopted to determine the best treatment. We assessed the clinical efficacy of different CTDSs (digital/suction/non-suction) using the length of hospital stay, chest tube placement duration, and presence of prolonged air leak. Results: Based on the NMA, digital CTDS was the most beneficial intervention for the length of hospital stay, being 1.4 days less than that of suction CTDS (mean difference (MD): −1.40; 95% confidence interval (CI): −2.20 to −0.60). Digital CTDS also had significantly reduced chest tube placement duration, being 0.68 days less than that of suction CTDSs (MD: −0.68; 95% CI: −1.32 to −0.04). Neither digital nor non-suction CTDS significantly reduced the risk of prolonged air leak. Conclusions: Digital CTDS is associated with better outcomes than suction and non-suction CTDS for patients undergoing pulmonary resections, specifically 0.68 days shorter chest tube duration and 1.4 days shorter hospital stay than suction CTDS.

show abstract

Do We Still Need Wall Suction for Chest Drainage?

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Reduction of drainage-associated complications in cardiac surgery with a digital drainage system: a randomized controlled trial

Reduction of drainage-associated complications in cardiac surgery with a digital drainage system: a randomized controlled trial

Promising Effects of Digital Chest Tube Drainage System for Pulmonary Resection: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About