Effectiveness of Small-Bore Pigtail Catheters for Management of Spontaneous Pneumothoraxes : A Meta-Analysis

2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10755/621717
Category:
Full-text
Format:
Text-based Document
Type:
Poster
Level of Evidence:
N/A
Research Approach:
N/A
Title:
Effectiveness of Small-Bore Pigtail Catheters for Management of Spontaneous Pneumothoraxes : A Meta-Analysis
Author(s):
Huang, Mei-Chin; Fang, Yueh-Yen; Shen, Chih-Hsing; Chen, Hui-Chuan
Lead Author STTI Affiliation:
Non-member
Author Details:
Mei-Chin Huang, BSN, RN, Professional Experience: I have been working in Nursing for over 25 years. Head Nurse of Emergency Department Professional Experience: Head nurse 7 years RN 18years ER, SARS Education: Associate degree in Nursing, 1991—Fooyin Junior College RN-BSN, 2009—Fooyin University Author Summary: Title: Head Nurse of Emergency Department Professional Experience: Head nurse 7 years RN 18years ER, SARS Education: Associate degree in Nursing, 1991—Fooyin Junior College RN-BSN, 2009—Fooyin University
Abstract:

Purpose:

Spontaneous pneumothorax (SP) can be a life-threatening condition. It can be primary and caused by unknown reason, or secondary from acute or chronic lung diseases. It was estimated that the SP affected over 20,000 patients and accounted $130 million health-care costs in the United States. The primary management of SP is to remove air from the pleural space. The recommendations of SP management differ across guidelines. Though the trend tends to suggest the use of less invasive small catheters, applying a large chest tube is still common. To validate drainage methods for SP, we compared the effectiveness of a small-bore pigtail catheter with the traditional chest tube in the management of SP.

Methods:

A search of studies comparing the effect of a small-bore pigtail catheter and a traditional chest tube for SP management was conducted using three Chinese databases (CEPS, the Chinese Thesis/Dissertation database, and the Chinese Journal database) and four English databases (CINAHL, Medline, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials). The search was up to April, 2016. Evaluations of study quality were conducted by the 2011 Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine-Levels of Evidence and the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias. Meta-analyses were performed by the random effect model. Pooled effects of drainage failure and length of hospitalization were calculated to present the effectiveness of tubing methods.

Results:

Eleven studies involving 783 subjects were identified from 110 citations. Among included studies, only three studies are randomized controlled trials. All studies were unclear or high in risks of random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and blinding of participants and personnel. No difference in the risk of drainage failure was found between the pigtail method and the chest tube method (OR=.67, 95%CI=.41-1.09, p=.10). Among the secondary SP subjects, the length of hospital stay did not differ between two methods as well (OR=-.3, 95% CI=-.68 - -.08, p=.12).

Conclusion:

Findings of this study support the use of small-bore pigtail catheters to manage SP. The application of small-bore pigtail catheters is suggested to promote patient compliance and comfort.

Keywords:
chest tube; pigtail catheter; spontaneous pneumothorax
Repository Posting Date:
7-Jul-2017
Date of Publication:
7-Jul-2017
Other Identifiers:
INRC17PST99
Conference Date:
2017
Conference Name:
28th International Nursing Research Congress
Conference Host:
Sigma Theta Tau International
Conference Location:
Dublin, Ireland
Description:
Event Theme: Influencing Global Health Through the Advancement of Nursing Scholarship

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.language.isoen_USen
dc.type.categoryFull-texten
dc.formatText-based Documenten
dc.typePosteren
dc.evidence.levelN/Aen
dc.research.approachN/Aen
dc.titleEffectiveness of Small-Bore Pigtail Catheters for Management of Spontaneous Pneumothoraxes : A Meta-Analysisen_US
dc.contributor.authorHuang, Mei-Chinen
dc.contributor.authorFang, Yueh-Yenen
dc.contributor.authorShen, Chih-Hsingen
dc.contributor.authorChen, Hui-Chuanen
dc.contributor.departmentNon-memberen
dc.author.detailsMei-Chin Huang, BSN, RN, Professional Experience: I have been working in Nursing for over 25 years. Head Nurse of Emergency Department Professional Experience: Head nurse 7 years RN 18years ER, SARS Education: Associate degree in Nursing, 1991—Fooyin Junior College RN-BSN, 2009—Fooyin University Author Summary: Title: Head Nurse of Emergency Department Professional Experience: Head nurse 7 years RN 18years ER, SARS Education: Associate degree in Nursing, 1991—Fooyin Junior College RN-BSN, 2009—Fooyin Universityen
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10755/621717-
dc.description.abstract<p><strong>Purpose:</strong></p> <p>Spontaneous pneumothorax (SP) can be a life-threatening condition. It can be primary and caused by unknown reason, or secondary from acute or chronic lung diseases. It was estimated that the SP affected over 20,000 patients and accounted $130 million health-care costs in the United States. The primary management of SP is to remove air from the pleural space. The recommendations of SP management differ across guidelines. Though the trend tends to suggest the use of less invasive small catheters, applying a large chest tube is still common. To validate drainage methods for SP, we compared the effectiveness of a small-bore pigtail catheter with the traditional chest tube in the management of SP.</p> <p><strong>Methods:</strong></p> <p>A search of studies comparing the effect of a small-bore pigtail catheter and a traditional chest tube for SP management was conducted using three Chinese databases (CEPS, the Chinese Thesis/Dissertation database, and the Chinese Journal database) and four English databases (CINAHL, Medline, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials). The search was up to April, 2016. Evaluations of study quality were conducted by the 2011 Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine-Levels of Evidence and the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias. Meta-analyses were performed by the random effect model. Pooled effects of drainage failure and length of hospitalization were calculated to present the effectiveness of tubing methods.</p> <p><strong>Results:</strong></p> <p>Eleven studies involving 783 subjects were identified from 110 citations. Among included studies, only three studies are randomized controlled trials. All studies were unclear or high in risks of random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and blinding of participants and personnel. No difference in the risk of drainage failure was found between the pigtail method and the chest tube method (OR=.67, 95%CI=.41-1.09, <em>p</em>=.10). Among the secondary SP subjects, the length of hospital stay did not differ between two methods as well (OR=-.3, 95% CI=-.68 - -.08, <em>p</em>=.12).</p> <p><strong>Conclusion:</strong></p> <p>Findings of this study support the use of small-bore pigtail catheters to manage SP. The application of small-bore pigtail catheters is suggested to promote patient compliance and comfort.</p>en
dc.subjectchest tubeen
dc.subjectpigtail catheteren
dc.subjectspontaneous pneumothoraxen
dc.date.available2017-07-07T19:03:44Z-
dc.date.issued2017-07-07-
dc.date.accessioned2017-07-07T19:03:44Z-
dc.conference.date2017en
dc.conference.name28th International Nursing Research Congressen
dc.conference.hostSigma Theta Tau Internationalen
dc.conference.locationDublin, Irelanden
dc.descriptionEvent Theme: Influencing Global Health Through the Advancement of Nursing Scholarshipen
All Items in this repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.