Download PDF
Zentralbl Chir 2020; 145(01): 99-107
DOI: 10.1055/a-0963-0404
Sonstige – Thoraxchirurgie
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Delphi-Konsens der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Thoraxchirurgie über das Management von Thoraxdrainagen

Delphi Expert Consensus of the German Thoracic Surgery Society on the Management of Chest Tube Drainage
Aris Koryllos
1   Lungenklinik Köln-Merheim, Kliniken der Stadt Köln, Lehrstuhl für Thoraxchirurgie, Universität Witten/Herdecke, Deutschland
,
Stephan Eggeling
2   Klinik für Thoraxchirurgie, Vivantes Netzwerk für Gesundheit GmbH, Vivantes Klinikum Neukölln, Berlin, Deutschland
,
Olaf Schega
3   Abteilung für Thoraxchirurgie, Johanniter-Krankenhaus im Fläming Treuenbrietzen GmbH, Deutschland
,
Michael Schweigert
4   Bereich Thoraxchirurgie, Klinik und Poliklinik für Viszeral-, Thorax- und Gefäßchirurgie, Universitätsklinik Dresden, Deutschland
,
Gunda Leschber
5   Klinik für Thoraxchirurgie, Evangelische Lungenklinik Berlin, Deutschland
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
08 August 2019 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Einleitung Thoraxdrainagen sind ein wichtiges Arbeitsinstrument, nicht nur in der Thoraxchirurgie, wo sie täglich eingelegt, modifiziert und entfernt werden, sondern in vielen Fachrichtungen bei Auftreten von thorakalen Problemen wie Pneumothorax oder Pleuraergüssen. Ziel dieser Arbeitsgruppe der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Thoraxchirurgie war die Erarbeitung eines Konsensus anhand des Delphi-Verfahrens bez. der Handhabung von Thoraxdrainagen.

Methodik Die Arbeitsgruppe erarbeitete 2 elektronische Delphi-Fragerunden. Als Konsens wurde eine Übereinstimmung in ≥ 75% definiert. Nach der statistischen Auswertung der Ergebnisse der elektronischen Fragerunde erfolgte eine Expertenkonferenz, die in einer finalen Delphi-Abstimmung versucht hat, weiteren Konsens über noch strittige Themen zu erreichen.

Ergebnisse Dreizehn Fragen bez. der Handhabung von Thoraxdrainagen konnten formuliert und abgestimmt werden. Konsens konnte für folgende Themen erreicht werden: Bedingungen der Anlage, Größe der Thoraxdrainage, Anlagetechnik, Diagnostik nach Anlage und vor Entfernung, postinterventionelle Handhabung der Thoraxdrainage, Dokumentation, Zahl der Drainagen nach anatomischer Lungenresektion, Verwendung von Fibrinolytika, Art der Unterdruckerzeugung. Kein Konsens konnte für folgende Themen erreicht werden: Eigenblutpleurodese, Reduktion des angewendeten Sogs bei persistierender Fistelung.

Fazit Die vorliegende Arbeit fasst die Ergebnisse eines Delphi-Prozesses zusammen, der 2017 – 2018 mit Experten aus zertifizierten Kliniken oder hochvolumigen thoraxchirurgischen Einheiten geführt wurde. Insgesamt zeigte sich eine sehr hohe Konsensrate bez. Drainagenanlage, perinterventionellem Management und Entfernungsalgorithmus. Die Handhabung bei hohem Fistelvolumen war der Hauptpunkt, bei dem ein Konsens nicht erreicht werden konnte. Die o. g. Empfehlungen sollen als Ausgangspunkt für die Entwicklung von klinikinternen Standards dienen, da sie auf konsentierten Expertenmeinungen basieren.

Abstract

Background Chest tubes are a valuable instrument and are used on a daily basis – not only by thoracic surgeons but also by a variety of medical specialists who treat pneumothorax or pleural effusions. The goal of the working group of the German Thoracic Society (DGT) was to achieve a consensus on the management of chest tube/drainage using the Delphi process.

Methods The assigned group of the DGT designed and conducted two electronic rounds of questions in all major thoracic and lung cancer centres. Consensus was considered as rate of ≥ 75%. After statistical analysis of the results, an expert meeting took place and a final Delphi process poll was used in order to reach consensus for controversial topics.

Results Thirteen questions on the management of chest tubes were proposed and voted on. A consensus was reached for the following topics: conditions for chest tube insertion, size of drainage/tube, technique of insertion, diagnostic measures after insertion and prior to removal, post-interventional management, documentation, number of chest tubes after anatomical lung resection, use of fibrinolytic agents, type of negative pressure. No consensus was reached for the following topics: autologous blood pleurodesis, reduction of suction in cases of persistent air leakage.

Conclusion Our manuscript depicts the results of a Delphi process in 2017 – 1018 involving experts of the German Thoracic Society from high volume departments certified for thoracic surgery. A very high rate of consensus was documented for topics such as chest tube insertion, peri-interventional management and removal algorithm. The most important topic for which there was no consensus was the case of persistent air leakage. The resulting expert recommendations of the Delphi process could be used as a starting point for internal clinical procedures.

