Safety and efficacy of digital chest drainage units compared to conventional chest drainage units in cardiac surgery

Clinical efficacy of digital chest drainage system in cardiac valve surgery

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.

Novel, digital, chest drainage system in cardiac surgery

BACKGROUND

A new, self-contained, digital, continuous pump-driven chest drainage system is compared in a randomized control trial to a traditional wall-suction system in cardiac surgery.

METHODS

One hundred and twenty adult elective cardiac patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft and/or valve surgery were randomized to the study or control group. Both groups had similar pre/intra-operative demographics: age 67.8 vs 67.0 years, Euroscore 2.3 vs 2.2, and body surface area 1.92 vs 1.91 m² . Additionally, a satisfaction assessment score (0-10) was performed by 52 staff members.

RESULTS

Given homogenous intra-operative variables, total chest-tube drainage was comparable among groups (566 vs 640 mL; ns), but the study group showed more efficient fluid collection during the early postoperative phase due to continuous suction (P = .01). Blood, cell saver transfusions and postoperative hemoglobin values were similar in both groups. The study group experienced drain removal after 29.8 vs 38.4 hours in the control group (ns). Seven crossovers from the Study to the Control group were registered but no patient had drain-related complications. The Personnel Satisfaction Assessment scored above 5 for all questions asked.

CONCLUSIONS

The new, digital, chest drainage system showed better early drainage of the chest cavity and was as reliable as conventional systems. Quicker drain removal might impact on intensive care unit (ICU) stay and reduce costs. Additional advantages are portable size, battery operation, patient mobility, noiseless function, digital indications and alarms. The satisfaction assessment of the new system by the staff revealed a higher score when compared to the traditional wall suction chest drainage system.