Prospective randomized comparison between redon catheters and chest tubes in drainage after cardiac surgery

Aim To compare in a prospective randomized study chest tube (CT) and redon drains (RD) for effectiveness, cost, pain and complications after heart surgery using cardiopulmonary bypass. Methods. Forty patients undergoing heart surgery were analyzed prospectively. Twenty patients had small RD with strong (-700 mmHg) vacuum and 20 others standard CT. All patients had patient controlled analgesia in the postoperative period and pain was noted. Residual pericardial effusion (RPE) was controlled and quantified at postoperative day 7 with transthoracic echocardiography. Drainage complications were noted and compared in both groups. Results. Surgical statistics were comparable in both groups. Two patients underwent reoperation in CT for clotting, and I in RD for active surgical bleeding. one patient had orifice infection in CT. Drainage volumes and times were comparable in both groups at removal (992 +/- 507 ml in RD, 1154 +/- 571 ml in CT, p=ns). Morphine consumption and pain estimation were comparable in both groups in the postoperative period and at drainage removal. Echographic control showed important RPE for 3 patients in both groups. System cost was higher in CT compared to RD (up to 7 times). Conclusion. RD are comparable to CT in terms of drainage, pain and complications. Nevertheless, they offer better handling and removal conditions and limited cost.