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.
Keywords: Bolt; Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF); External ventricular drain (EVD); Hydrocephalus; Tunneled.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.