Suction pressures generated during thoracentesis using wall suction-based automated drainage: an in vitro and in vivo analysis
Abstract
Equipoise exists regarding the optimal method to drain pleural fluid during thoracentesis. While several institutions use wall-based automated suction, others point to the risk of excessively high suction pressures and therefore elevated barotrauma risk as a reason to avoid it. We first performed in vitro experiments involving drainage of a 1-liter saline bag using standard thoracentesis apparatus, a digital manometer, and either manual drainage (using a 60 mL syringe) or automated drainage (using wall suction at the maximum setting). The proceduralist was blinded to measurements during manual aspiration. Separately, in a clinical setting involving consecutive hospitalized adults undergoing thoracentesis, dynamic suction pressures were similarly measured during automated drainage. Total aspirated volume, time-to-evacuation, patient discomfort, and complications were also recorded. In vitro experiments showed that compared to manual aspiration, automated drainage using wall suction resulted in shorter average time-to-evacuation (230 sec vs. 365 sec), lower suction pressures (average maximum: -361±4.5 cmH2O vs. -496±5.1 cmH2O, p<0.0001), and less pressure variation (95% of values within a 20 cmH2Orange vs. swings between 0 and -500 cmH2O). Twenty hospitalized adults undergoing thoracentesis via automated drainage (mean aspirated volume: 1649.5±685.5 mL) experienced similar suction pressures to those measured in in vitro experiments using automated drainage (average maximum: -350±59.2 cmH2O) and limited pressure variations (mean interquartile range: 19.3 cmH2O). There were no complications, including pneumothorax, hemothorax, or re-expansion pulmonary edema. Thoracentesis using automated wall suction does not generate excessively high suction pressures and reduces pressure swings. It appears safe and effective and may reduce the time-to-evacuation of a pleural effusion.
Ethics Approval
This study protocol was reviewed and approved by the institutional review board (2021P002968).
References
- Light RW. Pleural diseases. Dis Mon 1992;38:266-331. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0011-5029(92)90007-C
- Puchalski JT, Argento AC, Murphy TE, et al. The safety of thoracentesis in patients with uncorrected bleeding risk. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2013;10:336-41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.201210-088OC
- Senitko M, Ray AS, Murphy TE, et al. Safety and tolerability of vacuum versus manual drainage during thoracentesis: a randomized trial. J Bronchology Interv Pulmonol 2019;26:166-71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/LBR.0000000000000556
- Kim H, Shyn PB, Wu L, et al. Wall suction-assisted image-guided thoracentesis: a safe alternative to evacuated bottles. Clin Radiol 2017;72:898.e1-e5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2017.05.001
- Kelil T, Shyn PB, Wu LE, et al. Wall suction-assisted image-guided therapeutic paracentesis: a safe and less expensive alternative to evacuated bottles. Abdom Radiol 2016;41:1333-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0634-x
- Heidecker J, Huggins JT, Sahn SA, Doelken P. Pathophysiology of pneumothorax following ultrasound-guided thoracentesis. Chest 2006;130:1173-84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0012-3692(15)51155-0
- Sagar AES, Landaeta MF, Adrianza AM, et al. Complications following symptom-limited thoracentesis using suction. Eur Respir J 2020;56:1902356. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.02356-2019
- Alraiyes AH, Kheir F, Harris K, Gildea TR. How much negative pressure are we generating during thoracentesis? Ochsner J. Summer 2017;17:138-40.
- Gattinoni L, Caironi P, Cressoni M, et al. Lung recruitment in patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med 2006;354:1775-86. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa052052
- Cipulli F, Vasques F, Duscio E, et al. Atelectrauma or volutrauma: the dilemma. J Thorac Dis Mar 2018;10:1258-64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2018.02.71
Metrics
Citations and online attention from Dimensions, Altmetric and PlumX.
License
Copyright (c) 2025 The Author(s)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.