Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38479816›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery2024

Chest tube removal at different gas flows in prolonged air leak: a randomized non-inferiority trial.

Xinyang Li, Hang Yang, Yongsheng Cai, Xin Ye, Qirui Chen, Ying Ji, Jing Wang, Yili Fu, Bin Hu, Jinbai Miao

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialEquivalence Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Endoluminal approaches to postoperative air leaks.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Xinyang LiDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Beijing Institute of Respiratory Medicine and Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Hang YangDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Beijing Institute of Respiratory Medicine and Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Yongsheng CaiDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Beijing Institute of Respiratory Medicine and Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Xin YeDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Beijing Institute of Respiratory Medicine and Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Qirui ChenDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Beijing Institute of Respiratory Medicine and Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Ying JiDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Beijing Institute of Respiratory Medicine and Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Jing WangDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Beijing Institute of Respiratory Medicine and Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Yili FuDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Beijing Institute of Respiratory Medicine and Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Bin HuDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Beijing Institute of Respiratory Medicine and Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Jinbai MiaoDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Beijing Institute of Respiratory Medicine and Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.ORCID 0009-0007-7094-1032
Capital Medical University · CN

Funding

Beijing Institute of Respiratory Medicine Ggyfz 202321
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate the safety and feasibility of removing drainage tubes at larger size of air leak in patients with prolonged air leak after pulmonary surgery.

methodsNinety-five patients who underwent pulmonary surgery with prolonged air leak in our centre were enrolled in this randomized controlled, single-centre, non-inferiority study. The drainage tube was clamped with a stable size of air leak observed over the last 6 h, which was quantified by gas flow rate using the digital drainage system. The control group (n = 48) and the study group (n = 46) had their drainage tube clamped at 0-20 ml/min and 60-80 ml/min, respectively. We continuously monitored clinical symptoms, conducted imaging and laboratory examinations, and decided whether to reopen the drainage tube.

resultsThe reopening rate in the study group was not lower than that in the control group (2.08% vs 6.52%, P > 0.05). The absolute difference in reopening rate was 4.44% (95% confidence interval -0.038 to 0.126), with an upper limit of 12.6% below the non-inferiority margin (15%). There were significant differences in the length of stay [16.5 (13-24.75) vs 13.5 (12-19.25), P = 0.017] and the duration of drainage [12 (9.25-18.50) vs 10 (8-12.25), P = 0.007] between the control and study groups. No notable differences were observed in chest X-ray results 14 days after discharge or in the readmission rate.

conclusionsFor patients with prolonged air leak, removing drainage tubes at larger size of air leak demonstrated similar safety compared to smaller size of air leak, and can shorten both length of stay and drainage duration. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Name of registry: Gas flow threshold for safe removal of chest drainage in patients with alveolar-pleural fistula prolonged air leak after pulmonary surgery. Registration number: ChiCTR2200067120. URL: https://www.chictr.org.cn/.

Indexed as

Chest TubesDevice RemovalDrainageHumansLength of StayPleural DiseasesPneumonectomyPneumothoraxChest drainage tube removalDigital drainage systemIntrapleural pressureProlonged air leakPulmonary surgery

Identifiers

PMID38479816
PMCPMC10963076
OpenAlexW4392791095

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.