Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2019 Jul;26(3):166-171.
doi: 10.1097/LBR.0000000000000556.

Safety and Tolerability of Vacuum Versus Manual Drainage During Thoracentesis: A Randomized Trial

Michal Senitko  1   2 , Amrik S Ray  2 , Terrence E Murphy  3 , Katy L B Araujo  3 , Kyle Bramley  2 , Erin M DeBiasi  2 , Margaret A Pisani  2 , Kelsey Cameron  2 , Jonathan T Puchalski  2
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Safety and Tolerability of Vacuum Versus Manual Drainage During Thoracentesis: A Randomized Trial

Michal Senitko et al. J Bronchology Interv Pulmonol. 2019 Jul.

Abstract

Background: Pleural effusions may be aspirated manually or via vacuum during thoracentesis. This study compares the safety, pain level, and time involved in these techniques.

Methods: We randomized 100 patients receiving ultrasound-guided unilateral thoracentesis in an academic medical center from December 2015 through September 2017 to either vacuum or manual drainage. Without using pleural manometry, the effusion was drained completely or until the development of refractory symptoms. Measurements included self-reported pain before and during the procedure (from 0 to 10), time for completion of drainage, and volume removed. Primary outcomes were rates of all-cause complications and of early termination of the procedure with secondary outcomes of change in pain score, drainage time, volume removed, and inverse rate of removal.

Results: Patient characteristics in the manual (n=49) and vacuum (n=51) groups were similar. Rate of all-cause complications was higher in the vacuum group (5 vs. 0; P=0.03): pneumothorax (n=3), surgically treated hemothorax with subsequent death (n=1) and reexpansion pulmonary edema causing respiratory failure (n=1), as was rate of early termination (8 vs. 1; P=0.018). The vacuum group exhibited greater pain during drainage (P<0.05), shorter drainage time (P<0.01), no association with volume removed (P>0.05), and lower inverse rate of removal (P≤0.01).

Conclusion: Despite requiring less time, vacuum aspiration during thoracentesis was associated with higher rates of complication and of early termination of the procedure and greater pain. Although larger studies are needed, this pilot study suggests that manual aspiration provides greater safety and patient comfort.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: No conflicts exist for all the authors.

Figures

Figure 1:
Figure 1:. Consort Diagram
Randomization of the 100 patients into the manual (n=49) and vacuum (n=51) aspiration groups and their respective average values with standard deviation (SD) of change in pain score and drainage time in seconds.
Figure 2:
Figure 2:. Rates of All-Cause Complications and Early Termination of Procedure by Aspiration Method
The comparison of the primary outcomes in the manual (n=49) and vacuum (n=51) aspiration groups with breakdown of all-cause complication in the vacuum group. The rate of all-cause complications was higher in the vacuum group (5 vs 0, p=0.03*) as was rate of early termination (8 vs 1, p = 0.018*). * Fisher’s exact test was used to compare event types by aspiration method.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Light RW. Pleural Disease. 5th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2007.
    1. Puchalski JT, Argento AC, Murphy TE, Araujo KL, Pisani MA. The safety of thoracentesis in patients with uncorrected bleeding risk. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2013. August;10(4):336–41. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Jones PW, Moyers JP, Rogers JT, Rodriguez RM, Lee YC, Light RW. Ultrasound-guided thoracentesis: is it a safer method? Chest 2003. February; 123(2):418–423. - PubMed
    1. Havelock T, Teoh R, Laws D, Gleeson F; BTS Pleural Disease Guideline Group. Pleural procedures and thoracic ultrasound: British Thoracic Society Pleural Disease Guideline 2010 Thorax 2010. August;65(Suppl 2): ii61–76 - PubMed
    1. Seneff MG, Corwin RW, Gold LH, et al. Complications associated with thoracocentesis. Chest 1986. July; 90(1):97–100 - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms