Dataset Information

Multicenter randomized study on the comparison between electronic and traditional chest drainage systems.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:In patients submitted to major pulmonary resection, the postoperative length of stay is mainly influenced by the duration of air leaks and chest tube removal. The measurement of air leaks largely relies on traditional chest drainage systems which are prone to subjective interpretation. Difficulty in differentiating between active air leaks and bubbles due to a pleural space effect may also lead to tentative drain clamping and prolonged time for chest drain removal. New digital systems allow continuous monitoring of air leaks, identifying subtle leakage that may be not visible during daily patient evaluation. Moreover, an objective assessment of air leaks may lead to a reduced interobserver variability and to an optimized timing for chest tube removal. METHODS:This study is a prospective randomized, interventional, multicenter trial designed to compare an electronic chest drainage system (Drentech™ Palm Evo) with a traditional system (Drentech™ Compact) in a cohort of patients undergoing pulmonary lobectomy through a standard three-port video-assisted thoracic surgery approach for both benign and malignant disease. The study will enroll 382 patients in three Italian centers. The duration of chest drainage and the length of hospital stay will be evaluated in the two groups. Moreover, the study will evaluate whether the use of a digital chest system compared with a traditional system reduces the interobserver variability. Finally, it will evaluate whether the digital drain system may help in distinguishing an active air leak from a pleural space effect, by the digital assessment of intrapleural differential pressure, and in identifying potential predictors of prolonged air leaks. DISCUSSION:To date, few studies have been performed to evaluate the clinical impact of digital drainage systems. The proposed prospective randomized trial will provide new knowledge to this research area by investigating and comparing the difference between digital and traditional chest drain systems. In particular, the objectives of this project are to evaluate the feasibility and usefulness of digital chest drainages and to provide new tools to identify patients at higher risk of developing prolonged air leaks. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03536130. Retrospectively registered on 24 May 2018.

SUBMITTER: Marulli G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6915964 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Multicenter randomized study on the comparison between electronic and traditional chest drainage systems.

Marulli Giuseppe G Comacchio Giovanni M GM Nosotti Mario M Rosso Lorenzo L Mendogni Paolo P Natale Giuseppe G Andriolo Luigi L Imbriglio Giovanna G Larocca Valentina V Brascia Debora D Rea Federico F

Trials 20191216 1

<h4>Background</h4>In patients submitted to major pulmonary resection, the postoperative length of stay is mainly influenced by the duration of air leaks and chest tube removal. The measurement of air leaks largely relies on traditional chest drainage systems which are prone to subjective interpretation. Difficulty in differentiating between active air leaks and bubbles due to a pleural space effect may also lead to tentative drain clamping and prolonged time for chest drain removal. New digital ...[more]

PMID: 31842974

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe usefulness of digital chest drain is still debated. We are carrying out a study to determine if the use of a digital system compared with a traditional system reduces the duration of chest drainage. To evaluate safety, benefit, or futility of this trial we planned the current interim analysis.MethodsAn interim analysis on preliminary data from ongoing investigator-initiated, multicenter, interventional, prospective randomized trial. Original protocol number: (NCT03536130). The interim main endpoint was overall complications; secondary endpoints were the concordance between the two primary endpoints of the RCT (chest tube duration and length of hospital stay). We planned the interim analysis when half of the patients have been randomised and completed the study. Data were described using mean and standard deviation or absolute frequencies and percentage. T-test for unpaired samples, Chi-square test, Poisson regression and absolute standardized mean difference (ASMD) were used. P-value < 0.05 was considered significant.ResultsFrom April 2017 to November 2018, out of 317 patients enrolled by 3 centers, 231 fulfilled inclusion criteria and were randomized. Twenty-two of them dropped out after randomization. Finally, 209 patients were analyzed: among them 94 used the digital device and 115 the traditional one. The overall postoperative complications were 35 (16.8%) including prolonged air leak (1.9%). Mean chest tube duration was 3.6 days (SD = 1.8), with no differences between two groups (p = 0.203). The overall difference between hospital stay and chest tube duration was 1.4 days (SD = 1.4). Air leak at first postoperative day detected by digital and traditional devices predicted increasing in tube duration of 1.6 day (CI 95% 0.8-2.5, p < 0.001) and 2.0 days (CI 95% 1.0-3.1, p < 0.001), respectively.ConclusionsThis interim analysis supported the authors' will to continue with the enrollment and to analyze data once the estimated sample size will be reached.Trial registrationTrial registration number NCT03536130 , Registered 24 May 2018 - Retrospectively registered.

