ArticleEuropean journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society2023
External ventricular drainage for intracranial hypertension after traumatic brain injury: is it really useful?
Article in European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and Predictors of Success of External Ventricular Drainage for the Management of Traumatic Intracranial Hypertension: A Retrospective Multicenter Cohort Study.Neurocritical care · 2026Article
- Superior Outcomes With Ommaya Reservoir in Sustained Intracranial Hypertension Control.Revista de neurologia · 2025Article
- Neurosurgical intervention in ultra-severe closed traumatic brain injury: Is it worth the effort?Brain & spine · 2024Review
- Traumatic brain injury: the research continues with higher data quality evolving!European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposesExternal ventricular drainage (EVD) is frequently used to control raised intracranial pressure after traumatic brain injury. However, the available evidence about its effectiveness in this context is limited. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of EVD to control intracranial pressure and to identify the clinical and radiological factors associated with its success.
methodsFor this retrospective cohort study conducted in a Level 1 traumacenter in Paris area between May 2011 and March 2019, all patients with intracranial hypertension and treated with EVD were included. EVD success was defined as an efficient and continuous control of intracranial hypertension avoiding the use of third tier therapies (therapeutic hypothermia, decompressive craniectomy, and barbiturate coma) or avoiding a decision to withdraw life sustaining treatment due to both refractory intracranial hypertension and severity of brain injury lesions.
results83 patients with EVD were included. EVD was successful in 33 patients (40%). Thirty-two patients (39%) required a decompressive craniectomy, eight patients (9%) received barbiturate coma. In ten cases (12%) refractory intracranial hypertension prompted a protocolized withdrawal of care. Complications occurred in nine patients (11%) (three cases of ventriculitis, six cases of catheter occlusion). Multivariate analysis identified no independent factors associated with EVD success.
conclusionIn a protocol-based management for traumatic brain injury, EVD allowed intracranial pressure control and avoided third tier therapeutic measures in 40% of cases with a favorable risk-benefit ratio.
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.