European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery · 2015
Prolonged pericardial drainage using a soft drain reduces pericardial effusion and need for additional pericardial drainage following orthotopic heart transplantation.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kim Yun Seok, Jung Sung-Ho, Cho Won Chul, Yun Sung-Cheol, Park Jeong-Jun, Yun Tae-Jin, Kim Jae-Joong, Lee Jae Won
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Pericardial effusion can cause haemodynamic compromise after heart transplantation. We identified the effects of soft drains on the development of pericardial effusion.
METHODS: We enrolled 250 patients ≥17 years of age who underwent heart transplantation between July 1999 and April 2012 and received two conventional tubes (n = 96; 32 French), or two tubes with a soft drain (n = 154; 4.8 mm wide). The development of significant pericardial effusion or the need for drainage procedure during 1 month after heart transplantation was compared with the use of the propensity score matching method to adjust for selection bias.
RESULTS: At 1 month after transplantation, 69 patients (27.6%) developed significant pericardial effusion. Among these, 13 patients (5.2%) underwent pericardial drainage. According to multivariate analysis, history of previous cardiac surgery [odds ratio (OR) = 0.162; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.046-0.565; P = 0.004] and placement of a soft drain (OR = 0.186; 95% CI = 0.100-0.346; P < 0.001) were significant factors that prevented pericardial effusion or the need for drainage during the early postoperative period. For the 82 propensity score matched pairs, patients receiving an additional soft drain were at a lower risk of the development of significant pericardial effusion or the need for a pericardial drainage procedure during 1 month (OR = 0.148; 95% CI = 0.068-0.318; P < 0.001) compared with those receiving only two conventional tubes.
CONCLUSIONS: Pericardial soft drainage is a simple and safe procedure that reduces pericardial effusion and decreases the need for pericardial drainage after heart transplantation.
METHODS: We enrolled 250 patients ≥17 years of age who underwent heart transplantation between July 1999 and April 2012 and received two conventional tubes (n = 96; 32 French), or two tubes with a soft drain (n = 154; 4.8 mm wide). The development of significant pericardial effusion or the need for drainage procedure during 1 month after heart transplantation was compared with the use of the propensity score matching method to adjust for selection bias.
RESULTS: At 1 month after transplantation, 69 patients (27.6%) developed significant pericardial effusion. Among these, 13 patients (5.2%) underwent pericardial drainage. According to multivariate analysis, history of previous cardiac surgery [odds ratio (OR) = 0.162; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.046-0.565; P = 0.004] and placement of a soft drain (OR = 0.186; 95% CI = 0.100-0.346; P < 0.001) were significant factors that prevented pericardial effusion or the need for drainage during the early postoperative period. For the 82 propensity score matched pairs, patients receiving an additional soft drain were at a lower risk of the development of significant pericardial effusion or the need for a pericardial drainage procedure during 1 month (OR = 0.148; 95% CI = 0.068-0.318; P < 0.001) compared with those receiving only two conventional tubes.
CONCLUSIONS: Pericardial soft drainage is a simple and safe procedure that reduces pericardial effusion and decreases the need for pericardial drainage after heart transplantation.