首页> 外文期刊>The American journal of emergency medicine >Small-bore catheter versus chest tube drainage for pneumothorax
【24h】

Small-bore catheter versus chest tube drainage for pneumothorax

机译:小孔导管与胸腔引流术治疗气胸

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Study Objective: The aim of the study was to compare the effectiveness of drainage via a single-lumen (5F catheter) central venous catheter (CVC) to a conventional (14-20F catheter) chest tube (CT) for the management of pneumothoraces, including primary spontaneous pneumothorax (PSP), secondary spontaneous pneumothorax (SSP), and traumatic and iatrogenic pneumothoraces. Patients: All consecutive patients admitted to the intermediate intensive care unit of a university hospital for pneumothorax were retrospectively screened over an 8-year period. Patients were preferentially treated using CT from 2003 to 2007 and using CVC from 2008 to 2010. Drainage failure was defined as the need for a second drainage procedure or for surgery. Results: Of 212 patients included, 117 (55%) had PSP, 28 (13%) had SSP associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 19 (9%) had traumatic pneumothorax, and 48 (23%) had iatrogenic pneumothorax. The failure rate was 23% in PSP, 36% in SSP, 16% in traumatic pneumothorax, and only 2% in iatrogenic pneumothorax. After adjustment, iatrogenic pneumothorax was the only factor that had an influence on drainage failure. The failure rate was similar between the 112 patients treated using CVC and the 100 patients treated using CT (18% vs 21%, P = .60). However, the durations of drainage (3.3 ± 1.9 vs 4.6 ± 2.6 days, P < .01) and of hospital stay were significantly shorter in patients treated using CVC as compared with CT. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that drainage via a catheter or via a CT is similarly effective in the management of pneumothorax. We recommend considering drainage via a small-bore catheter as a firstline treatment in patients with pneumothorax, whatever its cause.
机译:研究目的:该研究的目的是比较通过单腔(5F导管)中心静脉导管(CVC)与常规(14-20F导管)胸导管(CT)进行引流的效率,包括原发性自发性气胸(PSP),继发性自发性气胸(SSP)以及创伤性和医源性气胸。患者:回顾性筛选在大学医院的中级重症监护病房接受气胸的所有患者,历时8年。从2003年至2007年,患者优先使用CT进行治疗,从2008年至2010年,使用CVC进行治疗。引流失败的定义为需要第二次引流程序或手术。结果:包括212名患者,其中117名(55%)患有PSP,28名(13%)具有与慢性阻塞性肺疾病相关的SSP,19名(9%)具有创伤性气胸,而48名(23%)具有医源性气胸。 PSP的失败率为23%,SSP的失败率为36%,创伤性气胸的失败率为16%,医源性气胸的失败率为2%。调整后,医源性气胸是唯一影响引流失败的因素。在112名接受CVC治疗的患者和100名接受CT治疗的患者中,失败率相似(18%vs 21%,P = .60)。然而,与CT相比,接受CVC治疗的患者的引流时间(3.3±1.9 vs 4.6±2.6天,P <.01)和住院时间显着缩短。结论:我们的发现表明,通过导管或CT引流对气胸的治疗同样有效。对于气胸患者,无论原因如何,我们建议考虑通过小口径导管引流作为一线治疗。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号