0
Clinical Investigations: SURGERY |

Silastic Drains vs Conventional Chest Tubes After Coronary Artery Bypass*

Timothy L. Frankel; Peter C. Hill; Sotiris C. Stamou; Robert C. Lowery; Albert J. Pfister; Arvind Jain; Paul J. Corso
Author and Funding Information

Affiliations: *From the Sections of Cardiac Surgery, Washington Hospital Center (Mr. Frankel, and Drs. Hill, Lowery, Pfister, and Corso) and Georgetown University Hospital (Dr. Stamou); and MedStar Research Institute (Mr. Jain), Washington, DC.,  Deceased.

Correspondence to: Timothy L. Frankel, BS, 3401 N Street NW, Washington, DC 20007; e-mail: tfrankel@gwu.edu



Chest. 2003;124(1):108-113. doi:10.1378/chest.124.1.108
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Study objectives: To investigate differences in drainage amounts and early clinical outcomes associated with the use of Silastic drains, as compared with the conventional chest tube after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

Design: Retrospective nonrandomized case control study.

Setting: A tertiary teaching hospital.

Patients and participants: Outcome data from 554 patients who underwent postoperative pericardial decompression using small Silastic drains were compared with those from 556 patients who had conventional chest tubes after first-time CABG at our institution between January 1 and August 1, 2000.

Measurement and results: Univariate analysis of preoperative characteristics was used to ensure similarity between the two patient groups. Operative mortality, mediastinitis, reoperation for bleeding, and early and late cardiac tamponade occurred in 9 patients (1.6%), 6 patients (1.1%), 6 patients (1.1%), 6 patients (1.1%), and 1 patient (0.2%), respectively, in the Silastic drain group, compared with 11 patients (2.0%), 9 patients (1.6%), 4 patients (0.7%), 2 patients (0.4%), and 6 patients (1.1%) in the conventional group. No statistically significant differences between the two drains were identified. Drainage amounts (mean ± SD) were 552.2 ± 281.8 mL and 548.8 mL ± 328.7 mL for the Silastic and conventional groups, respectively (p = 0.51). Postoperative length of stay was longer for the conventional chest tube group (median, 5 d; range, 1 to 119 d) when compared to the Silastic drain group (median, 4 d; range, 1 to 66 d; p = 0.01).

Conclusions: We demonstrated that small Silastic drains are equally as effective as the conventional, large-bore chest tubes after CABG with no significant risk of bleeding or pericardial tamponade. Additionally, use of Silastic drains allows more mobility than the conventional chest tubes. As a result of this study, there was a change in our clinical practice toward the exclusive use of Silastic drains after all cardiac surgical procedures.

Figures in this Article

Sign In to Access Full Content

MEMBER & INDIVIDUAL SUBSCRIBER

Want Access?

NEW TO CHEST?

Become a CHEST member and receive a FREE subscription as a benefit of membership.

Individuals can purchase this article on ScienceDirect.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal or buy individual articles.

Learn more about membership or Purchase a Full Subscription.

INSTITUTIONAL ACCESS

Institutional access is now available through ScienceDirect and can be purchased at myelsevier.com.

Sign In to Access Full Content

MEMBER & INDIVIDUAL SUBSCRIBER

Want Access?

NEW TO CHEST?

Become a CHEST member and receive a FREE subscription as a benefit of membership.

Individuals can purchase this article on ScienceDirect.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal or buy individual articles.

Learn more about membership or Purchase a Full Subscription.

INSTITUTIONAL ACCESS

Institutional access is now available through ScienceDirect and can be purchased at myelsevier.com.

Figures

Tables

References

NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Sign In to Access Full Content

MEMBER & INDIVIDUAL SUBSCRIBER

Want Access?

NEW TO CHEST?

Become a CHEST member and receive a FREE subscription as a benefit of membership.

Individuals can purchase this article on ScienceDirect.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal or buy individual articles.

Learn more about membership or Purchase a Full Subscription.

INSTITUTIONAL ACCESS

Institutional access is now available through ScienceDirect and can be purchased at myelsevier.com.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Find Similar Articles
CHEST Journal Articles
  • CHEST Journal
    Print ISSN: 0012-3692
    Online ISSN: 1931-3543