Frankel Timothy L, Hill Peter C, Stamou Sotiris C, Lowery Robert C, Pfister Albert J, Jain Arvind, Corso Paul J
Section of Cardiac Surgery, Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC, USA.
Chest. 2003 Jul;124(1):108-13. doi: 10.1378/chest.124.1.108.
To investigate differences in drainage amounts and early clinical outcomes associated with the use of Silastic drains, as compared with the conventional chest tube after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).
Retrospective nonrandomized case control study.
A tertiary teaching hospital.
Outcome data from 554 patients who underwent postoperative pericardial decompression using small Silastic drains were compared with those from 556 patients who had conventional chest tubes after first-time CABG at our institution between January 1 and August 1, 2000.
Univariate analysis of preoperative characteristics was used to ensure similarity between the two patient groups. Operative mortality, mediastinitis, reoperation for bleeding, and early and late cardiac tamponade occurred in 9 patients (1.6%), 6 patients (1.1%), 6 patients (1.1%), 6 patients (1.1%), and 1 patient (0.2%), respectively, in the Silastic drain group, compared with 11 patients (2.0%), 9 patients (1.6%), 4 patients (0.7%), 2 patients (0.4%), and 6 patients (1.1%) in the conventional group. No statistically significant differences between the two drains were identified. Drainage amounts (mean +/- SD) were 552.2 +/- 281.8 mL and 548.8 mL +/- 328.7 mL for the Silastic and conventional groups, respectively (p = 0.51). Postoperative length of stay was longer for the conventional chest tube group (median, 5 d; range, 1 to 119 d) when compared to the Silastic drain group (median, 4 d; range, 1 to 66 d; p = 0.01).
We demonstrated that small Silastic drains are equally as effective as the conventional, large-bore chest tubes after CABG with no significant risk of bleeding or pericardial tamponade. Additionally, use of Silastic drains allows more mobility than the conventional chest tubes. As a result of this study, there was a change in our clinical practice toward the exclusive use of Silastic drains after all cardiac surgical procedures.
探讨冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)后使用硅橡胶引流管与传统胸管相比,在引流量及早期临床结局方面的差异。
回顾性非随机病例对照研究。
一家三级教学医院。
将2000年1月1日至8月1日在我院首次行CABG术后使用小型硅橡胶引流管进行心包减压的554例患者的结局数据,与使用传统胸管的556例患者的结局数据进行比较。
采用术前特征的单因素分析以确保两组患者相似。硅橡胶引流管组9例患者(1.6%)发生手术死亡,6例患者(1.1%)发生纵隔炎,6例患者(1.1%)因出血再次手术,6例患者(1.1%)发生早期和晚期心脏压塞,1例患者(0.2%)发生其他情况;传统组分别为11例患者(2.0%)、9例患者(1.6%)、4例患者(0.7%)、2例患者(0.4%)和6例患者(1.1%)。两组引流管之间未发现统计学上的显著差异。硅橡胶组和传统组的引流量(均值±标准差)分别为552.2±281.8 mL和548.8 mL±328.7 mL(p = 0.51)。与硅橡胶引流管组(中位数为4天;范围为1至66天;p = 0.01)相比,传统胸管组术后住院时间更长(中位数为5天;范围为1至119天)。
我们证明,CABG术后小型硅橡胶引流管与传统的大口径胸管同样有效,且无明显出血或心包压塞风险。此外,使用硅橡胶引流管比传统胸管具有更大的活动灵活性。这项研究的结果使我们的临床实践发生了改变,即在所有心脏外科手术后都专门使用硅橡胶引流管。