Schlüsselwörter

Thoraxdrainage - Delphi-Konsens - Handhabung

Key words

chest tube - Delphi consensus - management
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Meyer JA. Gotthard Bülau and closed water-seal drainage for empyema, 1875–1891. Ann Thorac Surg 1989; 48: 597-599
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Zardo P, Busk H, Kutschka I. Chest tube management: state of the art. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 2015; 28: 45-49 doi:10.1097/ACO.0000000000000150
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Murphy MK, Black NA, Lamping DL. et al. Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development. Health Technol Assess 1998; 2: i-iv 1–88
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Jones J, Hunter D. Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ 1995; 311: 376-380
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 MacDuff A, Arnold A, Harvey J. et al. Management of spontaneous pneumothorax: British Thoracic Society Pleural Disease Guideline 2010. Thorax 2010; 65 (Suppl. 02) ii18-31 doi:10.1136/thx.2010.136986
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Laws D, Neville E, Duffy J. et al. BTS guidelines for the insertion of a chest drain. Thorax 2003; 58 (Suppl. 02) ii53-59
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Monaghan SF, Swan KG. Tube thoracostomy: the struggle to the “standard of care”. Ann Thorac Surg 2008; 86: 2019-2022 doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2008.08.006
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Baumann MH. What size chest tube? What drainage system is ideal? And other chest tube management questions. Curr Opin Pulm Med 2003; 9: 276-281
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Bauman ZM, Kulvatunyou N, Joseph B. et al. A prospective study of 7-year experience using percutaneous 14-French pigtail catheters for traumatic hemothorax/hemopneumothorax at a level-1 trauma center: size still does not matter. World J Surg 2018; 42: 107-113 doi:10.1007/s00268-017-4168-3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Russo RM, Zakaluzny SA, Neff LP. et al. A pilot study of chest tube versus pigtail catheter drainage of acute hemothorax in swine. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2015; 79: 1038-1043 doi:10.1097/TA.0000000000000693
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 So SY, Yu DY. Catheter drainage of spontaneous pneumothorax: suction or no suction, early or late removal?. Thorax 1982; 37: 46-48
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Maxwell RA, Campbell DJ, Fabian TC. et al. Use of presumptive antibiotics following tube thoracostomy for traumatic hemopneumothorax in the prevention of empyema and pneumonia–a multi-center trial. J Trauma 2004; 57: 742-748
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Luchette FA, Barrie PS, Oswanski MF. et al. Practice management guidelines for prophylactic antibiotic use in tube thoracostomy for traumatic hemopneumothorax: the EAST Practice Management Guidelines Work Group. Eastern Association for Trauma. J Trauma 2000; 48: 753-757
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Olgac G, Aydogmus U, Mulazimoglu L. et al. Antibiotics are not needed during tube thoracostomy for spontaneous pneumothorax: an observational case study. J Cardiothorac Surg 2006; 1: 43 doi:10.1186/1749-8090-1-43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Shargall Y, Litle VR. European perspectives in Thoracic Surgery, the ESTS venous thromboembolism (VTE) working group. J Thorac Dis 2018; 10 (Suppl. 08) S963-S968 doi:10.21037/jtd.2018.04.70
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Lim-Levy F, Babler SA, De Groot-Kosolcharoen J. et al. Is milking and stripping chest tubes really necessary?. Ann Thorac Surg 1986; 42: 77-80
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Pierce JD, Piazza D, Naftel DC. Effects of two chest tube clearance protocols on drainage in patients after myocardial revascularization surgery. Heart Lung 1991; 20: 125-130
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Isaacson JJ, George LT, Brewer MJ. The effect of chest tube manipulation on mediastinal drainage. Heart Lung 1986; 15: 601-605
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Dango S, Sienel W, Passlick B. et al. Impact of chest tube clearance on postoperative morbidity after thoracotomy: results of a prospective, randomised trial. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2010; 37: 51-55 doi:10.1016/j.ejcts.2009.06.034
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Rasheed MA, Majeed FA, Ali Shah SZ. et al. Role of clamping tube thoracostomy prior to removal in non-cardiac thoracic trauma. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad 2016; 28: 476-479
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Funk GA, Petrey LB, Foreman ML. Clamping thoracostomy tubes: a heretical notion?. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent) 2009; 22: 215-217
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Bertolaccini L, Rizzardi G, Terzi A. A golden key can open any door of new protocol: the use of continuous digital measurement for postoperative air leak. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2011; 12: 31 doi:10.1510/icvts.2010.248716A
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Pompili C, Detterbeck F, Papagiannopoulos K. et al. Multicenter international randomized comparison of objective and subjective outcomes between electronic and traditional chest drainage systems. Ann Thorac Surg 2014; 98: 490-496 doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2014.03.043
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Filosso PL, Ruffini E, Solidoro P. et al. Digital air leak monitoring after lobectomy for primary lung cancer in patients with moderate COPD: can a fast-tracking algorithm reduce postoperative costs and complications?. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino) 2010; 51: 429-433
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Brunelli A, Salati M, Refai M. et al. Evaluation of a new chest tube removal protocol using digital air leak monitoring after lobectomy: a prospective randomised trial. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2010; 37: 56-60 doi:10.1016/j.ejcts.2009.05.006
