An interventional study of Percutaneous catheter in The Efficacy of Percutaneous Catheter vs. Open Chest Tube and Traumatic Hemothorax, sponsored by University of Arizona. Completed at 4 sites in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2021-05-03.
Sponsored by University of Arizona · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment
After sustaining severe trauma to the chest, patients will often bleed into the chest cavity (pleural space) which is called hemothorax or they may also experience air leakage within the chest cavity in combination with the bleeding (hemopneumothorax). These conditions are treated with the insertion of a tube into the chest called a chest tube (CT). Insertion of the CT is very painful for the patient due to the size or diameter of the tube. Alternative to CT is a small percutaneous catheter (PC), pigtail or non-pigtail. At Banner-University of Arizona Tucson Campus (B-UATC) investigator prefers inserting a small pigtail catheter for the management of hemothorax or hemopnuemothorax. The primary purpose of our study is to see if the use of the PC is just as effective as CT in terms of removing leaked blood and/or air from the chest cavity.
The standard treatment for traumatic hemothorax (HTX) and hemopneumothorax (HPTX) has been an insertion of a large-bore chest tube (CT) (French 28-40). The procedure is associated with significant patient's pain and discomfort. Our institution has taken a lead role to replace chest tube insertion with percutaneous (pigtail) catheter (PC) (14F) insertion. The investigators have previously published that, not only PC works just as well as the traditional CT for both pneumothorax (1) and hemothorax( 2), but it is also associated with a significant less insertion pain and tube site pain (3). In that hemothorax study, investigator reported 36 patients who received PC for HTX (2) with the same success as 32F chest tube in term of initial output and success rate; success rate was defined as no further intervention was needed. Since the completion of that study (December 2011), our division has inserted probably 100 PC for hemothorax and hemopneumohthorax Therefore, investigator now believes that it is time for us to demonstrate the efficacy of the PC for hemothorax with a prospective and randomized study as investigators have done previously for traumatic pneumothorax (3).
The investigator hypothesizes that PC will be just as effective as CT in patients with traumatic HTX and HPTX.
Our study aim is to demonstrate the efficacy of the PC in a prospective and randomized fashion as we have done previously in pneumothorax.
Our primary end point is the success/failure rate. Failure is defined as patient require a second intervention i.e., second tube, video-assisted thoracoscopy (VATS), etc.
Our secondary end points are the amount of initial tube drainage (1-hour), 24-hour, 48-hour, 72-hour; tube insertion-related complications, hospital length of stay, and patient's experience during CT/PC insertion (if patient can provide the information).
Significance of the study:
Currently, most trauma surgeons prefer CT over PC for the management of traumatic HTX. The study will provide a level 1 scientific evidence that PC works as well as CT for traumatic HTX/HPTX, and we have already shown that PC is less painful than CT.
5,085 studies on the registry are indexed under Wounds and Injuries; 849 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 61 is above the median of 52 across 3,261 interventional studies indexed under Wounds and Injuries.
Browse Wounds and Injuries studies →University of Arizona is the lead sponsor of 475 studies on the registry; 87 are open to participants now.
Of its 51 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 30 (59%) have results posted.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
14-French Percutaneous catheter (pigtail or non-pigtail) placed at bedside using Seldinger technique
Device: Percutaneous catheter
Placement of 28-36F chest tube placed at bedside by an open cut-down technique (traditional)
Device: Percutaneous catheter
tube inserted to drain hemothorax
Also known as: tube insertion
Failure rate
Failure rate is defined as any second intervention to treat retained hemothorax
Time frame: 30 days
Insertion-related complication
any insertion-related complication, minor or major
Time frame: 30 days
Hospital course outcome
ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay
Time frame: 30 days
Plan to share: No
This study is completed, as verified in Apr 2021. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.