Ultrasound-guided Pigtail Catheter Versus Intercostal Tube Drainage of Non-traumatic Exudative Pleural Effusion
NCT ID: NCT06099054
Last Updated: 2023-10-25
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
NA
80 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2023-12-01
2028-05-25
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
To compare the performance of pigtail catheter to that of ICT in drainage of pleural effusion of medical aetiology regarding:
1. Various complications(mainly wound pain) that result from either therapeutic approach.
2. Success of complete drainage.
3. Compare the duration needed for complete drainage.
Secondary Aims:
To evaluate both techniques in terms of:
1. Degree of patient's mobility that either technique permits.
2. Percentage of patients that can be managed on outpatient settings by either approach
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Effectiveness of Intercostal Tube Drainage Vs Pigtail Catheter Drainage Vs Ultrasound-Guided Aspiration in Management of Massive Malignant Pleural Effusion
NCT06964321
Pigtail Catheter for Drainage of (Pneumothorax/Simple Effusion) is a Effective Procedure
NCT05641779
Medical Thoracoscopy in Treatment Outcomes of Empyema Management
NCT06132997
Pigtail or Chest Tube Placement After Uniportal Video-assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery
NCT06050551
Randomized Study Comparing Pleural Drainage by Videothoracoscopy to Medical Drainage in Infectious Pleural Effusion
NCT01994499
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Long standing undrained accumulated pleural fluid can lead to serious complications: like lung collapse leading to respiratory failure, fibrosis or scarring of the pleural membranes and underlying lung tissue, empyema, septic shock and even death in severe circumstance .
So we always seek to drain accumulated pleural fluid; Chest tubes connected to underwater seal have largely replaced open thoracotomy and rib resection in draining exudative pleural effusion and are now considered the standard method . However Intercostal tube drainage poses risks and hazards: large size of the tube that make it more painful more tissue destructive with more injury to intercostal arteries and nerves, the incisional insertion is also painful and results in more tissue dissection, moreover the tube is heavy as it need water seal to work so causing patient discomfort and increase liability of slippage.
Recently pigtail catheter has been employed to drain accumulated pleural fluid .pigtail catheter has many advantages: it has small caliber , which makes it less painful, less tissue destruction, less Injurious to intercostal nerves and vessels, Additionally it has a suction power with unidirectional valve which abolishes the need for underwater seal; thus avoiding the heavy weight of bottles and decreasing the risk of accidental slippage, inserted with trocar under ultrasonographic guidance decreasing liability of lung injury.
Previous studies compared pigtail versus chest tube in drainage of pleural effusion show .A total of 92 patients were included in the study, 57 (61.9%) patients in pigtail group and 35 (31.8%) in ICD group. Causes of pleural effusion included were pneumonia, malignancy,TB. the study had revealed that pigtail catheter had higher success rate less painful with no significant difference at mean duration of drainage..At other study data collected retrospectively from 60 patient aged more than 18 year 30 patients had an intercostal chest tube and 30 patients had pigtail catheters found that no statistically significant difference between pigtail and ICT at success rate and duration of drainage but pigtail found less painful with less incidence of complication regarding pneumothorax and catheter kinking and slippage .
However these studies have some limations first study was observational study not randomised, second study was retrospective with small sample size. Both studies have no clear definitions of outcomes , not focus on complications mainly wound pain as primary outcome and didn't answer the question of recurrence or drainage failure of pleural effusion after pigtail catheter drainage.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
Group I (Intervention group): in which pleural effusion will be drained using pigtail catheter under US guidance.
Group II (Control group): in which pleural effusion will be drained using ICT
TREATMENT
NONE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
pigtail group
composed of 40 patients in which pleural effusion will be drained using pigtail catheter under US guidance
Pigtail catheter
Pigtail catheter will be inserted using Seldinger technique under US guidance to drainage exudative pleural effusion by a trained radiologist
ICT group
composed of 40 patients in which pleural effusion will be drained using ICT
Intercostal tube
Chest tube will be inserted according to BTS guideline for insertion of ICT by a trained thoracic surgeon
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Pigtail catheter
Pigtail catheter will be inserted using Seldinger technique under US guidance to drainage exudative pleural effusion by a trained radiologist
Intercostal tube
Chest tube will be inserted according to BTS guideline for insertion of ICT by a trained thoracic surgeon
