Digital chest drainage is better than traditional chest drainage following pulmonary surgery: a meta-analysis

Abstract

In this systematic review with meta-analysis, we sought to determine the current strength of evidence for or against digital and traditional chest drainage systems following pulmonary surgery with regards to hard clinical end points and cost-effectiveness. PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science were searched from their inception to 31 July 2017. The weighted mean difference (WMD) and the risk ratio were used for continuous and dichotomous outcomes, respectively, each with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The heterogeneity and risk of bias were also assessed. A total of 10 randomized controlled trials enrolling 1268 patients were included in this study. Overall, digital chest drainage reduced the duration of chest tube placement (WMD -0.72 days; 95% CI -1.03 to -0.40; P < 0.001), length of hospital stay (WMD -0.97 days; 95% CI -1.46 to -0.48; P < 0.001), air leak duration (WMD -0.95 days; 95% CI -1.51 to 0.39; P < 0.001), and postoperative cost (WMD -443.16 euros; 95% CI -747.60 to -138.73; P = 0.004). However, the effect differences between the 2 groups were not significant for the duration of a prolonged air leak and the percentage of patients discharged home on a device. The stability of these studies was strong. No publication bias was detected. It may be necessary to use a digital chest drainage system for patients who underwent pulmonary surgery to reduce the duration of chest tube placement, length of hospital stay and air leak duration.