Ventricular Drainage Catheters versus Intracranial Parenchymal Catheters for Intracranial Pressure Monitoring-Based Management of Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Abstract
Intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring is one of the mainstays in the treatment of severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), but different approaches to monitoring exist. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the effectiveness and complication rate of ventricular drainage (VD) versus intracranial parenchymal (IP) catheters to monitor and treat raised ICP in patients with TBI. Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Database were searched for articles comparing ICP monitoring-based management with VDs and monitoring with IP monitors through March 2018. Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed independently by two authors. Outcomes assessed were mortality, functional outcome, need for decompressive craniectomy, length of stay, overall complications, such as infections, and hemorrhage. Pooled effect estimates were calculated with random effects models and expressed as relative risk (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for ordinal outcomes, with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Six studies were included: one randomized controlled trial and five observational cohort studies. Three studies reported mortality, functional outcome, and the need for a surgical decompression, and three only reported complications. The quality of the studies was rated as poor, with critical or serious risk of bias. The pooled analysis did not show a statistically significant difference in mortality (RR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.60–1.36, p = 0.41) or functional outcome (MD = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.67–1.13, p = 0.61). The complication rate of VDs was higher (RR = 2.56, 95% CI = 1.17–5.61, p = 0.02), and consisted mainly of infectious complications; that is, meningitis. VDs caused more complications, particularly more infections, but there was no difference in mortality or functional outcome between the two monitoring modalities. However, the studies had a high risk of bias. A need exists for high quality comparisons of VDs versus IP monitor-based management strategies on patient outcomes.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1. Carney N., Totten A.M., O'Reilly C., Ullman J.S., Hawryluk G.W., Bell M.J., Bratton S.L., Chesnut R., Harris O.A., Kissoon N., Rubiano A.M., Shutter L., Tasker R.C., Vavilala M.S., Wilberger J., Wright D.W., and Ghajar J. (2017). Guidelines for the Management of Severe Traumatic Brain Injury, Fourth Edition. Neurosurgery 80, 6–15.
2. Guyot L.L., Dowling C., Diaz F.G., and Michael D.B. (1998). Cerebral monitoring devices: analysis of complications. Acta Neurochir. Suppl. 71, 47–49.
3. Ortolano F., Carbonara M., Stanco A., Civelli V., Carrabba G., Zoerle T., and Stocchetti N. (2017). External ventricular drain causes brain tissue damage: an imaging study. Acta Neurochir. 159, 1981–1989.
4. (2000). The Brain Trauma Foundation, The American Association of Neurological Surgeons, and The Joint Section on Neurotrauma and Critical Care. Recommendations for intracranial pressure monitoring technology. J. Neurotrauma 17, 497–506.
5. Volovici V., Lingsma H.F., Steyerberg E.W., Maas A.I.R., Synnot A.S., Dirven C.M.F., and Haitsma I.K. (2017). External ventricular drainage versus intraparenchymalfiberoptic catheters in severe traumatic brain injury: impact on mortality and six-month functional outcome. http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42017056526 (last accessed February 2, 2017).
6. Higgins J.P.T., Altman D.G., Gøtzsche P.C., Jüni P., Moher D., Oxman A.D., Savović J., Schulz K.F., Weeks L., and Sterne J.A.C. (2011). The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343, d5928.
7. Sterne J.A.C., Hernán M.A., Reeves B.C., Savović J., Berkman N.D., Viswanathan M., Henry D., Altman D.G., Ansari M.T., Boutron I., Carpenter J.R., Chan A.-W., Churchill R., Deeks J.J., Hróbjartsson A., Kirkham J., Jüni P., Loke Y.K., Pigott T.D., Ramsay C.R., Regidor D., Rothstein H.R., Sandhu L., Santaguida P.L., Schünemann H.J., Shea B., Shrier I., Tugwell P., Turner L., Valentine J.C., Waddington H., Waters E., Wells G.A., Whiting P.F., and Higgins J.P.T. (2016). ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 355, i4919.
8. Liu H., Wang W., Cheng F., Yuan Q., Yang J., Hu J., and Ren G. (2015). External ventricular drains versus intraparenchymal intracranial pressure monitors in traumatic brain injury: a prospective observational study. World Neurosurg. 83, 794–800.
