Smith Alexander, Patel Akshay, Mansoor Muhammad, Almaraihah Raya, Sales Kevin, Wai Khine, Mani Krishna, Charaf Adnan, Jahangiri Marjan
Department of Cardiac Surgery, St George's Hospital, London, UK.
Interdiscip Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2025 May 6;40(5). doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivaf053.
In this study, we compare digital and underwater seal drainage systems following cardiac surgery and assess postoperative outcomes.
Between August 2017 and August 2018, cardiac surgical patients at our hospital were managed postoperatively using underwater seal drainage systems, and between August 2022 and August 2023 using digital drainage systems. Propensity score matching was used to estimate the effect of drainage system on various postoperative parameters (continuous and binary outcome modelling). Primary outcomes were postoperative atrial fibrillation, reoperation for bleeding or tamponade and pleural effusion requiring intervention. Secondary outcomes were hourly and cumulative drain output within 24 postoperative hours.
347 patients met the entry criteria for the study. One hundred ninety patients were managed using an underwater seal drainage system, and 157 patients were managed using a digital drainage system. Three hundred fourteen patients from the original 333 patient cohort were matched according to the drainage system used. After matching, the odds of developing postoperative atrial fibrillation were 0.57 (95% CI 0.32-0.99, P = 0.046) times lower in the digital drainage group. There was no difference in the rates of reoperation for bleeding or tamponade, pleural effusion requiring intervention or cumulative drain volume within 24 h.
In this analysis, the odds of developing postoperative atrial fibrillation were lower in patients managed with digital drainage devices than underwater seal. However, there was no difference in rates of reoperation for bleeding, tamponade, pleural effusion, drain duration or overall length of stay. Digital drainage systems could therefore be considered as part of an enhanced recovery after cardiac surgery pathway.
在本研究中,我们比较心脏手术后的数字引流系统和水封引流系统,并评估术后结局。
2017年8月至2018年8月期间,我院心脏外科手术患者术后采用水封引流系统进行管理,2022年8月至2023年8月期间采用数字引流系统。倾向评分匹配用于估计引流系统对各种术后参数的影响(连续和二元结局建模)。主要结局为术后房颤、因出血或心包填塞而再次手术以及需要干预的胸腔积液。次要结局为术后24小时内的每小时引流量和累计引流量。
347例患者符合研究纳入标准。190例患者采用水封引流系统进行管理,157例患者采用数字引流系统进行管理。根据所使用的引流系统,对原333例患者队列中的314例患者进行了匹配。匹配后,数字引流组发生术后房颤的几率低0.57倍(95%CI 0.32 - 0.99,P = 0.046)。在因出血或心包填塞而再次手术、需要干预的胸腔积液发生率或24小时内的累计引流量方面没有差异。
在本分析中,使用数字引流装置管理的患者发生术后房颤的几率低于水封引流。然而,在因出血、心包填塞、胸腔积液、引流持续时间或总住院时间而再次手术的发生率方面没有差异。因此,数字引流系统可被视为心脏手术后强化康复路径的一部分。