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
2. Non-traumatic non-iatrogenic exudative pleural effusion necessitating drainage.
3. Loculated pleural effusion where positive colour doppler sign is preserved
Exclusion Criteria
2. Transudative pleural effusion (subjected to treatment of the underlying cause and diuretic therapy).
3. Exudative pleural effusion amenable for medical treatment
4. Large-volume, easily accessible, free non-loculated empyema.
5. Pleural infections with loculated pleural effusion but showing negative colour doppler sign.
6. Malignant pleural effusion with potentially inexpnasible underlying lung (thick pleural peel, central airway obstruction), life expectancy \< 1 month or asymptomatic.
7. Patients with uncorrected bleeding tendency (INR \> 1.5, Platelet count \< 50.000/mm3).
8. Inability or refusal to sign written consent.
18 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Assiut University
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Hossam Hassan Sayed
Resident doctor
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Hossam El-din Galal, Prof.Dr
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Assiut Univeristy
Hamdy Mohammad Ibrahim, lecturer
Role: STUDY_DIRECTOR
Assiut Univeristy
Sara Mohammed Hashem, lecturer
Role: STUDY_DIRECTOR
Assiut Univeristy
Central Contacts
Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
SELDINGER SI. Catheter replacement of the needle in percutaneous arteriography; a new technique. Acta Radiol (Stockh). 1953 May;39(5):368-76. doi: 10.3109/00016925309136722. No abstract available.
Chubb SP, Williams RA. Biochemical Analysis of Pleural Fluid and Ascites. Clin Biochem Rev. 2018 May;39(2):39-50.
Karkhanis VS, Joshi JM. Pleural effusion: diagnosis, treatment, and management. Open Access Emerg Med. 2012 Jun 22;4:31-52. doi: 10.2147/OAEM.S29942. eCollection 2012.
Broaddus VC, Light RW. Pleural effusion. In:Broaddus VC, Ernst JD, King TE, et al, eds. Murray and Nadel's Textbook of Respiratory Medicine. 7th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2022:chapater108
Monaghan SF, Swan KG. Tube thoracostomy: the struggle to the "standard of care". Ann Thorac Surg. 2008 Dec;86(6):2019-22. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2008.08.006.
Munnell ER. Thoracic drainage. Ann Thorac Surg. 1997 May;63(5):1497-502. doi: 10.1016/s0003-4975(97)00082-9.
Liu YH, Lin YC, Liang SJ, Tu CY, Chen CH, Chen HJ, Chen W, Shih CM, Hsu WH. Ultrasound-guided pigtail catheters for drainage of various pleural diseases. Am J Emerg Med. 2010 Oct;28(8):915-21. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2009.04.041. Epub 2010 Feb 25.
Gammie JS, Banks MC, Fuhrman CR, Pham SM, Griffith BP, Keenan RJ, Luketich JD. The pigtail catheter for pleural drainage: a less invasive alternative to tube thoracostomy. JSLS. 1999 Jan-Mar;3(1):57-61.
Khare R*, Anand K, Agrawal P, Yadav A. Comparative analysis of pigtail catheter versus intercostal tube drainage for pleural effusion: a tertiary centre study. Khare R et al. Int Surg J. 2023 Jan;10(1):105-109
Mathis G. Pleura. In: Mathis G, ed. Chest sonography. 3rd ed. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 2011;30-32
Yang PC, Luh KT, Chang DB, Wu HD, Yu CJ, Kuo SH. Value of sonography in determining the nature of pleural effusion: analysis of 320 cases. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1992 Jul;159(1):29-33. doi: 10.2214/ajr.159.1.1609716.
Reuß J., "Sonographic imaging of the pleura: Nearly 30 years experience," European Journal of Ultrasound, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 125-139, 1996.
Laws D, Neville E, Duffy J; Pleural Diseases Group, Standards of Care Committee, British Thoracic Society. BTS guidelines for the insertion of a chest drain. Thorax. 2003 May;58 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):ii53-9. doi: 10.1136/thorax.58.suppl_2.ii53. No abstract available.
Fox V, Gould D, Davies N, Owen S. Patients' experiences of having an underwater seal chest drain: a replication study. J Clin Nurs. 1999 Nov;8(6):684-92. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2702.1999.00307.x.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
Pigtail versus ICT
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.