The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Safety, accuracy, and cost effectiveness of bedside bolt external ventricular drains (EVDs) in comparison with tunneled EVDs inserted in theaters

Safety, accuracy, and cost effectiveness of bedside bolt external ventricular drains (EVDs) in comparison with tunneled EVDs inserted in theaters
Safety, accuracy, and cost effectiveness of bedside bolt external ventricular drains (EVDs) in comparison with tunneled EVDs inserted in theaters
Objectives: external ventricular drain (EVD) placement is required frequently in neurosurgical patients to divert cerebrospinal fluid and monitor intracranial pressure. The usual practice is the tunneled EVD technique performed in operating theaters. EVD insertion through a bolt in intensive care also is described. We employ both practices in our institute. Herein, we compare the indications, accuracy, safety, and costs of the 2 techniques. Methods: this was a retrospective cohort study of a prospectively maintained EVD database of all patients undergoing first frontal EVD placement between January 2010 and December 2015. Those patients with preceding cerebrospinal fluid infection were excluded. We compared bolt EVD with tunneled EVD techniques in terms of accuracy of EVD tip location by analyzing computed tomography scans to grade catheter tip location as optimal (ipsilateral frontal horn) or otherwise suboptimal, and complications that include infection and revision rates. Results: in total, 579 eligible patients aged 3 months to 84 years were identified; 430 had tunneled EVDs and 149 bolt EVDs. The most frequent diagnosis was intracranial hemorrhage (73% bolt vs. 50.4% tunneled group; P < 0.001). Other diagnoses included tumor (4.7% bolt vs. 19.1% tunneled; P < 0.001) and traumatic brain injury (17.5% bolt vs. 17.4% tunneled). In the bolt EVD group 66.4% of EVD tips were optimal, compared with 61.0% in the tunneled group (P = 0.33). Infection was confirmed in 15 (10.0%) bolt EVDs compared with 61 (14.2%) tunneled EVDs (P = 0.2). Each bolt EVD kit costs £260, whereas placing a tunneled one in the theater costs £1316. Conclusions: bedside bolt EVD placement is safe, accurate, and cost effective in selective patients with hemorrhage-related hydrocephalus.
1878-8750
e473-e478
Roach, Joy
9c01449e-3371-40c3-9ee6-b214d0905f09
Gaastra, Benjamin
c7b7f371-706b-4d59-9150-94e8f254e205
Bulters, Diederik
d6f9644a-a32f-45d8-b5ed-be54486ec21d
Shtaya, Anan
7b9d3363-83f4-41a9-ae6d-3de05cabb937
Roach, Joy
9c01449e-3371-40c3-9ee6-b214d0905f09
Gaastra, Benjamin
c7b7f371-706b-4d59-9150-94e8f254e205
Bulters, Diederik
d6f9644a-a32f-45d8-b5ed-be54486ec21d
Shtaya, Anan
7b9d3363-83f4-41a9-ae6d-3de05cabb937

Roach, Joy, Gaastra, Benjamin, Bulters, Diederik and Shtaya, Anan (2019) Safety, accuracy, and cost effectiveness of bedside bolt external ventricular drains (EVDs) in comparison with tunneled EVDs inserted in theaters. World Neurosurgery, 125, e473-e478. (doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2019.01.106).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Objectives: external ventricular drain (EVD) placement is required frequently in neurosurgical patients to divert cerebrospinal fluid and monitor intracranial pressure. The usual practice is the tunneled EVD technique performed in operating theaters. EVD insertion through a bolt in intensive care also is described. We employ both practices in our institute. Herein, we compare the indications, accuracy, safety, and costs of the 2 techniques. Methods: this was a retrospective cohort study of a prospectively maintained EVD database of all patients undergoing first frontal EVD placement between January 2010 and December 2015. Those patients with preceding cerebrospinal fluid infection were excluded. We compared bolt EVD with tunneled EVD techniques in terms of accuracy of EVD tip location by analyzing computed tomography scans to grade catheter tip location as optimal (ipsilateral frontal horn) or otherwise suboptimal, and complications that include infection and revision rates. Results: in total, 579 eligible patients aged 3 months to 84 years were identified; 430 had tunneled EVDs and 149 bolt EVDs. The most frequent diagnosis was intracranial hemorrhage (73% bolt vs. 50.4% tunneled group; P < 0.001). Other diagnoses included tumor (4.7% bolt vs. 19.1% tunneled; P < 0.001) and traumatic brain injury (17.5% bolt vs. 17.4% tunneled). In the bolt EVD group 66.4% of EVD tips were optimal, compared with 61.0% in the tunneled group (P = 0.33). Infection was confirmed in 15 (10.0%) bolt EVDs compared with 61 (14.2%) tunneled EVDs (P = 0.2). Each bolt EVD kit costs £260, whereas placing a tunneled one in the theater costs £1316. Conclusions: bedside bolt EVD placement is safe, accurate, and cost effective in selective patients with hemorrhage-related hydrocephalus.

Text
safety_and_accuracy_of_EVDs (1) - Accepted Manuscript
Download (4MB)

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 14 January 2019
e-pub ahead of print date: 5 February 2019
Published date: May 2019

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 456026
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/456026
ISSN: 1878-8750
PURE UUID: d98a383d-9bee-42a3-a466-f8cfe4a1d9b2
ORCID for Benjamin Gaastra: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-7517-6882
ORCID for Diederik Bulters: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0001-9884-9050

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 12 Apr 2022 16:40
Last modified: 17 Mar 2024 07:08

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Joy Roach
Author: Diederik Bulters ORCID iD
Author: Anan Shtaya

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×