Clinical Trials Logo

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Completed

Administrative data

NCT number NCT03496987
Other study ID # 1511016858
Secondary ID P30AG021342
Status Completed
Phase N/A
First received
Last updated
Start date December 1, 2015
Est. completion date March 1, 2018

Study information

Verified date July 2023
Source Yale University
Contact n/a
Is FDA regulated No
Health authority
Study type Interventional

Clinical Trial Summary

The purpose of this study is to determine if there are any differences in terms of safety, pain, or drainage speed between thoracenteses via manual drainage vs vacuum suction.


Description:

Patients with pleural effusions routinely undergo thoracentesis in which a catheter is placed into the pleural space to remove the fluid both for diagnostic and therapeutic reasons. In this setting, large amounts (often liters) of fluid are removed to palliate the patient's symptoms of breathlessness. Thoracentesis is the most commonly performed and least invasive method to remove pleural fluid. These frequently performed using a catheter drainage system where a small, flexible temporary catheter is inserted over a needle into the pleural cavity. After insertion of catheter into the pleural space, the operator has two drainage system options: 1. Manual drainage via syringe-pump that connects to drainage bag or 2. Drainage into a vacuum bottle. Both are routinely performed in almost every hospital in the United States. Pleural pressure (Ppl) is determined by the elastic recoil properties of the lung and chest wall. Normal pleural pressure is estimated to be -3 to -5 cm H20 at functional residual capacity. During drainage of pleural fluid, negative pressure is applied either via syringe during manual drainage or via vacuum using vacuum drainage bottle. Hypothetically more negative pressure can translate to increased perception of pain or visceral pleural injury. Two techniques (manual vs vacuum drainage) are used based on the operator preference and both are standard of care. To our knowledge there is no head to head comparison of these two available systems of drainages during thoracentesis of pleural effusions. Knowing if one is superior to the other will aid future clinicians.


Recruitment information / eligibility

Status Completed
Enrollment 100
Est. completion date March 1, 2018
Est. primary completion date September 30, 2017
Accepts healthy volunteers No
Gender All
Age group 18 Years to 99 Years
Eligibility Inclusion Criteria: - Patients undergoing unilateral therapeutic thoracentesis Exclusion Criteria: - Patients with a history of prior significant pleural or lung based procedures/surgeries (not a simple thoracentesis) - Prior enrollment in this study - Patients ability to comprehend and consent to this procedure and clearly communicate any pain or other symptoms that arise from this procedure

Study Design


Related Conditions & MeSH terms


Intervention

Device:
Vacuum Bottle Drainage
Patients undergo drainage via vacuum bottles

Locations

Country Name City State
n/a

Sponsors (2)

Lead Sponsor Collaborator
Yale University National Institute on Aging (NIA)

References & Publications (15)

ALBERTSON HA, LEAVITT D, GAMBLE JR. A simple method for doing a thoracentesis using a plasma-collecting vacuum bottle. J Thorac Surg. 1954 Nov;28(5):544-5. No abstract available. — View Citation

Alraiyes AH, Kheir F, Harris K, Gildea TR. How Much Negative Pressure Are We Generating During Thoracentesis? Ochsner J. 2017 Summer;17(2):138-140. No abstract available. — View Citation

BEECH RD. Practical system for thoracentesis using the blood donor set. J Am Med Assoc. 1951 Aug 25;146(17):1597. doi: 10.1001/jama.1951.63670170006011d. No abstract available. — View Citation

Feller-Kopman D, Walkey A, Berkowitz D, Ernst A. The relationship of pleural pressure to symptom development during therapeutic thoracentesis. Chest. 2006 Jun;129(6):1556-60. doi: 10.1378/chest.129.6.1556. — View Citation

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 Aug;65 Suppl 2:ii61-76. doi: 10.1136/thx.2010.137026. No abstract available. — View Citation

Heidecker J, Huggins JT, Sahn SA, Doelken P. Pathophysiology of pneumothorax following ultrasound-guided thoracentesis. Chest. 2006 Oct;130(4):1173-84. doi: 10.1378/chest.130.4.1173. — View Citation

Jones PW, Moyers JP, Rogers JT, Rodriguez RM, Lee YC, Light RW. Ultrasound-guided thoracentesis: is it a safer method? Chest. 2003 Feb;123(2):418-23. doi: 10.1378/chest.123.2.418. — View Citation

Josephson T, Nordenskjold CA, Larsson J, Rosenberg LU, Kaijser M. Amount drained at ultrasound-guided thoracentesis and risk of pneumothorax. Acta Radiol. 2009 Jan;50(1):42-7. doi: 10.1080/02841850802590460. — View Citation

Kelil T, Shyn PB, Wu LE, Levesque VM, Kacher D, Khorasani R, Silverman SG. Wall suction-assisted image-guided therapeutic paracentesis: a safe and less expensive alternative to evacuated bottles. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2016 Jul;41(7):1333-7. doi: 10.1007/s00261-016-0634-x. — View Citation

