Drainage Technique in CABG

Overview

aims to compare the efficacy of the posterior pericardial window versus retro-cardiac drain in preventing postoperative atrial fibrillation and pericardial complications following CABG, while assessing their impact on hospital and ICU stay, pericardial effusions, re exploration for bleeding, post-operative blood transfusions, and mortality.

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is a cornerstone in the management of advanced coronary artery disease, yet it carries a notable risk of postoperative complications. Among these, postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is particularly common, affecting up to 40% of patients and contributing to increased morbidity, prolonged ICU and hospital stays, and elevated healthcare costs. Pericardial effusion and tamponade are also frequent sequelae after CABG operation, often exacerbating the risk of POAF and necessitating re-intervention. Traditionally, retro-cardiac drains have been used to evacuate pericardial fluid, but their efficacy in preventing effusion-related complications is limited. The posterior pericardial window (PPW) technique has emerged as a promising alternative, offering improved drainage and reduced incidence of POAF, early and late pericardial effusion, and tamponade. Studies have shown that PPW may also shorten ICU and hospital stays, reduce pleural effusion, and lower the need for revision surgery due to bleeding. Despite encouraging data, randomized trials directly comparing PPW and retro-cardiac drains remain scarce. This study aims to fill that gap by evaluating the effectiveness of PPW versus retro-cardiac drain in preventing postoperative atrial fibrillation and pericardial complications following CABG, with secondary outcomes including pleural effusion, ICU/hospital stay duration, revision surgery, and mortality.

Conditions

Eligibility

Outcomes

Central Contacts