ObjectiveTo compare the clinical efficacy between central venous catheter drainage and conventional closed thoracic drainage for the treatment of patients with malignant pleural effusion and their effects on prognosis. MethodsA total of 74 patients with malignant pleural effusion were selected and assigned to control group (37 cases) or observation group (37 cases) in accordance with the random number table method. The control group received conventional closed thoracic drainage of pleural effusion, whereas the observation group received central venous catheter drainage of pleural effusion. Clinical efficacy, operation indicators such as pain, anxiety and depression, and prognosis were compared between the two groups. ResultsCompared to the control group, the observation group yielded a superior clinical efficacy, shorter durations for dyspnea disappearance, extubation and wound healing, and lower scores of the postoperative VAS, the scores of the self-rating anxiety scale (SAS) and the self-rating depression scale (SDS) (all P＜0.05). The observation group obtained significantly higher one-year overall survival rate (75.68% vs. 59.46%), median survival time (11.10 months vs. 9.20 months), and a higher one-year progression-free survival rate (51.35% vs. 35.14%) in comparison with the control group (all P＜0.05). The incidence rate of complications was significantly lower in the observation group than in the control group (2.7% vs. 21.62%, P＜0.05). ConclusionThe efficacy of central venous catheter drainage is superior to conventional closed thoracic drainage in treating malignant pleural effusion, which is conducive to prolonging survival time in patients.

无