Petersen WG, Zimmerman R. Limited utility of chest radiograph after thoracentesis. Chest. 2000 Apr;117(4):1038-42. doi: 10.1378/chest.117.4.1038. — View Citation

Puchalski JT, Argento AC, Murphy TE, Araujo KL, Oliva IB, Rubinowitz AN, Pisani MA. Etiologies of bilateral pleural effusions. Respir Med. 2013 Feb;107(2):284-91. doi: 10.1016/j.rmed.2012.10.004. Epub 2012 Dec 7. — View Citation

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 Aug;10(4):336-41. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201210-088OC. — View Citation

Raptopoulos V, Davis LM, Lee G, Umali C, Lew R, Irwin RS. Factors affecting the development of pneumothorax associated with thoracentesis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1991 May;156(5):917-20. doi: 10.2214/ajr.156.5.2017951. — View Citation

Roth BJ, Cragun WH, Grathwohl KW. Complications associated with thoracentesis. Arch Intern Med. 1991 Oct;151(10):2095-6. doi: 10.1001/archinte.151.10.2095a. No abstract available. — View Citation

Seneff MG, Corwin RW, Gold LH, Irwin RS. Complications associated with thoracocentesis. Chest. 1986 Jul;90(1):97-100. doi: 10.1378/chest.90.1.97. — View Citation

* Note: There are 15 references in allClick here to view all references

Outcome

Type Measure Description Time frame Safety issue
Primary Pain Change Difference in pain between pre-procedural pain and during drainage pain as measured as the difference between a pre-procedural NPSS pain score (range from 0 (no pain) to 10 (maximum pain)). This was asked again during drainage and the difference between the two was recorded. The values ranged from -10 to 10 (with a more negative number representing a decrease in pain and a more positive number representing an increase in pain)
The scale used is called The Numeric Pain Rating Scale. With ratings from 0-10. Zero is the least amount of pain experienced while 10 is the worst pain possible.
5-20 minutes
Secondary Time of Drainage Actual time of drainage in seconds for each patient. 5-20 minutes
Secondary Number of Patients Who Had an Early Termination of Procedure Patients who had procedure termination prior to complete evacuation of the pleural contents (usually as a result of refractory pain or another symptom that the patient perceived). 5-20 minutes
Secondary Number of Patients Who Had a Complication as a Result of the Procedure Any complications that occur as a direct result of the procedure. We tracked patients for 7 days after the procedure to capture any complications (which is typical clinical practice) <7 days
Secondary Etiology of Effusion Clinical etiology of effusion <7 days
Secondary Volume of Effusion Volume of effusion drained (in mL) <20 minutes
Secondary Laterality of Effusion Laterality of effusion (left or right) <20 minutes
See also
  Status Clinical Trial Phase
Completed NCT04159831 - A Study to Evaluate LTI-01 in Patients With Infected, Non-draining Pleural Effusions Phase 2
Recruiting NCT02891642 - Liquid Biopsy With Immunomagnetic Beads Capture Technique for Malignant Cell Detection in Body Fluid
Completed NCT02232841 - Electrical Impedance Imaging of Patients on Mechanical Ventilation N/A
Completed NCT02045641 - Pleural and Pericardial Effusion Following Open Heart Surgery N/A
Completed NCT01948076 - Evaluation of a Pocket-Sized Ultrasound Device As an Aid to the Physical Examination N/A
Completed NCT01416519 - Physiotherapy Technique Decreases Respiratory Complications After Cardiac Operation N/A
Completed NCT01560078 - Efficacy Study of Thrice Weekly Directly Observed Treatment Short-Course Regimen in Tubercular Pleural Effusion N/A
Completed NCT04891705 - Point of Care Ultrasound Lung Artificial Intelligence (AI) Validation Data Collection Study
Recruiting NCT05759117 - Prospective Evaluation of Patients With Pleural Effusion
Recruiting NCT05910112 - Prospective Data Collection on Clinical, Radiological and Patient Reported Outcomes After Pleural Intervention
Completed NCT03896672 - Clinical Implementation of the Use of Positive Pressure in Chest Drainage N/A
Active, not recruiting NCT06075836 - AI Assisted Detection of Chest X-Rays
Recruiting NCT03728491 - Education and Training Competences in Thoracic Ultrasound N/A
Not yet recruiting NCT03260088 - Evaluation Of Pleural Effusion At Assiut University Hospital N/A
Completed NCT03535883 - The Safety of Thoracentesis, Tunneled Pleural Catheter, and Chest Tubes in Patients Taking Novel Oral Anti-Coagulants
Completed NCT03296280 - Evaluation of Implementation of a National Point-of-Care Ultrasound Training Program
Completed NCT03661801 - Novel Pleural Fluid, Biopsy and Serum Biomarkers for the Investigation of Pleural Effusions
Completed NCT01778270 - Not Invasive Monitoring of Pleural Drainage N/A
Terminated NCT00402896 - Malignant Pleural Effusion With ZD6474 Phase 2
Recruiting NCT00103766 - Alteplase for Treatment of Empyema and Complicated Parapneumonic Effusion N/A