HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Author home page(s): Neil Roberts Peter C. Braidley Graham J. Cooper Tom J. Spyt Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Roberts, N. Articles by Spyt, T. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Roberts, N. Articles by Spyt, T. J. Related Collections Congenital - acyanotic

J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2006;132:1042-1046
© 2006 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery

Surgery for Acquired Cardiovascular Disease

Two-center prospective randomized controlled trial of Blake versus Portex drains after cardiac surgery

^a Department of Cardiac Surgery, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield, United Kingdom
^b Department of Cardiac Surgery, Glenfield Hospital, Leicester, United Kingdom.

Received for publication February 23, 2006; revisions received June 7, 2006; accepted for publication June 15, 2006.

^_* Address for reprints: Mr Neil Roberts, Research Registrar Cardiac Surgery, St Georges Hospital, Blackshaw Rd, London SW17 0QT, United Kingdom. (Email: neil.roberts{at}stgeorges.nhs.uk).

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of two drain types after cardiac surgery in a randomized controlled trial, with primary outcome measure being depth of pericardial effusion 3 to 5 days after drain removal.

METHODS: A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted at two university hospitals. A total of 199 patients undergoing first-time cardiac procedures were randomized at surgery to receive either small-bore flexible Blake drains (19F) or larger Portex drains (28F). Drains were removed according to the study protocol and patients underwent echocardiography 3 to 5 days after drain removal to measure residual pericardial effusion.

RESULTS: Ninety patients received Blake drains and 109 patients received Portex drains. There were no statistically significant differences in preoperative variables between the groups. There was no difference in the number of drains inserted per patient between groups (Blake 2.1 ± 0.4 vs Portex 2.0 ± 0.5). Mean difference in size of pericardial effusion between groups was 1.96 mm (95% confidence interval –0.02, 3.95 mm), which did not exceed the predefined non-inferiority margin of 10 mm. There was no significant difference in the mean maximal hourly drainage rate between groups (Blake 94.7 mL vs Portex 123.1 mL; P = .070) or in the total drainage rates (Blake 541 mL vs Portex 679 mL; P = .066). Although the Blake group had a higher percentage of patients with detectable effusion (46.3% vs 27.4%; P = .011) than the Portex group, there was no difference in need for late drainage of pericardial effusions (1.1% vs 1.9%) or insertion of further chest drains (8.8% vs 7.2%).

CONCLUSION: The performance of small-bore Blake drains is not inferior to that of standard Portex drains after cardiac surgery.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				H. Nakamura, Y. Taniguchi, K. Miwa, Y. Adachi, S. Fujioka, and T. Haruki The use of Blake drains following general thoracic surgery: is it an acceptable option? Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery, January 1, 2009; 8(1): 58 - 61. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. Mair, I. Kaczmarek, and S. Daebritz Modern drainage techniques include not only smaller drains for pain reduction J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., April 1, 2007; 133(4): 1124 - 1124. [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. Roberts and T. J. Spyt Reply to the Editor J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., April 1, 2007; 133(4): 1124 - 1125. [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Bjessmo, S. Hylander, J. Vedin, D. Mohlkert, and T. Ivert Comparison of three different chest drainages after coronary artery bypass surgery -- a randomised trial in 150 patients Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., March 1, 2007; 31(3): 372 - 375. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]