Abstract
Objects
The portable digitalized suction was used widely in thoracic surgery. The aim of the study was to access the early outcomes of using the portable digitalized suction system after cardiac surgery.
Methods
We invested 80 patients including 30 women (mean age 72.7 ± 9.2 years) who underwent cardiac surgery at our hospital, excluded coronary artery bypass grafting only, with or only aortic surgery, emergency operation, and patients with hemodialysis. Patients were categorized as those treated with digital chest drainage system (DCS group, n = 38) or analog chest drainage system (ACS group, n = 42), and the following data were analyzed in two groups. The primary endpoint was the duration of chest drainage, and the secondary endpoints were the rate of drainage-related complications and the length of hospitalization.
Results
The duration of drainage was significantly shorter in the DCS group (ACS vs. DCS = 94.8 ± 31.5 vs. 81.1 ± 20.6 h, p = 0.036). The duration needed for rehabilitation completion was significantly shorter in the DCS group (ACS vs. DCS = 10.7 ± 1.2 vs. 9.6 ± 1.5 days, p = 0.047), and the length of hospitalization was significantly shorter in the DCS group (ACS vs. DCS = 21.9 ± 5.3 vs. 18.8 ± 7.2 days, p = 0.031).
Conclusions
This study provided evidence that DCS might be effective for patients who underwent cardiac valve surgery.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baringer K, Talbert S. Chest drainage systems and management of air leaks after a pulmonary resection. J Thorac Dis. 2017;9:5399–403.
Satoh Y. Management of chest drainage tubes after lung surgery. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;64:305–8.
Cerfolio RJ, Varela G, Brunelli A. Digital and smart chest drainage systems to monitor air leaks: the birth of a new era? Thorac Surg Clin. 2010;20:413–20.
Lee YY, Hsu PK, Huang CS, Wu YC, Hsu HS. Complications after chest tube removal and reinterventions in patients with digital drainage systems. J Clin Med. 2019;8:2092.
Van Linden A, Hecker F, Courvoisier DS, Arsalan M, Köhne J, Brei C, et al. Reduction of drainage-associated complications in cardiac surgery with a digital drainage system: a randomized controlled trial. J Thorac Dis. 2019;11:5177–86.
Barozzi L, Biagio LS, Meneguzzi M, Courvoisier DS, Walpoth BH, Faggian G. Novel, digital, chest drainage system in cardiac surgery. J Card Surg. 2020;35:1492–7.
Saha S, Hofmann S, Jebran AF, Waezi N, Kutschka I, Friedrich MG, et al. Safety and efficacy of digital chest drainage units compared to conventional chest drainage units in cardiac surgery. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2020;31:42–7.
Payen JB, Bru O, Bosson JL, Lagrasta A, Novel E, Deschaux I, et al. Assessing pain in critically ill sedated patients by using a behavioral pain scale. Crit Care Med. 2001;29:2258–63.
Kroeze VJ, Lam KY, van Straten AHM, Houterman S, Soliman-Hamad MA. Benefits of endoscopic vein harvesting in coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Thorac Surg. 2019;108:1793–9.
Lijkendijk M, Licht PB, Neckelmann K. Electronic versus traditional chest tube drainage following lobectomy: a randomized trial. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2015;48:893–8.
Brunelli A, Salati M, Refai M, Di Nunzio L, Xiumé F, Sabbatini A. Evaluation of a new chest tube removal protocol using digital air leak monitoring after lobectomy: a prospective randomised trial. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2010;37:56–60.
Cerfolio RJ, Bryant AS. The benefits of continuous and digital air leak assessment after elective pulmonary resection: a prospective study. Ann Thorac Surg. 2008;86:396–401.
Pompili C, Detterbeck F, Papagiannopoulos K, Sihoe A, Vachlas K, Maxfield MW, et al. Multicenter international randomized comparison of objective and subjective outcomes between electronic and traditional chest drainage systems. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014;98:490–7.
Filosso PL, Ruffini E, Solidoro P, Molinatti M, Bruna MC, Oliaro A. Digital air leak monitoring after lobectomy for primary lung cancer in patients with moderate COPD: can a fast-tracking algorithm reduce postoperative costs and complications? J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2010;51:429–33.
Jablonski S, Brocki M, Wawrzycki M, Smigielski JA, Kozakiewicz M. Efficacy assessment of the drainage with permanent airflow measurement in the treatment of pneumothorax with air leak. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;62:509–15.
Rathinam S, Bradley A, Cantlin T, Rajesh PB. Thopaz portable suction systems in thoracic surgery: an end user assessment and feedback in a tertiary unit. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2011;6:59.
Danitsch D. Benefits of digital thoracic drainage systems. Nurs Times. 2012;108:16–7.
Zhou J, Lyu M, Chen N, Wang Z, Hai Y, Hao J, et al. Digital chest drainage is better than traditional chest drainage following pulmonary surgery: a meta-analysis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2018;54:635–43.
Wang H, Hu W, Ma L, Zhang Y. Digital chest drainage system versus traditional chest drainage system after pulmonary resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2019;14:13.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
There is no conflict of interest for this article.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tamura, K., Sakurai, S. Clinical efficacy of digital chest drainage system in cardiac valve surgery. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 70, 619–623 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11748-021-01752-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11748-021-01752-9