TY - JOUR
T1 - Clinical evaluation and outcomes of digital chest drainage after lung resection
AU - Shoji, Fumihiro
AU - Takamori, Shinkichi
AU - Akamine, Takaki
AU - Toyokawa, Gouji
AU - Morodomi, Yosuke
AU - Okamoto, Tatsuro
AU - Maehara, Yoshihiko
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 The Editorial Committee of Annals of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. All rights reserved.
PY - 2016
Y1 - 2016
N2 - Background: Analog chest drainage systems (ACS) are generally used to monitor postoperative alveolar air leakage (PAL) after lung resection. An electronic digital chest drainage system (DCS) has recently been developed that reportedly has several advantages over the traditional ACS. Here, we report a single institution’s experience of PAL management with the DCS. We also sought to establish whether DCS had superior clinical benefits and outcomes compared with ACS. Methods: We enrolled 112 consecutive patients who underwent lung resection and were subsequently managed with DCS. We compared PAL rate, duration of chest drainage, and the incidence of complications with a group of 121 consecutive patients previously managed with ACS after lung resection, using propensity score matching. Results: Mean maximum and minimum PAL rates during DCS chest drainage were 48.9 ml/min (range: 2.0–868.6 ml/min) and 0.1 ml/min (0.0–1.2 ml/min), respectively. Mean PAL rate at DCS removal was 1.3 ml/min (0.0–10.0 ml/min). After propensity score matching, mean duration of chest drainage was significantly shorter with DCS than ACS (2.7 days, range: 1–9 days, compared with 3.7 days, range: 1–21 days, respectively; P = 0.031). Conclusions: Managing PAL with DCS after pulmonary resection appears to reduce the duration of chest drainage.
AB - Background: Analog chest drainage systems (ACS) are generally used to monitor postoperative alveolar air leakage (PAL) after lung resection. An electronic digital chest drainage system (DCS) has recently been developed that reportedly has several advantages over the traditional ACS. Here, we report a single institution’s experience of PAL management with the DCS. We also sought to establish whether DCS had superior clinical benefits and outcomes compared with ACS. Methods: We enrolled 112 consecutive patients who underwent lung resection and were subsequently managed with DCS. We compared PAL rate, duration of chest drainage, and the incidence of complications with a group of 121 consecutive patients previously managed with ACS after lung resection, using propensity score matching. Results: Mean maximum and minimum PAL rates during DCS chest drainage were 48.9 ml/min (range: 2.0–868.6 ml/min) and 0.1 ml/min (0.0–1.2 ml/min), respectively. Mean PAL rate at DCS removal was 1.3 ml/min (0.0–10.0 ml/min). After propensity score matching, mean duration of chest drainage was significantly shorter with DCS than ACS (2.7 days, range: 1–9 days, compared with 3.7 days, range: 1–21 days, respectively; P = 0.031). Conclusions: Managing PAL with DCS after pulmonary resection appears to reduce the duration of chest drainage.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85006699027&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85006699027&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.5761/atcs.oa.16-00179
DO - 10.5761/atcs.oa.16-00179
M3 - Article
C2 - 27885215
AN - SCOPUS:85006699027
SN - 1341-1098
VL - 22
SP - 354
EP - 358
JO - Annals of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
JF - Annals of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
IS - 6
ER -