Pandit Anand S, Palasz Joanna, Harris Lauren, Nachev Parashkev, Toma Ahmed K
Victor Horsley Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London WC1N 3BG, UK.
High-Dimensional Neurology, Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London WC1N 3BG, UK.
NeuroSci. 2024 Oct 8;5(4):396-406. doi: 10.3390/neurosci5040030. eCollection 2024 Dec.
The optimal management of CSF drainage in acute hydrocephalus, in particular when to initiate drain weaning, remains uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of timing and method of drain weaning on patient outcomes.
This prospective observational study in a large-volume tertiary neuroscience centre included all adult patients who required temporary CSF drainage for acute hydrocephalus of any cause between January 2020 and March 2021. Contemporaneous data collection was conducted, including patient demographics, time to clamp, weaning methods, and clinical outcomes of hospital length of stay (LOS), rate of shunt insertion, drain-related infections, and mechanical complications. Univariate and multivariate statistical analyses were performed to identify the independent associations of timing-related factors.
A total of 69 patients were included (mean age = 59.4 years). A total of 59% had CSF diversion for aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage, and 88% had EVD drainage. The length of drainage prior to the first clamp was significantly associated with the overall length of drainage ( < 0.0001), LOS ( = 0.004), and time to shunt ( = 0.02) following multivariate adjustment. For each day delayed in initiating the drain challenge, the overall LOS increased by an additional 1.25 days. There was no association between the weaning method and LOS, the rate of shunting, or CNS infection; however, those in the gradually weaned group had more mechanical complications, such as drain blockage or CSF leakage, than those rapidly weaned ( = 0.03) after adjustment.
This study recommends challenging the drain early via a rapid wean to reduce LOS, mechanical complications, and possibly infections. The consequences of temporary CSF diversion have significant implications at financial and patient levels, but the quality of evidence regarding weaning remains poor. Further randomised multicentre studies and national databases of practice are required to allow definitive conclusions to be drawn.
急性脑积水患者脑脊液引流的最佳管理方式,尤其是何时开始进行引流管撤减,仍不明确。本研究旨在评估引流管撤减的时机和方法对患者预后的影响。
这项在一家大型三级神经科学中心开展的前瞻性观察性研究纳入了2020年1月至2021年3月期间因任何原因导致急性脑积水而需要临时脑脊液引流的所有成年患者。进行了同期数据收集,包括患者人口统计学信息、夹闭时间、撤减方法以及住院时间(LOS)、分流管置入率、引流管相关感染和机械性并发症等临床结局。进行单因素和多因素统计分析以确定与时机相关因素的独立关联。
共纳入69例患者(平均年龄=59.4岁)。共有59%的患者因动脉瘤性蛛网膜下腔出血进行脑脊液分流,88%的患者采用外置脑室引流(EVD)。在多因素调整后,首次夹闭前的引流时间与总引流时间(<0.0001)、住院时间(=0.004)和分流时间(=0.02)显著相关。每延迟一天开始进行引流挑战,总住院时间就会额外增加1.25天。撤减方法与住院时间、分流率或中枢神经系统感染之间无关联;然而,在调整后,逐渐撤减组的患者比快速撤减组有更多的机械性并发症,如引流管堵塞或脑脊液漏(=0.03)。
本研究建议通过快速撤减尽早对引流管进行挑战,以缩短住院时间、减少机械性并发症并可能降低感染风险。临时脑脊液分流的后果在经济和患者层面都有重大影响,但关于撤减的证据质量仍然很差。需要进一步开展随机多中心研究和全国性实践数据库,以便得出明确结论。