Literature DB >> 12853511

Silastic drains vs conventional chest tubes after coronary artery bypass.

Timothy L Frankel1, Peter C Hill, Sotiris C Stamou, Robert C Lowery, Albert J Pfister, Arvind Jain, Paul J Corso.   

Abstract

STUDY
OBJECTIVES: To investigate differences in drainage amounts and early clinical outcomes associated with the use of Silastic drains, as compared with the conventional chest tube after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).
DESIGN: Retrospective nonrandomized case control study.
SETTING: A tertiary teaching hospital. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: Outcome data from 554 patients who underwent postoperative pericardial decompression using small Silastic drains were compared with those from 556 patients who had conventional chest tubes after first-time CABG at our institution between January 1 and August 1, 2000. MEASUREMENT AND
RESULTS: Univariate analysis of preoperative characteristics was used to ensure similarity between the two patient groups. Operative mortality, mediastinitis, reoperation for bleeding, and early and late cardiac tamponade occurred in 9 patients (1.6%), 6 patients (1.1%), 6 patients (1.1%), 6 patients (1.1%), and 1 patient (0.2%), respectively, in the Silastic drain group, compared with 11 patients (2.0%), 9 patients (1.6%), 4 patients (0.7%), 2 patients (0.4%), and 6 patients (1.1%) in the conventional group. No statistically significant differences between the two drains were identified. Drainage amounts (mean +/- SD) were 552.2 +/- 281.8 mL and 548.8 mL +/- 328.7 mL for the Silastic and conventional groups, respectively (p = 0.51). Postoperative length of stay was longer for the conventional chest tube group (median, 5 d; range, 1 to 119 d) when compared to the Silastic drain group (median, 4 d; range, 1 to 66 d; p = 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated that small Silastic drains are equally as effective as the conventional, large-bore chest tubes after CABG with no significant risk of bleeding or pericardial tamponade. Additionally, use of Silastic drains allows more mobility than the conventional chest tubes. As a result of this study, there was a change in our clinical practice toward the exclusive use of Silastic drains after all cardiac surgical procedures.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12853511     DOI: 10.1378/chest.124.1.108

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Chest        ISSN: 0012-3692            Impact factor:   9.410


  5 in total

1.  A new painless method of fixation and removal of a silicone chest drain after thoracic surgery.

Authors:  Mitsuhiro Kamiyoshihara; Takashi Ibe
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2008-02-29       Impact factor: 2.549

2.  A randomized trial of early versus delayed mediastinal drain removal after cardiac surgery using silastic and conventional tubes.

Authors:  Emmanuel Moss; Corey S Miller; Henrik Jensen; Arsène Basmadjian; Denis Bouchard; Michel Carrier; Louis P Perrault; Raymond Cartier; Michel Pellerin; Philippe Demers
Journal:  Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg       Date:  2013-07

3.  Advantages associated with the use of a wound retractor compared to a rigid trocar inserted via the camera port during video-assisted thoracic surgery.

Authors:  Mitsuhiro Kamiyoshihara; Hitoshi Igai; Ryohei Yoshikawa; Fumi Ohsawa; Tomohiro Yazawa
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 2.895

4.  Continuous Postoperative Pericardial Flushing: A Pilot Study on Safety, Feasibility, and Effect on Blood Loss.

Authors:  Johan S J Manshanden; Chantal L I Gielen; Corianne A J M de Borgie; Robert J M Klautz; Bas A J M de Mol; David R Koolbergen
Journal:  EBioMedicine       Date:  2015-07-31       Impact factor: 8.143

5.  Comparison consequences of Jackson-Pratt drain versus chest tube after coronary artery bypass grafting: A randomized controlled clinical trial.

Authors:  Mohsen Mirmohammad-Sadeghi; Pejman Pourazari; Mojtaba Akbari
Journal:  J Res Med Sci       Date:  2017-12-26       Impact factor: 1.852

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.