Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-p566r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T13:37:14.625Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

18 - Tube thoracostomy: evidence-based management of chest drains following pulmonary surgery

from Section V - Diseases of the pleura

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2016

Alessandro Brunelli
Affiliation:
St. James's University Hospital
Marco Scarci
Affiliation:
University College London Hospital
Aman Coonar
Affiliation:
Papworth Hospital
Tom Routledge
Affiliation:
Guy’s Hospital
Get access

Summary

Management of chest tubes remains a critical aspect in the post-operative course of patients following lung resection. It is traditionally influenced by two factors: presence of air leak and daily pleural fluid output. The combination of these two factors has characterized protocols of chest tube removal.

Prolonged air leak

Figures from the last edition of the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database Annual Report (www.ests.org/documents/PDF/Database_ESTS_Report_2012.pdf) showed that the incidence of an air leak lasting longer than 5 days is about 8.3% after lobectomy, 6.8% after segmentectomy and 3.5% after wedge resection.

These data confirm that prolonged air leak (PAL) remains a bothersome complication. Several authors have shown that PAL is a major determinant of post-operative hospital stay and costs. Varela and colleagues have shown that only 10% of patients with PAL are likely to be discharged by the seventh post-operative day, whereas 90% of those without PAL can be sent home by this time. They found that the excess cost attributable to PAL (driven mainly by the increased length of stay) was about 39,000 euros in 21 patients with this complication, an average of 1,860 euros per patient.

Although many patients can be safely sent home with a one-way valve or portable chest drainage system, this practice is not always well accepted by patients, is not feasible in all settings and is not possible for patients with medium- to high-grade air leaks.

PAL is not only a financial issue, but it has also been shown to increase the risk of other medical complications, particularly empyema.

For this reason, several authors have attempted to predict the occurrence of this complication in an effort to identify high-risk patients in whom to apply preventative measures.