Project description:BackgroundProphylactic abdominal drainage is current standard practice after distal pancreatectomy (DP), with the aim to divert pancreatic fluid in case of a postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) aimed to prevent further complications as bleeding. Whereas POPF after pancreatoduodenectomy, by definition, involves infection due to anastomotic dehiscence, a POPF after DP is essentially sterile since the bowel is not opened and no anastomoses are created. Routine drainage after DP could potentially be omitted and this could even be beneficial because of the hypothetical prevention of drain-induced infections (Fisher, Surgery 52:205-22, 2018). Abdominal drainage, moreover, should only be performed if it provides additional safety or comfort to the patient. In clinical practice, drains cause clear discomfort. One multicenter randomized controlled trial confirmed the safety of omitting abdominal drainage but did not stratify patients according to their risk of POPF and did not describe a standardized strategy for pancreatic transection. Therefore, a large pragmatic multicenter randomized controlled trial is required, with prespecified POPF risk groups and a homogeneous method of stump closure. The objective of the PANDORINA trial is to evaluate the non-inferiority of omitting routine intra-abdominal drainage after DP on postoperative morbidity (Clavien-Dindo score ≥ 3), and, secondarily, POPF grade B/C.Methods/designBinational multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial, stratifying patients to high and low risk for POPF grade B/C and incorporating a standardized strategy for pancreatic transection. Two groups of 141 patients (282 in total) undergoing elective DP (either open or minimally invasive, with or without splenectomy). Primary outcome is postoperative rate of morbidity (Clavien-Dindo score ≥ 3), and the most relevant secondary outcome is grade B/C POPF. Other secondary outcomes include surgical reintervention, percutaneous catheter drainage, endoscopic catheter drainage, abdominal collections (not requiring drainage), wound infection, delayed gastric emptying, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage as defined by the international study group for pancreatic surgery (ISGPS) (Wente et al., Surgery 142:20-5, 2007), length of stay (LOS), readmission within 90 days, in-hospital mortality, and 90-day mortality.DiscussionPANDORINA is the first binational, multicenter, randomized controlled non-inferiority trial with the primary objective to evaluate the hypothesis that omitting prophylactic abdominal drainage after DP does not worsen the risk of postoperative severe complications (Wente etal., Surgery 142:20-5, 2007; Bassi et al., Surgery 161:584-91, 2017). Most of the published studies on drain placement after pancreatectomy focus on both pancreatoduodenectomy and DP, but these two entities present are associated with different complications and therefore deserve separate evaluation (McMillan et al., Surgery 159:1013-22, 2016; Pratt et al., J Gastrointest Surg 10:1264-78, 2006). The PANDORINA trial is innovative since it takes the preoperative risk on POPF into account based on the D-FRS and it warrants homogenous stump closing by using the same graded compression technique and same stapling device (de Pastena et al., Ann Surg 2022; Asbun and Stauffer, Surg Endosc 25:2643-9, 2011).

Project description:BACKGROUND:Prolonged air leak and high-volume pleural drainage are the most common causes for delays in chest tube removal following lung resection. While digital pleural drainage systems have been successfully used in the management of post-operative air leak, their effect on pleural drainage and inflammation has not been studied before. We hypothesized that digital drainage systems (as compared to traditional analog continuous suction), using intermittent balanced suction, are associated with decreased pleural inflammation and postoperative drainage volumes, thus leading to earlier chest tube removal. METHODS:One hundred and three [103] patients were enrolled and randomized to either analog (n=50) or digital (n=53) drainage systems following oncologic lung resection. Chest tubes were removed according to standardized, pre-defined protocol. Inflammatory mediators [interleukin-1B (IL-1B), 6, 8, tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-?)] in pleural fluid and serum were measured and analysed. The primary outcome of interest was the difference in total volume of postoperative fluid drainage. Secondary outcome measures included duration of chest tube in-situ, prolonged air-leak incidence, length of hospital stay and the correlation between pleural effusion formation, degree of inflammation and type of drainage system used. RESULTS:There was no significant difference in total amount of fluid drained or length of hospital stay between the two groups. A trend for shorter chest tube duration was found with the digital system when compared to the analog (P=0.055). Comparison of inflammatory mediator levels revealed no significant differences between digital and analog drainage systems. The incidence of prolonged post-operative air leak was significantly higher when using the analog system (9 versus 2 patients; P=0.025). Lobectomy was associated with longer chest tube duration (P=0.001) and increased fluid drainage when compared to sub-lobar resection (P<0.001), regardless of drainage system. CONCLUSIONS:Use of post-lung resection digital drainage does not appear to decrease pleural fluid formation, but is associated with decreased prolonged air leaks. Total pleural effusion volumes did not differ with the type of drainage system used. These findings support previously established benefits of the digital system in decreasing prolonged air leaks, but the advantages do not appear to extend to decreased pleural fluid formation.

Project description:PurposeTo compare the diagnostic performance and inter-observer agreement of five different CT chest severity scoring systems for COVID-19 to find the most precise one with the least interpretation time.Methods and materialsThis retrospective study included 85 patients (54 male and 31 female) with PCR-confirmed COVID-19. They underwent CT to assess the severity of pulmonary involvement. Three readers were asked to assess the pulmonary abnormalities and score the severity using five different systems, including chest CT severity score (CT-SS), chest CT score, total severity score (TSS), modified total severity score (m-TSS), and 3-level chest CT severity score. Time consumption on reporting of each system was calculated.ResultsTwo hundred fifty-five observations were reported for each system. There was a statistically significant inter-observer agreement in assessing qualitative lung involvement using the m-TSS and the other four quantitative systems. The ROC curves revealed excellent and very good diagnostic accuracy for all systems when cutoff values for detection severe cases were > 22, > 17, > 12, and > 26 for CT-SS, chest CT score, TSS, and 3-level CT severity score. The AUC was very good (0.86), excellent (0.90), very good (0.89), and very good (0.86), respectively. Chest CT score showed the highest specificity (95.2%) in discrimination of severe cases. Time consumption on reporting was significantly different (< 0.001): CT-SS > 3L-CT-SS > chest CT score > TSS.ConclusionAll chest CT severity scoring systems in this study demonstrated excellent inter-observer agreement and reasonable performance to assess COVID-19 in relation to the clinical severity. CT-SS and TSS had the highest specificity and least time for interpretation.Key points• All chest CT severity scoring systems discussed in this study revealed excellent inter-observer agreement and reasonable performance to assess COVID-19 in relation to the clinical severity. • Chest CT scoring system and TSS had the highest specificity. • Both TSS and m-TSS consumed the least time compared to the other three scoring systems.

Dataset Information

Multicenter randomized study on the comparison between electronic and traditional chest drainage systems.

Publications

Multicenter randomized study on the comparison between electronic and traditional chest drainage systems.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets