ArticleNeurocritical care2026
Safety and Additive Efficacy of Dual CSF Drainage (Ventricular + Lumbar) in Severe Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: A Secondary Analysis of the EARLYDRAIN Trial.
Article in Neurocritical care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe EARLYDRAIN trial demonstrated the efficacy of lumbar drainage (LD) in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) but did not differentiate between patients requiring dual drainage [LD plus external ventricular drainage (EVD)] versus single-catheter management.
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to investigate the safety and additive efficacy of simultaneous double drainage (EVD + LD) compared with isolated EVD in patients with high-grade aSAH, stratifying by actual device usage.
methodsThis secondary analysis stratified 254 EARLYDRAIN trial participants on the basis of daily intensive care unit (ICU) device records. To minimize selection bias, the isolated LD cohort (n = 43), characterized by significantly milder admission severity (mean Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) 13.3, p < 0.001), was excluded from efficacy models. The primary analysis compared simultaneous double drainage (n = 92) vs. isolated EVD (n = 119). Multivariable logistic regression models were adjusted for age, Hunt-Hess grade, modified Fisher grade, and total cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage volume.
resultsDouble drainage and isolated EVD groups were well balanced for admission GCS (p = 0.672) and intraventricular hemorrhage prevalence (p = 0.355). Suspected infection rates were similar (47.8% vs. 44.5%, p = 0.631). In multivariable analysis, the drainage strategy (double vs. EVD) was not an independent predictor of clinical vasospasm (OR 1.02, p = 0.950), permanent shunt dependency (OR 0.75, p = 0.382), or unfavorable functional outcome (mRS 3-6) at 6 months (OR 0.75, p = 0.336). Instead, shunt dependency was independently predicted by higher total CSF drainage volume (p < 0.001) and age. Conversely, unfavorable functional outcome was driven exclusively by admission Hunt-Hess grade (p < 0.001) and age (p < 0.001), with total CSF volume showing no significance (p = 0.704).
conclusionsIn patients with high-grade aSAH, the addition of a lumbar drain to an EVD is safe but does not independently mitigate vasospasm or improve functional outcomes when adjusted for injury severity. High-volume CSF drainage predicts shunt dependency but is not a marker of functional recovery, suggesting a "volume paradox" in severe hydrocephalus. Yet, because this was not a prespecified analysis, it is not possible to definitively establish the superiority of a dual-drainage strategy over ventricular drainage alone. Therefore, these results should be interpreted as exploratory.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42260043What 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.