CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT04438317DrainICUUpdated Nov 18, 2023

Thoracic Drains in Intensive Care Units: Comparison of Seldinger and Surgical Methods

An interventional study of Pleural drainage procedure with Seldinger procedure and Pleural drainage procedure with surgical-like technique in Pleural Effusion, Pneumothorax and Hemothorax, sponsored by University Hospital, Clermont-Ferrand. Completed at 1 site in France. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2023-11-18.

Sponsored by University Hospital, Clermont-Ferrand · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
227
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

This prospective randomized multicenter study is intended to investigate tolerance and effectiveness of thoracic drainage conducted by Seldinger technique with small drains, or by a surgical-like technique with large armed drains, in intensive care units patients.

Read the detailed description

Drainage of pleural effusion and pneumothorax is a common feature in Resuscitation, Intensive Care Units (ICU) and Continuing Care Units (CCU). Although they are associated with a low incidence of complications (ranging from 0 to 8%), some of these can become fatal if they are associated with a visceral puncture (liver, spleen, lung parenchyma or heart by instance). It has been reported in the literature that complications were greater in case of drainage with large diameter drains set up by so-called "surgical-like" technique.

The choice of the type of chest tube is usually guided by the indication of drainage or the habits and / or experience of the practitioner. In the case of liquid pleural effusions, it may be preferable to use small diameter drains, whereas in the case of suspicious thick effusions such as empyema or blood, it may be preferable to use drainage drains of a larger diameter. However, results of retrospective analyzes seem to suggest the versatile and effective use of small-bore chest tubes in any of these indications without increasing complications' rates such as clogging.

However, no prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) has studied this issue to date. Therefore, the investigators propose to perform a multicenter RCT in ICU and CCU patients requiring pleural drainage for any indication or underlying disease.

This prospective RCT is intended to investigate tolerance and effectiveness of thoracic drainage conducted by Seldinger technique with small drains, or by a surgical-like technique with large armed drains. Furthermore, they want to estimate the respective costs, identify the difficulties related to both strategies, recognize associated practices (ultrasound-guidance, implantation site, operator's competence), and finally point out the secondary determinants of tolerance and effectiveness.

02

Conditions studied

  • Pleural Effusion
  • Pneumothorax
  • Hemothorax

Keywords

  • Pleural effusion
  • Pneumothorax
  • Hemothorax
  • Intensive Care Unit
  • Seldinger
  • Drain
  • Chest drainage
  • Complications
  • Comparison of chest drainage techniques in ICU patients
  • Small drain inserted by Seldinger technique
  • Large drains inserted by surgical-like technique
03

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • Of-age patient (>18years)
  • Patient admitted in ICU or CCU
  • Patient requiring a pleural drainage, semi-urgent or planned
  • Patient with a social security insurance

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Patient under guardianship
  • Severe or uncompensated bleeding disorders
  • Thoracic trauma at the acute phase (\<6 hours)
  • Compressive pneumothorax requiring immediate and urgent needle exsufflation
  • No thoracic drainage (whatever the technique used) performed previously during the same stay in ICU or CCU.
04

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Single (Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
227 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Active comparator
    Seldinger Technique

    Small bore chest tubes inserted by Seldinger technique. A needle is inserted into the intercostal space, and the aspiration of a fluid allows the confirmation the correct position, possibly after ultrasound tracking. A metal guidewire is inserted through the needle, which is then removed. A dilator is then inserted on the metal guidewire to dilate the skin and the subcutaneous tissues. The chest tube is finally inserted on the guide, which is finally removed, and the chest tube is connected to the aspiration system after fixation to the chest wall.

    Procedure: Pleural drainage procedure with Seldinger procedure

  • Active comparator
    Surgical-like Technique

    Large bore chest tube inserted by surgical-like technique. Progressive chest wall dissection is conducted with appropriate instruments (scissors, scalpel, clamps...) by a non-surgeon physician. Large bore drain with rigid introductor is blindly inserted in the pleural cavity, secured to the chest wall with suture fixation and further connection to the aspiration system.

    Procedure: Pleural drainage procedure with surgical-like technique

Interventions

  • ProcedurePleural drainage procedure with Seldinger procedure

    Pleural drainage using Seldinger technique.

  • ProcedurePleural drainage procedure with surgical-like technique

    Pleural drainage using Surgical-like technique.

05

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Composite criteria of major and minor complications related to chest drainage

    1. a composite criterion for major complications: organic lesions (spleen, liver, lung, artery, vessel ..., calculated frequency 0.2-1.4%) and post-drainage empyema or infection at the site level insertion rate (calculated frequency 0.2-1.4%) (non-inferiority hypothesis) and 2. a composite criterion on the other complications (malposition of the drain (calculated frequency of 0.6-6.5%), clogging of the drain (calculated frequency of 8.1-5.2%) or drain drop (calculated frequency 1-21%) (hypothesis of superiority).