9. Aiolfi A., Khor D., Cho J., Benjamin E., Inaba K., and Demetriades D. (2018). Intracranial pressure monitoring in severe blunt head trauma: does the type of monitoring device matter? J. Neurosurg. 128, 828–833.
10. Kasotakis G., Michailidou M., Bramos A., Chang Y., Velmahos G., Alam H., King D., and De Moya M.A. (2012). Intraparenchymal vs extracranial ventricular drain intracranial pressure monitors in traumatic brain injury: less is more? J. Am. Coll. Surg. 214, 950–957.
11. Khan S.H., Kureshi I.U., Mulgrew T., Ho S.Y., and Onyiuke H.C. (1998). Comparison of percutaneous ventriculostomies and intraparenchymal monitor: a retrospective evaluation of 156 patients. Acta Neurochir. Suppl. 71, 50–52.
12. Dimitriou J., Levivier M., and Gugliotta M. (2016). Comparison of complications in patients receiving different types of intracranial pressure monitoring: a retrospective study in a single center in Switzerland. World Neurosurg. 89, 641–646.
13. Chesnut R.M., Temkin N., Carney N., Dikmen S., Rondina C., Videtta W., Petroni G., Lujan S., Pridgeon J., Barber J., Machamer J., Chaddock K., Celix J.M., Cherner M., Hendrix T. and Global Neurotrauma Research G. (2012). A trial of intracranial-pressure monitoring in traumatic brain injury. N. Engl. J. Med. 367, 2471–2481.
14. Hartl R., and Stieg P.E. (2013). Intracranial pressure is still number 1 despite BEST:TRIP study. World Neurosurg. 79, 599–600.
15. Rubiano A.M., and Puyana J.C. (2013). Intracranial-pressure monitoring in traumatic brain injury. N. Engl. J. Med. 368, 1748.
16. Cnossen M.C., Huijben J.A., van der Jagt M., Volovici V., van Essen T., Polinder S., Nelson D., Ercole A., Stocchetti N., Citerio G., Peul W.C., Maas A.I.R., Menon D., Steyerberg E.W., Lingsma H.F. and investigators C.-T. (2017). Variation in monitoring and treatment policies for intracranial hypertension in traumatic brain injury: a survey in 66 neurotrauma centers participating in the CENTER-TBI study. Crit. Care 21, 233.
17. Lozier A.P., Sciacca R.R., Romagnoli M.F., and Connolly E.S. Jr. (2002). Ventriculostomy-related infections: a critical review of the literature. Neurosurgery 51, 170–181.
18. Nwachuku E.L., Puccio A.M., Fetzick A., Scruggs B., Chang Y.F., Shutter L.A., and Okonkwo D.O. (2014). Intermittent versus continuous cerebrospinal fluid drainage management in adult severe traumatic brain injury: assessment of intracranial pressure burden. Neurocrit. Care 20, 49–53.
19. Hockel K., and Schuhmann M.U. (2018). ICP monitoring by open extraventricular drainage: common practice but not suitable for advanced neuromonitoring and prone to false negativity. Acta Neurochir. Suppl. 126, 281–286.
20. Shore P.M., Thomas N.J., Clark R.S., Adelson P.D., Wisniewski S.R., Janesko K.L., Bayir H., Jackson E.K., and Kochanek P.M. (2004). Continuous versus intermittent cerebrospinal fluid drainage after severe traumatic brain injury in children: effect on biochemical markers. J. Neurotrauma 21, 1113–1122.
21. Maas A.I., Menon D.K., Steyerberg E.W., Citerio G., Lecky F., Manley G.T., Hill S., Legrand V., Sorgner A., Participants C.-T. and Investigators (2015). Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI): a prospective longitudinal observational study. Neurosurgery 76, 67–80.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
Copyright 2019, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers.
History
Published in print: April 1, 2019
Published online: 20 March 2019
Published ahead of print: 30 October 2018
Published ahead of production: 25 September 2018
Topics
Authors
Author Disclosure Statement
All authors report funding from the European Commission, Seventh Framework Programme, grant number 602150.
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Export Citation
Export citation
Select the format you want to export the citations of this publication.
View Options
Access content
To read the fulltext, please use one of the options below to sign in or purchase access.⚠ Society Access
If you are a member of a society that has access to this content please log in via your society website and then return to this publication.