Advertisement

Primary External Ventricular Drainage Catheter Versus Intraparenchymal ICP Monitoring: Outcome Analysis

  • James William BalesEmail author
  • Robert H. Bonow
  • Robert T. Buckley
  • Jason Barber
  • Nancy Temkin
  • Randall M. Chesnut
Original Work
  • 222 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring is central to the care of severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). External ventricular drains (EVD) allow ICP control via cerebrospinal fluid drainage, whereas intraparenchymal monitors (IPM) for ICP do not, but it is unclear whether EVD placement improves outcomes. To evaluate whether there exists a difference in patient outcomes with the use of EVD versus IPM in severe TBI patients, we conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the Citicoline Brain Injury Treatment trial.

Methods

Adults with Glasgow Coma Score < 9 who had either an EVD or IPM placed within 6 h of study center arrival were included. We compared patients with EVD placement to those without on Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOS-E) and neuropsychological performance at 180 days, mortality, and intensive care unit length of stay. We used regression models with propensity score weighting for probability of EVD placement to test for association between EVD use and outcomes. Of 224 patients included, 45% received an EVD.

Results

EVD patients had lower GOS-E at 180 days [3.8 ± 2.2 vs 4.9 ± 2.2, p = 0.002; weighted difference − 0.97, 95% CI (− 1.58, − 0.37)], higher in-hospital mortality [23% vs 10%, p = 0.014; weighted OR 2.46, 95% CI (1.20, 5.05)], and did significantly worse on all 8 neuropsychological measures. Additional sensitivity analysis was performed to minimize confounding effects supported our initial results.

Conclusions

Our retrospective data analysis suggests that early placement of EVDs in severe TBI is associated with worse functional and neuropsychological outcomes and higher mortality than IPMs and future prospective trials are needed to determine whether these results represent an important consideration for clinicians.

Keywords

External ventricular drain Mortality Outcomes Traumatic brain injury 

Notes

Author contributions

WB, RB, RB, JB, NT, RC—Manuscript preparation and data analysis.

Source of Support

None.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval/Informed Consent

All research contained here in was approved by an institutional review board as meeting the standards for retrospective data collection and analysis.

