4.5 Article

Bilateral External Ventricular Drains Increase Ventriculostomy-Associated Cerebrospinal Fluid Infection in Low Modified Graeb Score Intraventricular Hemorrhage

期刊

WORLD NEUROSURGERY
卷 116, 期 -, 页码 E550-E555

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.05.030

关键词

External ventricular drain; Intraventricular hemorrhage; Ventriculostomy-associated cerebrospinal fluid infection

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Ventriculostomy-associated cerebrospinal fluid infection (VAI) is a major complication limiting the use of an external ventricular drain (EVD) in treating patients with intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH). Risk factors of VAI are still under wide discussion. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 84 patients with IVH who underwent EVD at our center between January 2012 and January 2017. Preoperative clinical parameters, surgeon status, number of catheters and catheter-days, subgaleal tunneling distance, frequency of urokinase flush, and prophylactic antibiotics were compared between the infective and noninfective groups. RESULTS: The overall rate of VAI was 31.0%. Univariate analysis showed a higher modified Graeb Score (mGS), higher proportion of bilateral catheters, and longer hospital stay in patients with VAI. Binary logistic analysis of all clinical factors identified high mGS (>= 16) as an independent risk factor for VAI (odds ratio, 3.242; P = 0.026). Among operative and postoperative factors, the use of bilateral catheters significantly contributed to VAI (odds ratio, 4.211; P = 0.031), but a subgroup comparison showed an increased VAI rate only in the low mGS group (mGS < 15). No VAI occurred in patients with a single EVD in the low mGS group. Catheter-days and multiple urokinase flushes were not related to VAI. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a high mGS are vulnerable to VAI. Bilateral EVD may be an appropriate treatment option for patients with a high mGS, but might increase the risk of infection in those with a low mGS.

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

4.5
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