Advertisement

Neurocritical Care

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 340–347 | Cite as

Characterizing the Response to Cerebrospinal Fluid Drainage in Patients with an External Ventricular Drain: The Pressure Equalization Ratio

  • Carlos Candanedo
  • Omer Doron
  • J. Claude HemphillIII
  • Fernando Ramirez de Noriega
  • Geoffrey T. Manley
  • Rani Patal
  • Guy RosenthalEmail author
Original Article
  • 210 Downloads

Abstract

Background

An external ventricular drain (EVD) is the gold standard for measurement of intracranial pressure (ICP) and allows for drainage of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). Different causes of elevated ICP, such as CSF outflow obstruction or cerebral swelling, respond differently to CSF drainage. This is a widely recognized but seldom quantified distinction. We sought to define an index to characterize the response to CSF drainage in neurocritical care patients.

Methods

We studied consecutive patients admitted to the neurointensive care unit who had an EVD. The EVD was closed for 30 min prior to assessment. We documented pre-drainage ICP, opened EVD to drainage allowing CSF to drain until it ceased, and recorded post-drainage ICP at EVD closure. We calculated the pressure equalization (PE) ratio as the difference between pre-drainage ICP and post-drainage ICP divided by the difference between pre-drainage ICP and EVD height.

Results

We studied 60 patients (36 traumatic brain injury [TBI], 24 non-TBI). As expected, TBI patients had more signs of cerebral swelling on CT and smaller ventricles. Although TBI patients had significantly higher pre-drainage ICP (26 ± 10 mm Hg) than non-TBI patients (19 ± 5 mm Hg, p < 0.001) they drained less CSF (7 cc vs. 4 cc, p < 0.01). PE ratio was substantially higher in non-TBI than in TBI patients (0.86 ± 0.36 vs. 0.43 ± 0.31, p < 0.0001), indicating that non-TBI patients were better able to equalize pressure with EVD height than TBI patients.

Conclusions

PE ratio reflects the ability to equalize pressure with the preset height of the EVD and differs substantially between TBI and non-TBI patients. A high PE ratio likely indicates CSF outflow obstruction effectively treated by CSF diversion, while a lower PE ratio occurs when cerebral swelling predominates. Further studies could assess whether the PE ratio would be useful as a surrogate marker for cerebral edema or the state of intracranial compliance.

Keywords

Pressure equalization ratio Intracranial pressure External ventricular drain Traumatic brain injury Intracranial compliance 

Notes

Author Contribution

CC contributes to acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, revising article; OD contributes to conception and design, acquisition of data, interpretation and analysis of data, derived equation for PE ratio, revising article and contributes equally to this manuscript; JCH contributes to interpretation of data, critically revising article; FR contributes to acquisition of data, analysis of data, revising article; GM contributes to interpretation of data, critically revising article; RP contributes to acquisition of data, critically revising article; GR contributes to conception and design, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting and revising article. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.

Source of support

No funding.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This study was approved by the Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center Institutional Review Board (IRB approval number 19384).