Supplementary material

12028_2019_712_MOESM1_ESM.docx (28 kb)
Supplemental figure 1. Demographics and injury characteristics for those patients analyzed by site as presented in Table 4 (DOCX 28 kb)
12028_2019_712_MOESM2_ESM.docx (19 kb)
Supplemental figure 2. Alternate samples. This table shows analysis done to examine the effect of limiting our consideration for EVD placement to less than 3 hrs or considering all patients to have ever received an EVD. Here, we demonstrate that there is no difference in outcomes if we change our inclusion criteria for timing of EVD placement. (DOCX 19 kb)
12028_2019_712_MOESM3_ESM.docx (16 kb)
Supplemental figure 3. As additional sensitivity analyses, we evaluated the effect of the instrumental variable percent of participants in the individual’s hospital who received and EVD on 6-month GOSE and got results comparable to that of the propensity weighted analysis. (DOCX 15 kb)
12028_2019_712_MOESM4_ESM.docx (21 kb)
Supplemental figure 4. Demonstration of a stepwise regression rather than propensity weighting to adjust for measured potential confounders, with significantly better outcome in the No EVD group for all outcomes. (DOCX 21 kb)
12028_2019_712_MOESM5_ESM.docx (23 kb)
Supplemental figures 5. Brief evaluation of average and high ICP values within the first five days after admission demonstrating no significant difference in ICP values. In addition whether CSF drainage was performed within the first day after admission has been examined. Data demonstrates that the majority of patients with an EVD placed had CSF drainage but it is unclear for what reason and if this drainage was continuous or intermittent. Further studies will need to delineate this information more completely. (DOCX 22 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Taylor CA, Bell JM, Breiding MJ, Xu L. Traumatic brain injury-related emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and deaths—United States, 2007 and 2013. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2017;66(9):1–16.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dams-OʼConnor K, Mellick D, Dreer LE, et al. Rehospitalization over 10 years among survivors of TBI: a national institute on disability, independent living, and rehabilitation research traumatic brain injury model systems study. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2017;32(3):147–57.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nguyen R, Fiest KM, McChesney J, et al. The international incidence of traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Neurol Sci. 2016;43(6):774–85.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Piccinini A, Lewis M, Benjamin E, Aiolfi A, Inaba K, Demetriades D. Intracranial pressure monitoring in severe traumatic brain injuries: a closer look at level 1 trauma centers in the United States. Injury. 2017;48(9):1944–50.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aiolfi A, Khor D, Cho J, Benjamin E, Inaba K, Demetriades D. Intracranial pressure monitoring in severe blunt head trauma: does the type of monitoring device matter? J Neurosurg. 2018;128(3):828–33.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kasotakis G, Michailidou M, Bramos A, et al. Intraparenchymal vs extracranial ventricular drain intracranial pressure monitors in traumatic brain injury: less is more? J Am Coll Surg. 2012;214(6):950–7.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liu H, Wang W, Cheng F, Yuan Q, Yang J, Hu J, Ren G. External ventricular drains versus intraparenchymal intracranial pressure monitors in traumatic brain injury: a prospective observational study. World Neurosurg. 2015;83(5):794–800.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Volovici V, Huijben JA, Ercole A, et al. Ventricular drainage catheters versus intracranial parenchymal catheters for intracranial pressure monitoring-based management of traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neurotrauma. 2019;36(7):988–95.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carney N, Totten AM, O’Reilly C, et al. Guidelines for the management of severe traumatic brain injury. Neurosurgery. 2017;80(1):6–15.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zafonte RD, Bagiella E, Ansel BM, et al. Effect of citicoline on functional and cognitive status among patients with traumatic brain injury: citicoline brain injury treatment trial (COBRIT). JAMA. 2012;308(19):1993–2000.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70:41–55.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Seaman SR, White IR. Review of inverse probability weighting for dealing with missing data. Stat Methods Med Res. 2013;22:278–95.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hernan MA, Robins JM. Estimating causal effects from epidemiological data. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60:578–86.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Holm S. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stat. 1979;6:65–70.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brookhart MA, Schneeweiss S. Preference-based instrumental variable methods for the estimation of treatment effects: assessing validity and interpreting results. Int J Biostat. 2007;3(1):14.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Agoritsas T, Merglen A, Shah ND, O’Donnell M, Guyatt GH. Adjusted analyses in studies addressing therapy and harm: users’ guides to the medical literature. JAMA. 2017;317(7):748–59.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cnossen MC, van Essen TA, Ceyisakar IE, et al. Adjusting for confounding by indication in observational studies: a case study in traumatic brain injury. Clin Epidemiol. 2018;18(10):841–52.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Murray GD, Butcher I, McHugh GS, et al. Multivariable prognostic analysis in traumatic brain injury: results from the IMPACT study. J Neurotrauma. 2007;24(2):329–37.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    MRC CRASH Trial Collaborators, Perel P, Arango M, Clayton T, et al. Predicting outcome after traumatic brain injury: practical prognostic models based on large cohort of international patients. BMJ. 2008;336(7641):425–9.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Xie Q, Wu H-B, Yan Y-F, Liu M, Wang E-S. Mortality and outcome comparison between brain tissue oxygen combined with intracranial pressure/cerebral perfusion pressure-guided therapy and intracranial pressure/cerebral perfusion pressure-guided therapy in traumatic brain injury: a meta-analysis. World Neurosurg. 2017;100:118–27.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Petkus V, Preiksaitis A, Krakauskaite S, et al. Benefit on optimal cerebral perfusion pressure targeted treatment for traumatic brain injury patients. J Crit Care. 2017;41:49–55.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chesnut RM, Temkin N, Carney N, et al. A trial of intracranial-pressure monitoring in traumatic brain injury. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(26):2471–81.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bennett TD, DeWitt PE, Greene TH, et al. Functional outcome after intracranial pressure monitoring for children with severe traumatic brain injury. JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171(10):965–71.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cremer OL, van Dijk GW, van Wensen E, et al. Effect of intracranial pressure monitoring and targeted intensive care on functional outcome after severe head injury. Crit Care Med. 2005;33(10):2207–13.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Farahvar A, Gerber LM, Chiu Y-L, Carney N, Härtl R, Ghajar J. Increased mortality in patients with severe traumatic brain injury treated without intracranial pressure monitoring. J Neurosurg. 2012;117(4):729–34.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Brain Trauma Foundation. American association of neurological surgeons, congress of neurological surgeons. Guidelines for the management of severe traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma. 2007;24(Suppl 1):S1–106.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Khan SH, Kureshi IU, Mulgrew T, Ho SY, Onyiuke HC. Comparison of percutaneous ventriculostomies and intraparenchymal monitor: a retrospective evaluation of 156 patients. Acta Neurochir Suppl. 1998;71:50–2.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tsioutis C, Karageorgos SA, Stratakou S, et al. Clinical characteristics, microbiology and outcomes of external ventricular drainage-associated infections: the importance of active treatment. J Clin Neurosci. 2017;42:54–8.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nwachuku EL, Puccio AM, Fetzick A, et al. Intermittent versus continuous cerebrospinal fluid drainage management in adult severe traumatic brain injury: assessment of intracranial pressure burden. Neurocrit Care. 2014;20(1):49–53.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    D’Agostino RB. Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Stat Med. 1998;17(19):2265–81.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and Neurocritical Care Society 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Neurological SurgeryUniversity of Washington, Harborview Medical CenterSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations