Outcome of External Ventricular Drainage according to the Operating Place: the Intensive Care Unit versus Operating Room
10.4266/kjccm.2016.31.1.10
- Author:
Si On KIM
1
;
Won Jun SONG
;
Yu Sam WON
;
Jae Young YANG
;
Chun Sik CHOI
Author Information
1. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Sungkyunkwan University, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Seoul, Korea. kkimsion@hanmail.net
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
catheter-related infections;
CNS infection;
intensive care unit;
ventriculostomy
- MeSH:
Catheter-Related Infections;
Catheters;
Catheters, Indwelling;
Cerebrospinal Fluid;
Drainage;
Emergencies;
Female;
Humans;
Intensive Care Units;
Critical Care;
Intracranial Pressure;
Male;
Medical Records;
Mortality;
Operating Rooms;
Retrospective Studies;
Ventriculostomy
- From:The Korean Journal of Critical Care Medicine
2016;31(1):10-16
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: External ventricular drainage (EVD) is an important procedure for draining excessive cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and monitoring intracranial pressure. Generally, EVD is performed in the operating room (OR) under aseptic conditions. However, in emergency circumstances, the operation may be performed in the intensive care unit (ICU) to save neuro-critical time and to avoid the unnecessary transfer of patients. In this study, we retrospectively analyzed the risk of EVD-induced CNS infections and their outcomes according to the operating place (ICU versus OR). In addition, we compared mortalities as well as hospital and ICU days between the CNS infection and non-CNS infection groups. METHODS: We reviewed medical records, laboratory data and radiographic images of patients who had received EVD operations between January, 2013 and March, 2015. RESULTS: A total of 75 patients (45 men and 30 women, mean age: 58.7 +/- 15.6 years) were enrolled in this study. An average of 1.4 catheters were used for each patient and the mean period of the indwelling catheter was 7.5 +/- 5.0 days. Twenty-six patients were included in the ICU group, and EVD-induced CNS infection had occurred in 3 (11.5%) patients. For the OR group, forty-nine patients were included and EVD-induced CNS infection had occurred in 7 (14.3%) patients. The EVD-induced CNS infection of the ICU group did not increase above that of the OR group. The ICU days and mortality rate were higher in the CNS infection group compared to the non-CNS infection group. The period of the indwelling EVD catheter and the number of inserted EVD catheters were both higher in the CNS infection group. CONCLUSIONS: If the aseptic protocols and barrier precautions are strictly kept, EVD in the ICU does not have a higher risk of CNS infections compared to the OR. In addition, EVD in the ICU can decrease the hospital and ICU days by saving neuro-critical time and avoiding the unnecessary transfer of patients. Therefore, when neurosurgeons decide upon the operating place for EVD, they should consider the benefits of ICU operation and be cautious of EVD-induced CNS infection.
