Evidence Hub

Outcomes of patients discharged home with a chest tube after lung resection: a multicentre cohort study

F. Minervini, W. Hanna, A. Brunelli, F. Farrokhyar, T. Miyazaki, L. Bertolaccini, M. Scarci, M. Coret et al.

Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie, 2022

253 participants · 18 citations

Abstract

Background: Prolonged air leaks are increasingly treated in the outpatient setting, with patients discharged with chest tubes in place. We evaluated the incidence and risk factors associated with readmission, empyema development and further interventions in this patient population. Methods: We undertook a retrospective cohort analysis of all patients from 4 tertiary academic centres (January 2014 to December 2017) who were discharged home with a chest tube after lung resection for a postoperative air leak lasting more than 5 days. We analyzed demographics, patient factors, surgical details, hospital readmission, reintervention, antibiotics at discharge, empyema and death. Results: Overall, 253 of 2794 patients were analyzed (9.0% of all resections), including 30 of 759 from centre 1 (4.0%), 67 of 857 from centre 2 (7.8%), 9 of 247 from centre 3 (3.6%) and 147 of 931 from centre 4 (15.8%) (p < 0.001). Our cohort consisted of 56.5% men, and had a median age of 69 (range 19–88) years. Despite similar initial lengths of stay (p = 0.588), 49 patients (19.4%) were readmitted (21%, 0%, 23% and 11% from centres 1 to 4, respectively, p = 0.029), with 18 (36.7%) developing empyema, 11 (22.4%) requiring surgery and 3 (6.1%) dying. Only chest tube duration was a significant predictor of readmission (p < 0.001) and empyema development (p = 0.003), with a nearly threefold increased odds of developing empyema when the chest tube remained in situ for more than 20 days. Conclusion: Discharge…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 253 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