4.6 Article

Role of Fever in Ventriculoperitoneal Shunt Placement After Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage

期刊

NEUROSURGERY
卷 70, 期 6, 页码 1361-1368

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1227/NEU.0b013e318246b59d

关键词

Aneurysm; Central fever; Hydrocephalus; Outcome; Shunt; Subarachnoid hemorrhage; Ventriculoperitoneal

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Central fever is common after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) and may delay ventriculoperitoneal shunt (VPS) placement. OBJECTIVE: We hypothesize that drain-dependent aSAH patients with central fever or persistent fever after treatment of an identifiable cause are not at an increased risk of infectious VPS failure. METHODS: Patient demographics, radiographic characteristics, temperature, incidence of infection, and shunt failure were prospectively recorded in a consecutive cohort of aSAH patients. Central fever was defined as temperature higher than 38.3 degrees C with no identifiable cause. RESULTS: Of 580 patients, 61 (11%) were drain dependent. Central fever developed in 18, 35 had fever of known etiology, and 8 remained afebrile. There was no shunt failure at discharge, and 2 failures (3.2%) at follow-up were attributed to infection. One patient with central fever (6%), none with fever of identifiable etiology, and 1 (13%) with no fever had infectious shunt failures at a median follow-up of 10.2 +/- 3.6 months (P > .05). Nine patients with central fever (50%) and 6 (17%) who were treated for fever of known etiologies had persistent fever at shunt placement. Patients who were febrile on the day of surgery had similar infectious shunt failure rates at discharge compared with those who were afebrile (0% vs 0%; P = 1.0). Similarly, febrile and afebrile patients at VPS insertion had comparable rates of infectious shunt failure at follow-up (7% vs 2%; P = .43). CONCLUSION: aSAH patients with central fever or persistent fever after treatment of fever of identifiable etiology are not at an increased risk of infectious VPS failure.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据