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 drainage-associated complications as well as to shortened chest tube duration. Findings require confirmation by additional studies. 2019 Journal of Thoracic Disease. All rights reserved.
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 drainage-associated complications as well as to shortened chest tube duration. Findings require confirmation by additional studies. 2019 Journal of Thoracic Disease. All rights reserved.
Entities:
Keywords:
Digital chest drainage; cardiac surgery; drainage-associated complications
Authors: Edward M Boyle; A Marc Gillinov; William E Cohn; S Jill Ley; Theodor Fischlein; Louis P Perrault Journal: Innovations (Phila) Date: 2015 Sep-Oct
Authors: Sarah Tschudin-Sutter; Ruth Meinke; Heinz Schuhmacher; Marc Dangel; Friedrich Eckstein; Oliver Reuthebuch; Andreas Franz Widmer Journal: Am J Infect Control Date: 2013-07-17 Impact factor: 2.918
Authors: Paula Carmona; Eva Mateo; Irene Casanovas; Juan J Peña; Jose Llagunes; Federico Aguar; Jose De Andrés; Carlos Errando Journal: J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth Date: 2011-08-25 Impact factor: 2.628
Authors: Cecilia Pompili; Frank Detterbeck; Kostas Papagiannopoulos; Alan Sihoe; Kostas Vachlas; Mark W Maxfield; Henry C Lim; Alessandro Brunelli Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2014-06-04 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Oluwatomisin Olurotimi Obafemi; Hanjay Wang; Simar S Bajaj; Christian T O'Donnell; Stefan Elde; Jack H Boyd Journal: JTCVS Open Date: 2022-02-24