Conventional versus pigtail chest tube-are they similar for treatment of malignant pleural effusions?

• Type: Another Publication in an International Scientific Journal
• Date: 2018

Authors

Mendes, MA (Author) Other; Pereira, NC (Author) Other; Ribeiro, C (Author) Other; Vanzeller, M (Author) Other; Shiang, T (Author) Other; Rita Gaio (Author) FCUP; Campainha, S (Author) Other

Journal

Title: Supportive Care in Cancer

Vol. 26

Pages: 2499-2502

ISSN: 0941-4355

Publisher: Springer Nature

Indexing

ISI Web of Knowledge - 5 Citations

Scopus - 4 Citations

Other information

Authenticus ID: P-00N-STY

DOI: 10.1007/s00520-018-4171-8

Abstract (EN): Introduction The optimal chest tube type and size for drainage and chemical pleurodesis of malignant pleural effusions remains controversial. This retrospective study was conducted to compare the efficacy of conventional versus pigtail chest tube in the treatment of malignant pleural effusions. Methods Patients submitted to chest tube drainage and slurry talc pleurodesis due to malignant pleural effusion in our pulmonology ward from 2012 to 2016 were eligible. According to the type of chest tube, they were divided into two groups: group I-conventional chest tube and group II-pigtail chest tube. Number of deaths, recurrence of malignant pleural effusion, and timelines associated with the procedures were reviewed and compared between groups. Results Out of the 61 included patients, 46 (75.4%) were included in group I and 15 (24.6%) in group II. Only one patient had pigtail chest tube obstruction, with posterior insertion of conventional chest tube. Death during hospital stay and up to 3 months, recurrence at 4 weeks, total duration of hospital stay, time from chest tube insertion to pleurodesis, and time from chest tube insertion to removal were not significantly different between the two groups ( all p > 0.05). Discussion These findings suggest that pigtail chest tube can be an alternative on palliation, with no compromise in pleurodesis performance.

Language: English

Type (Professor's evaluation): Scientific

No. of pages: 4