Chest Email Content Delivery
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Guest Access | Sign In via User Name/Password
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Free
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Chest Drain Record and Audit Form
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Article Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Horsley, A.
Right arrow Articles by Henry, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Horsley, A.
Right arrow Articles by Henry, M.
(Chest. 2006;130:1857-1863.)
© 2006 American College of Chest Physicians

Efficacy and Complications of Small-Bore, Wire-Guided Chest Drains*

Alex Horsley, MRCP; Llinos Jones, MRCP; John White, FRCP and Michael Henry, FRCP

* From Western General Hospital (Dr. Horsley), Edinburgh; Leeds General Infirmary (Drs. Jones and Henry), Leeds; and York District Hospital (Dr. White), York, UK.

Correspondence to: Alex Horsley, MRCP, Molecular Medicine Centre, Western General Hospital, Crewe Rd South, Edinburgh, EH4 2XU, UK; e-mail: alex.horsley{at}ed.ac.uk

Abstract

Background: Small-bore Seldinger-type chest drains have become increasingly popular in recent years, but there are few data on their effectiveness.

Methods: Data were collected prospectively at the time of drain insertion and continued until drain removal. Patients completed a visual analog score (VAS) of pain on drain insertion.

Results: Fifty-two drains were inserted in 44 patients over 10 months. Drain sizes ranged from 12 to 20F. The mean (± SEM) patient age was 64 ± 2 years, and mean duration of drainage was 4.5 ± 0.5 days. Fourteen drains (27%) were inserted for pneumothoraces, 19 drains (37%) for malignant effusions, 10 drains (19%) for empyema, 5 drains (10%) for parapneumonic effusions, and 4 drains (8%) for other effusions. Pain VAS ranged from 3 to 66 mm (maximum, 100 mm; average [± SD], 23 ± 16 mm). Although the overall drain failure rate was 37%, there was only one serious complication (empyema), and this compares well with historical control subjects. Success rate was highest when used to treat malignant effusions (83%) and pneumothoraces (64%); drains inserted for empyema were more likely to block (overall success rate, 20%). There was no correlation between the type of fluid or size of drain and likelihood of blockage.

Conclusions: Seldinger-type drains are a well-tolerated and effective method of draining pneumothoraces and uncomplicated effusions. They are more likely to block when draining empyemas but have a comparable failure rate in pneumothorax to large-bore drains.

Key Words: adverse effects • chest tubes • empyema • pleural effusion • pneumothorax, pleural






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2006 by the American College of Chest Physicians.