Chest Tube Clearance Strategies Versus Conventional Chest Tubes After Cardiac Surgery

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Journal of Cardiac Surgery Pub Date : 2024-11-04 DOI:10.1155/2024/2207185
Veronica F. Chan, Dominique Vervoort, Derrick Y. Tam, Stephen E. Fremes
{"title":"Chest Tube Clearance Strategies Versus Conventional Chest Tubes After Cardiac Surgery","authors":"Veronica F. Chan,&nbsp;Dominique Vervoort,&nbsp;Derrick Y. Tam,&nbsp;Stephen E. Fremes","doi":"10.1155/2024/2207185","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n <p>Standard chest tubes (CTs) used to drain retained blood can become occluded from blood clots, leading to ineffective drainage and postoperative complications such as cardiac tamponade. Chest tube clearance strategies (CTCSs) were developed to improve CT patency. Our meta-analysis compared the safety and efficacy of CTCS versus CT following cardiac surgery. The PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched from 1946 to 2023 for studies that compared CTCS to CT. Two investigators independently reviewed, screened, extracted, and assessed the data prior to performing a random effects meta-analysis using R. The primary outcome was re-exploration and the secondary outcomes were retained blood syndrome, mortality, blood products, stroke, cardiac arrest, atrial fibrillation, ventilation time, intensive care unit (ICU) time, hospital length of stay, and chest drainage. Five studies (2288 patients) were included. There were two clinical trials (<i>n</i> = 620) and three observational studies (1668 patients). Compared to CT, CTCS had a significant reduction of postoperative atrial fibrillation (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.92, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 17%, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.01). There was no significant difference in re-exploration, retained blood syndrome, hospital length of stay, and ICU length of stay. However, with the addition of four unmatched studies (<i>n</i> = 2583), CTCS was associated with a significant reduction in re-exploration (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.73, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 34%, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.01), retained blood syndrome (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.95, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 72%, <i>p</i> = 0.02), hospital length of stay (mean difference (MD) −0.40, 95% CI −0.78 to −0.01, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 49%, <i>p</i> = 0.04), and chest drainage (MD 0.80, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.92, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 17%, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.01). Drawing from results including the unmatched studies, CTCSs are associated with fewer postoperative complications compared to CT. This was achieved without major differences in chest drainage, supporting the important role of preventing even small accumulations of blood in the pericardial space.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15367,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cardiac Surgery","volume":"2024 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1155/2024/2207185","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cardiac Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2024/2207185","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Standard chest tubes (CTs) used to drain retained blood can become occluded from blood clots, leading to ineffective drainage and postoperative complications such as cardiac tamponade. Chest tube clearance strategies (CTCSs) were developed to improve CT patency. Our meta-analysis compared the safety and efficacy of CTCS versus CT following cardiac surgery. The PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched from 1946 to 2023 for studies that compared CTCS to CT. Two investigators independently reviewed, screened, extracted, and assessed the data prior to performing a random effects meta-analysis using R. The primary outcome was re-exploration and the secondary outcomes were retained blood syndrome, mortality, blood products, stroke, cardiac arrest, atrial fibrillation, ventilation time, intensive care unit (ICU) time, hospital length of stay, and chest drainage. Five studies (2288 patients) were included. There were two clinical trials (n = 620) and three observational studies (1668 patients). Compared to CT, CTCS had a significant reduction of postoperative atrial fibrillation (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.92, I2 = 17%, p < 0.01). There was no significant difference in re-exploration, retained blood syndrome, hospital length of stay, and ICU length of stay. However, with the addition of four unmatched studies (n = 2583), CTCS was associated with a significant reduction in re-exploration (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.73, I2 = 34%, p < 0.01), retained blood syndrome (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.95, I2 = 72%, p = 0.02), hospital length of stay (mean difference (MD) −0.40, 95% CI −0.78 to −0.01, I2 = 49%, p = 0.04), and chest drainage (MD 0.80, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.92, I2 = 17%, p < 0.01). Drawing from results including the unmatched studies, CTCSs are associated with fewer postoperative complications compared to CT. This was achieved without major differences in chest drainage, supporting the important role of preventing even small accumulations of blood in the pericardial space.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
心脏手术后胸管清创策略与传统胸管相比
用于引流潴留血液的标准胸管(CT)可能会因血凝块而堵塞,导致引流不畅和术后并发症(如心脏填塞)。为了改善 CT 的通畅性,人们开发了胸管清理策略(CTCS)。我们的荟萃分析比较了 CTCS 与 CT 在心脏手术后的安全性和有效性。我们在PubMed/MEDLINE、Embase、Web of Science和Scopus数据库中检索了1946年至2023年间比较CTCS与CT的研究。两位研究者在使用 R 进行随机效应荟萃分析之前独立审查、筛选、提取和评估了数据。主要结果是再次手术,次要结果是留血综合征、死亡率、血制品、中风、心脏骤停、心房颤动、通气时间、重症监护室(ICU)时间、住院时间和胸腔引流。共纳入五项研究(2288 名患者)。其中包括两项临床试验(620 人)和三项观察性研究(1668 名患者)。与 CT 相比,CTCS 能显著减少术后心房颤动(风险比 (RR) 0.80,95% CI 0.70 至 0.92,I2 = 17%,p < 0.01)。在再次手术、留血综合征、住院时间和重症监护室住院时间方面没有明显差异。然而,在增加了四项不匹配的研究(n = 2583)后,CTCS 与再探查率(RR 0.52,95% CI 0.37 至 0.73,I2 = 34%,p <0.01)、留血综合征(RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.95, I2 = 72%, p = 0.02)、住院时间(平均差 (MD) -0.40, 95% CI -0.78 to -0.01, I2 = 49%, p = 0.04)和胸腔引流(MD 0.80, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.92, I2 = 17%, p <0.01)。从包括非匹配研究在内的结果来看,与 CT 相比,CTCS 的术后并发症更少。在胸腔引流无重大差异的情况下实现了这一目标,证明了防止心包腔内即使是微量积血的重要作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
12.50%
发文量
976
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Cardiac Surgery (JCS) is a peer-reviewed journal devoted to contemporary surgical treatment of cardiac disease. Renown for its detailed "how to" methods, JCS''s well-illustrated, concise technical articles, critical reviews and commentaries are highly valued by dedicated readers worldwide. With Editor-in-Chief Harold Lazar, MD and an internationally prominent editorial board, JCS continues its 20-year history as an important professional resource. Editorial coverage includes biologic support, mechanical cardiac assist and/or replacement and surgical techniques, and features current material on topics such as OPCAB surgery, stented and stentless valves, endovascular stent placement, atrial fibrillation, transplantation, percutaneous valve repair/replacement, left ventricular restoration surgery, immunobiology, and bridges to transplant and recovery. In addition, special sections (Images in Cardiac Surgery, Cardiac Regeneration) and historical reviews stimulate reader interest. The journal also routinely publishes proceedings of important international symposia in a timely manner.
期刊最新文献
Successful Resection of a Big Hemolymphangioma of the Left Atrial Appendage With 8 Years of Follow-Up Chest Tube Clearance Strategies Versus Conventional Chest Tubes After Cardiac Surgery Long-Term Survival of Mitroflow and Perimount Aortic Valve Replacements Contemporary Surgical Approaches in Pediatric Aortic Valve Surgery: A Retrospective Comparison of Three Techniques Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies: Transcatheter Versus Surgical Closure for Postinfarct Ventricular Septal Defect
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1