The most consistently reported risk factors are reduced pulmonary function indicative of a damaged and fragile lung parenchyma, use of steroids, performance of an upper lobectomy, low body-mass index (BMI) and presence of pleural adhesions. Together with the group from Salamanca, we recently developed an aggregate risk model stratifying the risk of PAL in four risk classes according to the presence of four weighted factors: age > 65, 1 point; presence of adhesions, 1 point; FEV1 < 80%, 1.5 points; and body-mass index < 25.5, 2 points.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Irshad, K, Feldman, LS, Chu, VF, et al. Causes of increased length of hospitalization on a general thoracic surgery service: a prospective observational study. Can J Surg 2002 Aug;45(4):264–8.Google Scholar
2 Varela, G, Jiménez, MF, Novoa, N, Aranda, JL. Estimating hospital costs attributable to prolonged air leak in pulmonary lobectomy. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2005 Feb; 27(2):329–33.Google Scholar
3 Brunelli, A, Xiume, F, Refai, M Al, et al. Air leaks after lobectomy increase the risk of empyema but not of cardiopulmonary complications: a case-matched analysis. Chest 2006 Oct; 130(4):1150–6.Google Scholar
4 Brunelli, A, Cassivi, SD, Halgren, L. Risk factors for prolonged air leak after pulmonary resection. Thorac Surg Clin 2010 Aug;20(3):359–64.Google Scholar
5 Brunelli, A, Varela, G, Refai, M, et al. A scoring system to predict the risk of prolonged air leak after lobectomy. Ann Thorac Surg 2010 Jul; 90(1):204–9.Google Scholar
6 Brunelli, A, Beretta, E, Cassivi, SD, et al. Consensus definitions to promote an evidence-based approach to management of the pleural space: a collaborative proposal by ESTS, AATS, STS, and GTSC. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2011 Aug; 40(2):291–7.Google Scholar
7 Refai, M, Brunelli, A, Varela, G, et al. The values of intrapleural pressure before the removal of chest tube in non-complicated pulmonary lobectomies. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2012 Apr; 41(4):831–3.Google Scholar
8 Varela, G, Jiménez, MF, Novoa, NM, Aranda, JL. Postoperative chest tube management: measuring air leak using an electronic device decreases variability in the clinical practice. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2009 Jan; 35(1):28–31.Google Scholar
9 Cerfolio, RJ, Bryant, AS. The benefits of continuous and digital air leak assessment after elective pulmonary resection: a prospective study. Ann Thorac Surg 2008 Aug; 86(2):396–401.Google Scholar
10 Brunelli, A, Salati, M, Refai, M, et al. Evaluation of a new chest tube removal protocol using digital air leak monitoring after lobectomy: a prospective randomised trial. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2010 Jan; 37(1):56–60.Google Scholar
11 Brunelli, A, Cassivi, SD, Salati, M, et al. Digital measurements of air leak flow and intrapleural pressures in the immediate postoperative period predict risk of prolonged air leak after pulmonary lobectomy. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2011 Apr; 39(4):584–8.Google Scholar
12 Pompili, C, Brunelli, A, Salati, M, et al. Impact of the learning curve in the use of a novel electronic chest drainage system after pulmonary lobectomy: a case-matched analysis on the duration of chest tube usage. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2011 Nov; 13(5):490–3.Google Scholar
13 Brunelli, A, Salati, M, Pompili, C, et al. Regulated tailored suction vs regulated seal: a prospective randomized trial on air leak duration. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2012 Sep 28. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID:23024236.
14 Miserocchi, G, Beretta, E, Rivolta, I. Respiratory mechanics and fluid dynamics after lung resection surgery. Thorac Surg Clin 2010 Aug; 20(3):345–57.Google Scholar
15 Miserocchi, G. Mechanisms controlling the volume of pleural fluid and extravascular lung water. Eur Respir Rev 2009; 18(114):1–9.Google Scholar
16 Cerfolio, RJ, Bryant, AS. Results of a prospective algorithm to remove chest tubes after pulmonary resection with high output. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2008 Feb;135(2):269–73.Google Scholar
17 Alex, J, Ansari, J, Bahalkar, P, et al. Comparison of the immediate postoperative outcome of using the conventional two drains versus a single drain after lobectomy. Ann Thorac Surg 2003 Oct; 76(4):1046–9.Google Scholar
18 Gómez-Caro, A, Roca, MJ, Torres, J, et al. Successful use of a single chest drain postlobectomy instead of two classical drains: a randomized study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2006 Apr; 29(4):562–6.Google Scholar
19 Okur, E, Baysungur, V, Tezel, C, et al. Comparison of the single or double chest tube applications after pulmonary lobectomies. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2009 Jan; 35(1):32–5.Google Scholar
20 Brunelli, A, Cassivi, SD, Fibla, J, Nunzio, L Di. Pleural pressure immediately after pulmonary lobectomy: single versus double chest tubes for suction. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2010 Sep; 140(3):e52–3.Google Scholar
21 Refai, M, Brunelli, A, Salati, M, et al. The impact of chest tube removal on pain and pulmonary function after pulmonary resection. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2012 Apr; 41(4):820–2.Google Scholar
22 Cerfolio, RJ, Bass, C, Katholi, CR. Prospective randomized trial compares suction versus water seal for air leaks. Ann Thorac Surg 2001 May; 71(5):1613–7.Google Scholar
23 Marshall, MB, Deeb, ME, Bleier, JI, et al. Suction vs water seal after pulmonary resection: a randomized prospective study. Chest 2002 Mar; 121(3):831–5.Google Scholar
24 Brunelli, A, Monteverde, M, Borri, A, et al. Comparison of water seal and suction after pulmonary lobectomy: a prospective, randomized trial. Ann Thorac Surg 2004 Jun; 77(6):1932–7.Google Scholar
25 Brunelli, A, Sabbatini, A, Xiumé, F, et al. Alternate suction reduces prolonged air leak after pulmonary lobectomy: a randomized comparison versus water seal. Ann Thorac Surg 2005 Sep; 80(3):1052–5.Google Scholar
26 Alphonso, N, Tan, C, Utley, M, et al. A prospective randomized controlled trial of suction versus non-suction to the under-water seal drains following lung resection. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2005 Mar; 27(3):391–4.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×