Capion Tenna, Lilja-Cyron Alexander, Olsen Markus Harboe, Møller Kirsten, Juhler Marianne, Mathiesen Tiit
Department of Neurosurgery, The Neuroscience Centre, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Department of Neuroanaesthesiology, The Neuroscience Centre, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2024 Jan 19;166(1):24. doi: 10.1007/s00701-024-05926-1.
No standard has been established regarding timing and choice of strategy for discontinuation of external ventricular drainage (EVD) in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage (aSAH), and little is known about the importance of clinical variables. A proportion of the patients who initially pass their discontinuation attempt return with delayed hydrocephalus and the need of a permanent shunt. Early differentiation between patients who need a shunt and those who do not would facilitate care. We conducted a retrospective analysis on patients with aSAH and an EVD to search significant differences in treatment and clinical variables between patients who received a permanent shunt during initial hospitalization or after readmission, and those who never received a shunt.
We included 183 patients with aSAH who received an EVD over a 4-year period between 2015 and 2018 and divided them into three groups: those who received a shunt during primary admission, those who were readmitted for delayed hydrocephalus and received a shunt, and those who never needed a shunt. Between these groups, we compared selected clinical variables as well as outcome at discharge and after 6 months. Additionally, we assessed the ability of a shunt dependency score (SDASH) to predict the need for permanent drainage in the patients.
Of 183 included patients, 108 (59%) ultimately received a ventriculoperitoneal (VP) shunt. Of these, 89 (82%) failed discontinuation during the primary admission and received a permanent shunt before discharge from the neurosurgical department. The remaining 19 (18%) were discharged after successful discontinuation, but subsequently developed delayed hydrocephalus and were admitted for shunt placement a median of 39 (range: 18-235) days after ictus. Ninety-four patients were discharged after successful discontinuation of the EVD, consisting of those who never developed the need for a permanent shunt and the 19 who were readmitted with delayed hydrocephalus, corresponding to a 20% (19/94) readmittance rate. Clinical variables such as drainage volume or discontinuation strategy did not differ across the three groups of patients. The SDASH score failed to provide any clinically useful information regarding prediction of shunt placement.
In this study, clinical variables including use of the predictive score SDASH predicted neither the overall need for nor the timing of shunt placement after aSAH. The homogeneous distribution of data between the three different groups renders strong independent clinical predictive factors unlikely. Thus, attempts to predict a permanent shunt requirement from these variables may be futile in these patients.
关于动脉瘤性蛛网膜下腔出血(aSAH)患者拔除脑室外引流(EVD)的时机和策略选择,尚未建立标准,且对临床变量的重要性知之甚少。一部分最初尝试拔除EVD成功的患者会因迟发性脑积水而再次入院并需要永久性分流。早期区分需要分流和不需要分流的患者将有助于治疗。我们对aSAH且行EVD的患者进行了一项回顾性分析,以寻找在初次住院期间或再次入院时接受永久性分流的患者与从未接受分流的患者在治疗和临床变量方面的显著差异。
我们纳入了2015年至2018年4年间接受EVD的183例aSAH患者,并将他们分为三组:初次入院时接受分流的患者、因迟发性脑积水再次入院并接受分流的患者以及从未需要分流的患者。在这些组之间,我们比较了选定的临床变量以及出院时和6个月后的结局。此外,我们评估了分流依赖评分(SDASH)预测患者永久性引流需求的能力。
在纳入的183例患者中,108例(59%)最终接受了脑室腹腔(VP)分流。其中,89例(82%)在初次入院时拔除EVD失败,并在神经外科出院前接受了永久性分流。其余19例(18%)在成功拔除EVD后出院,但随后出现迟发性脑积水,并在发病后中位39天(范围:18 - 235天)因分流置入再次入院。94例患者在成功拔除EVD后出院,包括那些从未产生永久性分流需求的患者和19例因迟发性脑积水再次入院的患者,对应20%(19/94)的再入院率。三组患者的引流体积或拔除策略等临床变量没有差异。SDASH评分未能提供任何关于预测分流置入的临床有用信息。
在本研究中,包括使用预测评分SDASH在内的临床变量既不能预测aSAH后分流置入的总体需求,也不能预测其时机。三个不同组之间数据的均匀分布使得不太可能存在强大的独立临床预测因素。因此,试图从这些变量预测永久性分流需求在这些患者中可能是徒劳的。