The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2015
Randomized trial of digital versus analog pleural drainage in patients with or without a pulmonary air leak after lung resection.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное 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.
Gilbert Sebastien, McGuire Anna L, Maghera Sonam, Sundaresan Sudhir R, Seely Andrew J, Maziak Donna E, Shamji Farid M, Villeneuve P James
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: An unclear aspect of digital pleural drainage technology is whether it can benefit all lung resection patients or only those who have a postoperative air leak. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of digital pleural drainage on time to chest tube removal and length of hospitalization, taking into consideration postoperative air leak status.
METHODS: A single-center, randomized, controlled, open-label, parallel-group trial was conducted. On postoperative day 1, stratification according to air leak status was performed by 2 independent, blinded observers. Patients were randomized to a water-sealed, pleural drainage device (analog) or to a digital device (digital).
RESULTS: In both air leak groups (no air leak = 87; air leak = 85), patient factors and operative details were comparable. In the no air leak group, the difference in median chest tube drainage between analog and digital randomization arms was not statistically significant (3 days vs 2.9 days; P = .05). Median length of stay was also comparable in that group (analog = 4.3 days; digital = 4 days; P = .09). In patients with an air leak, similar findings were observed for chest tube duration (analog = 5.6 days; digital = 4.9 days; P = .11) and length of stay (analog = 6.2 days; digital = 6.2 days; P = .36). Chest tube clamping trials were significantly reduced in the digital arm of the air leak absent (0% vs 16%; P = .01) and air leak present groups (23% vs 50%; P = .01).
CONCLUSIONS: Although digital devices decreased tube clamping trials, the impact on duration of chest tube drainage and hospital stay was not statistically significant, even after stratifying by postoperative air leak status.
METHODS: A single-center, randomized, controlled, open-label, parallel-group trial was conducted. On postoperative day 1, stratification according to air leak status was performed by 2 independent, blinded observers. Patients were randomized to a water-sealed, pleural drainage device (analog) or to a digital device (digital).
RESULTS: In both air leak groups (no air leak = 87; air leak = 85), patient factors and operative details were comparable. In the no air leak group, the difference in median chest tube drainage between analog and digital randomization arms was not statistically significant (3 days vs 2.9 days; P = .05). Median length of stay was also comparable in that group (analog = 4.3 days; digital = 4 days; P = .09). In patients with an air leak, similar findings were observed for chest tube duration (analog = 5.6 days; digital = 4.9 days; P = .11) and length of stay (analog = 6.2 days; digital = 6.2 days; P = .36). Chest tube clamping trials were significantly reduced in the digital arm of the air leak absent (0% vs 16%; P = .01) and air leak present groups (23% vs 50%; P = .01).
CONCLUSIONS: Although digital devices decreased tube clamping trials, the impact on duration of chest tube drainage and hospital stay was not statistically significant, even after stratifying by postoperative air leak status.