    Time frame: ICU discharge up to 6 months

Secondary outcomes

  1. Sedation and analgesia doses

    Sedation and analgesia doses

    Time frame: Before, during, immediately after the procedure, every day until the removal of the chest tube, immediately after ICU discharge, Day 28 and Day 90

  2. Persistent residual pain: numerical pain scale

    Evaluated by a numerical pain scale (VAS : 0 = No pain to 10 = Worst possible pain)

    Time frame: ICU discharge up to 6 months

  3. Evaluation of pain type

    Type of pain neuropathic, nociceptive

    Time frame: Before, during, immediately after the procedure, every day until the removal of the chest tube, immediately after ICU discharge, Day 28 and Day 90

  4. Evaluation of Pain

    Evaluated by a numerical pain scale (if the patient is unable to communicate), or the BPS-NI (behavioral pain scale non-intubated, if the patient is non-intubated and unable to communicate, 3 to 12), or the BPS (behavorial pain scale, if the patient is intubated and unable to communicate, 0 to 12).

    Time frame: Before, during, immediately after the procedure

  5. Procedural criteria

    Number of failures of the procedure

    Time frame: Immediately after the pleural drainage procedure

  6. Procedural criteria

    Number of second operator necessary

    Time frame: Immediately after the pleural drainage procedure

  7. Procedural criteria

    Number of drainage technique changes (cross-over)

    Time frame: Immediately after the pleural drainage procedure

  8. Ultrasound use

    Rate of procedure use by care-providers

    Time frame: Before, during and immediately after the pleural drainage procedure

  9. Ultrasound use

    Volume to be drained according to published methods

    Time frame: Before the pleural drainage procedure

  10. Ultrasound use

    Assessment of pleural fluid type according to published methods

    Time frame: Immediately after the pleural drainage procedure

  11. Ultrasound use

    Control of the position of the drain

    Time frame: Immediately after the pleural drainage procedure

  12. General characteristics

    Type of Indication of drainage

    Time frame: Immediately after the pleural drainage procedure

  13. General characteristics

    Diameter of drain used (millimeter)

    Time frame: Immediately after the pleural drainage procedure

  14. General characteristics

    Diameter and brand of drain used

    Time frame: Immediately after the pleural drainage procedure

  15. General characteristics

    Drainage duration

    Time frame: Immediately after the pleural drainage procedure

  16. General characteristics

    Drain hold time in place

    Time frame: Immediately after the pleural drainage procedure

  17. General characteristics

    Drain insertion site (safety triangle)

    Time frame: Immediately after the pleural drainage procedure

  18. General characteristics

    Use or not of probabilistic antibioprophylaxis

    Time frame: Immediately after the pleural drainage procedure

  19. General characteristics

    Number of differences between the result of the randomization and the doctor's choice in terms of drainage technique

    Time frame: Immediately after the pleural drainage procedure

  20. Doctor performing drainage

    Characteristic's rate (senior or junior, prior experience with drainage technique)

    Time frame: Immediately after the pleural drainage procedure

  21. General characteristics

    Rate of Off-hours drainage

    Time frame: Immediately after the pleural drainage procedure

  22. Complications' rates

    Infections at the insertion site or of pleural cavity during the ICU stay

    Time frame: During the pleural drainage procedure and ICU discharge up to 6 months

  23. Complications' rates

    Post-drainage pneumothorax during the ICU stay

    Time frame: During the pleural drainage procedure and ICU discharge up to 6 months

  24. Complications' rates

    Clogging of drain during the ICU stay

    Time frame: During the pleural drainage procedure and ICU discharge up to 6 months

  25. Complications' rates

    Drain Malposition during the ICU stay

    Time frame: During the pleural drainage procedure and ICU discharge up to 6 months

  26. Complications' rates

    Initiation of post-drainage mechanical ventilation if initially absent during the ICU stay

    Time frame: During the pleural drainage procedure and ICU discharge up to 6 months

  27. Complications' rates

    Per- and post-procedure bleeding during the ICU stay during the ICU stay

    Time frame: During the pleural drainage procedure and ICU discharge up to 6 months

  28. Complications' rates

    Intra- and post-drainage visceral lesions during the ICU stay

    Time frame: During the pleural drainage procedure and ICU discharge up to 6 months

  29. Complications' rates

    Fall of the drain during the stay during the ICU stay

    Time frame: During the pleural drainage procedure and ICU discharge up to 6 months

  30. Complications' rates

    Bad side or drainage site during the ICU stay

    Time frame: During the pleural drainage procedure and ICU discharge up to 6 months

  31. Complications' rates

    Complications associated with drainages made on hold during the ICU stay

    Time frame: During the pleural drainage procedure and ICU discharge up to 6 months

  32. Patients outcomes

    ICU mortality

    Time frame: 6 months

  33. Patients outcomes

    Hospital mortality

    Time frame: 6 months

  34. Patients outcomes

    ICU mortality

    Time frame: Day 28

  35. Patients outcomes

    Hospital mortality

    Time frame: Day 28

  36. Patients outcomes

    Days without mechanical ventilation

    Time frame: Day 28

  37. Patients outcomes

    Days without mechanical ventilation

    Time frame: Day 90

  38. Patients outcomes

    ICU mortality

    Time frame: Day 90

  39. Patients outcomes

    Hospital mortality

    Time frame: Day 90

06

Study locations

1 site
  • CHU
    Clermont-Ferrand, France
07

References and documents

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Undecided

No publications or documents are linked to this record.

08

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT04438317
Lead sponsor
University Hospital, Clermont-Ferrand
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Jun 18, 2020
Start date
May 29, 2020
Primary completion
Apr 4, 2023
Completion
Jun 28, 2023
Last update
Nov 18, 2023

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Dec 2022. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions 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.

Start the discussion