References

  1. 1.
    Guillaume J, Janny P. Continuous intracranial manometry; physiopathologic and clinical significance of the method. Presse Med. 1951;59(45):953–5.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Guillaume J, Janny P. Continuous intracranial manometry; importance of the method and first results. Rev Neurol (Paris). 1951;84(2):131–42.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lundberg N. Continuous recording and control of ventricular fluid pressure in neurosurgical practice. Acta Psychiatr Scand Suppl. 1960;36(149):1–193.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Miller JD, Butterworth JF, Gudeman SK, et al. Further experience in the management of severe head injury. J Neurosurg. 1981;54(3):289–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Valadka AB. Are external ventricular drains better than parenchymal intracranial pressure monitors in trauma patients? World Neurosurg. 2015;84(2):211–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Servadei F, Picetti E. Intracranial pressure monitoring and outcome in traumatic brain injury: the probe does matter? World Neurosurg. 2015;83(5):732–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stocchetti N, Maas AI. Traumatic intracranial hypertension. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(22):2121–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maas AI, Hukkelhoven CW, Marshall LF, Steyerberg EW. Prediction of outcome in traumatic brain injury with computed tomographic characteristics: a comparison between the computed tomographic classification and combinations of computed tomographic predictors. Neurosurgery. 2005;57(6):1173–82 discussion -82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fisher CM, Kistler JP, Davis JM. Relation of cerebral vasospasm to subarachnoid hemorrhage visualized by computerized tomographic scanning. Neurosurgery. 1980;6(1):1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hemphill JC 3rd, Bonovich DC, Besmertis L, Manley GT, Johnston SC. The ICH score: a simple, reliable grading scale for intracerebral hemorrhage. Stroke. 2001;32(4):891–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lai HY, Lee CH, Lee CY. The intracranial volume pressure response in increased intracranial pressure patients: clinical significance of the volume pressure indicator. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(10):e0164263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Marmarou A. A review of progress in understanding the pathophysiology and treatment of brain edema. Neurosurg Focus. 2007;22(5):E1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Marmarou A, Signoretti S, Fatouros PP, et al. Predominance of cellular edema in traumatic brain swelling in patients with severe head injuries. J Neurosurg. 2006;104(5):720–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hrabetova S, Nicholson C. Contribution of dead-space microdomains to tortuosity of brain extracellular space. Neurochem Int. 2004;45(4):467–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Matsuoka Y, Hossmann KA. Brain tissue osmolality after middle cerebral artery occlusion in cats. Exp Neurol. 1982;77(3):599–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hossmann KA. Cortical steady potential, impedance and excitability changes during and after total ischemia of cat brain. Exp Neurol. 1971;32(2):163–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hansen AJ, Olsen CE. Brain extracellular space during spreading depression and ischemia. Acta Physiol Scand. 1980;108(4):355–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Iliff JJ, Chen MJ, Plog BA, et al. Impairment of glymphatic pathway function promotes tau pathology after traumatic brain injury. J Neurosci. 2014;34(49):16180–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Abbott NJ. Evidence for bulk flow of brain interstitial fluid: significance for physiology and pathology. Neurochem Int. 2004;45(4):545–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brinker T, Stopa E, Morrison J, Klinge P. A new look at cerebrospinal fluid circulation. Fluids Barriers CNS. 2014;11:10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Spector R, Robert Snodgrass S, Johanson CE. A balanced view of the cerebrospinal fluid composition and functions: focus on adult humans. Exp Neurol. 2015;273:57–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sykova E, Nicholson C. Diffusion in brain extracellular space. Physiol Rev. 2008;88(4):1277–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Thrane AS, Rangroo Thrane V, Nedergaard M. Drowning stars: reassessing the role of astrocytes in brain edema. Trends Neurosci. 2014;37(11):620–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Marmarou A, Shulman K, Rosende RM. A nonlinear analysis of the cerebrospinal fluid system and intracranial pressure dynamics. J Neurosurg. 1978;48(3):332–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Czosnyka M, Czosnyka Z, Momjian S, Pickard JD. Cerebrospinal fluid dynamics. Physiol Meas. 2004;25(5):R51–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Balestreri M, Czosnyka M, Steiner LA, et al. Intracranial hypertension: what additional information can be derived from ICP waveform after head injury? Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2004;146(2):131–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and Neurocritical Care Society 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carlos Candanedo
    • 1
  • Omer Doron
    • 1
  • J. Claude HemphillIII
    • 2
  • Fernando Ramirez de Noriega
    • 1
  • Geoffrey T. Manley
    • 3
  • Rani Patal
    • 1
  • Guy Rosenthal
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of NeurosurgeryHadassah-Hebrew University Medical CenterJerusalemIsrael
  2. 2.Department of NeurologyUniversity of California, San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA
  3. 3.Department of NeurosurgeryUniversity of California, San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations