Evidence Hub

The Use of Central Venous Catheters in the Management of Pleural Effusion in a Tertiary Hospital in Cebu City

Raymond Huang, R. Sy

Philippine Journal of Chest Diseases, 2025

229 participants

Abstract

Background: There is limited data on the use of central venous catheters (CVCs) in the drainage of pleural effusions. The study aimed to describe the use of CVCs for this purpose.

Methodology: This was a cross-sectional descriptive study done in a tertiary hospital in Cebu City. All patients aged >18 years old with pleural effusion who underwent CVC, pigtail catheter, or chest tube thoracostomy (CTT) insertion for pleural fluid drainage were included. Data collected included total drainage of pleural fluid, average daily pleural fluid drainage, duration of catheter use, complications, number of patients sent home with catheters, and number of pleurodesis performed.

Results: A total of 229 patients were included in the study (CVC: 114, pigtail: 22, CTT: 93). Transudative pleural effusion was more frequently encountered in the CVC group (18.78%). Malignancy (28.95%), congestive heart failure (22.81%), tuberculosis (15.79%), pneumonia (15.79%), and chronic kidney disease (14.91%) were the more common causes of pleural effusion in the CVC group. The average daily pleural fluid output and total pleural fluid drainage were highest in the CVC group (527.5 ± 284.9 mL and 5020.47 ± 5691.29 mL, respectively). The duration of catheter use was similar in the three groups. The number of patients sent home with catheters and the number of pleurodesis performed were observed to be highest in the CVC group (48.12% and 61.11%, respectively). Accidental removal was most frequently observed in…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 229 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free