Suppr超能文献

随机比较自发性气胸的针吸与胸腔引流管引流。

Randomised comparison of needle aspiration and chest tube drainage in spontaneous pneumothorax.

机构信息

Department of Thoracic Medicine, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway

Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Norway.

出版信息

Eur Respir J. 2017 Apr 12;49(4). doi: 10.1183/13993003.01296-2016. Print 2017 Apr.

Abstract

Guidelines on spontaneous pneumothorax are contradictory as to intervention between needle aspiration (NA) and chest tube drainage (CTD). Studies show poor adherence to guidelines.Three Norwegian hospitals included patients with primary (PSP) and secondary (SSP) spontaneous pneumothorax. Patients underwent NA or CTD as the primary intervention. The main outcome was duration of hospital stay. Secondary outcomes were immediate- and 1-week success rates and complications.127 patients were included, including 48 patients with SSP. 65 patients underwent NA, 63 patients CTD. Median (interquartile range) hospital stay was significantly shorter for NA: 2.4 days (1.2-4.7 days), compared with CTD: 4.6 days (2.3-7.8 days) (p<0.001). The corresponding figures for the SSP subgroup were 2.54 days (1.17-7.79 days) compared with 5.53 days (3.65-9.21 days) (p=0.049) for NA and CTD, respectively. Immediate success rates were 69% for NA compared with 32% for CTD (p<0.001). The positive effect of NA remained significant in sub-analyses for SSP. There was no significant difference in 1-week success rates. Complications occurred only during the CTD-treatment.Our study shows shorter hospital stay and higher immediate success rates for NA compared with CTD. Subgroup analyses also show clear benefits for NA for both PSP and SSP.

摘要

自发性气胸指南对于针吸(NA)和胸腔引流管(CTD)干预之间存在矛盾。研究表明,对指南的遵循情况不佳。

三家挪威医院纳入了原发性(PSP)和继发性(SSP)自发性气胸患者。患者接受 NA 或 CTD 作为主要干预措施。主要结局是住院时间。次要结局是即刻和 1 周成功率和并发症。

共纳入 127 例患者,其中 48 例为 SSP。65 例患者接受 NA,63 例患者接受 CTD。NA 的中位(四分位距)住院时间明显短于 CTD:2.4 天(1.2-4.7 天),而 CTD 为 4.6 天(2.3-7.8 天)(p<0.001)。SSP 亚组的相应数据分别为 2.54 天(1.17-7.79 天)和 5.53 天(3.65-9.21 天)(p=0.049)。NA 的即刻成功率为 69%,而 CTD 为 32%(p<0.001)。在 SSP 的亚组分析中,NA 的积极效果仍然显著。1 周成功率无显著差异。并发症仅发生在 CTD 治疗期间。

我们的研究表明,与 CTD 相比,NA 可缩短住院时间并提高即刻成功率。亚组分析还表明,NA 对 PSP 和 SSP 均有明显益处。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验