ArticlePloS one2019
Retrospective analysis of central venous catheters in elective intracranial surgery - Is there any benefit?
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Anaesthesia for paediatric neurosurgery. Part 1: general considerations.BJA education · 2024Review
- International survey of neurosurgical anesthesia (iSonata) : An international survey of current practices in neurosurgical anesthesia.Der Anaesthesist · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIt remains unclear whether the use of central venous catheters (CVC) improves a patient's clinical outcome after elective intracranial supratentorial procedures.
methodsThis two-armed, single-center retrospective study sought to compare patients undergoing elective intracranial surgery with and without CVCs. Standard anaesthesia procedures were modified during the study period resulting in the termination of obligatory CVC instrumentation for supratentorial procedures. Peri-operative adverse events (AEs) were evaluated as primary endpoint.
resultsThe data of 621 patients in total was analysed in this study (301 with and 320 without CVC). Patient characteristics and surgical procedures were comparable between both study groups. A total of 132 peri-operative AEs (81 in the group with CVC vs. 51 in the group without CVC) regarding neurological, neurosurgical, cardiovascular events and death were observed. CVC patients suffer from AEs almost twice as often as non CVC patients (ORadjusted = 1.98; 95%CI[1.28-3.06]; p = 0.002). Complications related to catheter placement (pneumothorax and arterial malpuncture) were observed in 1.0% of the cases. The ICU treatment period in patients with CVC was 22 (19;24) vs. 21 (19;24) hours (p = 0.413). The duration of hospital stay was also similar between groups (9 (7;13) vs. 8 (7;11) days, p = 0.210). The total time of ventilation (350 (300;440) vs. 335 (281;405) min, p = 0.003) and induction time (40 (35;50) vs. 30 (25;35) min, p<0.001) was found to be prolonged significantly in the group with CVCs. There were no differences found in post-operative inflammatory markers as well as antibiotic treatment.
conclusionThe data of our retrospective study suggests that patients undergoing elective neurosurgical procedures with CVCs do not demonstrate any additional benefits in comparison to patients without a CVC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.