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Varela G, Jimenez MF, Novoa NM. et al. Postoperative chest tube management: measuring air leak using an electronic device decreases variability in the clinical practice. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2009; 35: 28-31 doi:10.1016/j.ejcts.2008.09.005
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Cerfolio RJ, Bryant AS. The benefits of continuous and digital air leak assessment after elective pulmonary resection: a prospective study. Ann Thorac Surg 2008; 86: 396-401 doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2008.04.016
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Gilbert S, McGuire AL, Maghera S. et al. Randomized trial of digital versus analog pleural drainage in patients with or without a pulmonary air leak after lung resection. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2015; 150: 1243-1249 doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.08.051
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Brunelli A, Beretta E, Cassivi SD. et al. Consensus definitions to promote an evidence-based approach to management of the pleural space. A collaborative proposal by ESTS, AATS, STS, and GTSC. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2011; 40: 291-297 doi:10.1016/j.ejcts.2011.05.020
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Okur E, Baysungur V, Tezel C. et al. Comparison of the single or double chest tube applications after pulmonary lobectomies. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2009; 35: 32-35 doi:10.1016/j.ejcts.2008.09.009
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Alex J, Ansari J, Bahalkar P. et al. Comparison of the immediate postoperative outcome of using the conventional two drains versus a single drain after lobectomy. Ann Thorac Surg 2003; 76: 1046-1049
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Gomez-Caro A, Roca MJ, Torres J. et al. Successful use of a single chest drain postlobectomy instead of two classical drains: a randomized study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2006; 29: 562-566 doi:10.1016/j.ejcts.2006.01.019
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Pawelczyk K, Marciniak M, Kacprzak G. et al. One or two drains after lobectomy? A comparison of both methods in the immediate postoperative period. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2007; 55: 313-316 doi:10.1055/s-2007-964930
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Tanaka M, Sagawa M, Usuda K. et al. Postoperative drainage with one chest tube is appropriate for pulmonary lobectomy: a randomized trial. Tohoku J Exp Med 2014; 232: 55-61
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Aleman C, Porcel JM, Alegre J. et al. Intrapleural fibrinolysis with urokinase versus alteplase in complicated parapneumonic pleural effusions and empyemas: a prospective randomized study. Lung 2015; 193: 993-1000 doi:10.1007/s00408-015-9807-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Thomas R, Piccolo F, Miller D. et al. Intrapleural fibrinolysis for the treatment of indwelling pleural catheter-related symptomatic loculations: a multicenter observational study. Chest 2015; 148: 746-751 doi:10.1378/chest.14-2401
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Lim TK, Chin NK. Empirical treatment with fibrinolysis and early surgery reduces the duration of hospitalization in pleural sepsis. Eur Respir J 1999; 13: 514-518
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Coughlin SM, Emmerton-Coughlin HM, Malthaner R. Management of chest tubes after pulmonary resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Surg 2012; 55: 264-270 doi:10.1503/cjs.001411
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Deng B, Tan QY, Zhao YP. et al. Suction or non-suction to the underwater seal drains following pulmonary operation: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2010; 38: 210-215 doi:10.1016/j.ejcts.2010.01.050
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Qiu T, Shen Y, Wang MZ. et al. External suction versus water seal after selective pulmonary resection for lung neoplasm: a systematic review. PLoS One 2013; 8: e68087 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068087
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Cagirici U, Sahin B, Cakan A. et al. Autologous blood patch pleurodesis in spontaneous pneumothorax with persistent air leak. Scand Cardiovasc J 1998; 32: 75-78
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Ando M, Yamamoto M, Kitagawa C. et al. Autologous blood-patch pleurodesis for secondary spontaneous pneumothorax with persistent air leak. Respir Med 1999; 93: 432-434 doi:10.1053/rmed.1999.0567
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Aihara K, Handa T, Nagai S. et al. Efficacy of blood-patch pleurodesis for secondary spontaneous pneumothorax in interstitial lung disease. Intern Med 2011; 50: 1157-1162
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Evman S, Alpay L, Metin S. et al. The efficacy and economical benefits of blood patch pleurodesis in secondary spontaneous pneumothorax patients. Kardiochir Torakochirurgia Pol 2016; 13: 21-25 doi:10.5114/kitp.2016.58960
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Robinson CL. Autologous blood for pleurodesis in recurrent and chronic spontaneous pneumothorax. Can J Surg 1987; 30: 428-429
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Schnell J, Beer M, Eggeling S. et al. Management of spontaneous pneumothorax and post-interventional pneumothorax: German S3 guideline. Respiration 2019; 97: 370-402 doi:10.1159/000490179
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Cerfolio RJ, Bryant AS. Results of a prospective algorithm to remove chest tubes after pulmonary resection with high output. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2008; 135: 269-273 doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2007.08.066
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Bjerregaard LS, Jensen K, Petersen RH. et al. Early chest tube removal after video-assisted thoracic surgery lobectomy with serous fluid production up to 500 ml/day. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2014; 45: 241-246 doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezt376
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar