ArticleActa neurochirurgica2026
From antimicrobial-impregnated to standard catheters for external ventricular drainage: a single-center before-and-after cohort study.
Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe effectiveness of antibiotic-impregnated catheters (AIC) compared to standard catheters (SC) as external ventricular drains (EVD) for preventing EVD-related infections (ERI) is debated. In this study, we aimed to analyze the impact of a shift from AIC to SC, and so a de-escalation strategy, on ERI incidence rate.
methodsThis is a single-center before-and-after analysis of prospectively recorded data from consecutive patients treated in a French tertiary care hospital neurological intensive care unit from 2015 to 2020. Standard EVD handling procedure remained unchanged over study period, except for the first line drain, which was switched from AIC to SC in 2019. The main outcome was the difference in the incidence of ERI.
resultsData from 510 consecutive patients (348 AIC, 162 SC) were analyzed. AIC use was associated with a lower incidence of ERI (2.6% vs 8.0% of ERI, 2.4 vs 6.8 ERI for 1000 catheterization days) and a delay in its onset (median delay from insertion of 11.0 [7.0-16.0] vs 7.0 [4.0-12.0] days, subdistribution hazard ratio sHR 0.32 [0.14-0.76], during follow-up period, p = 0.010). The presence of a cutaneous leakage, manipulations of EVD proximal stopcock, prolonged drainage duration and withdrawal motive were also associated with ERI diagnosis. Identified microorganisms according to Gram-staining did not differ with respect to catheter type, but the proportion of skin commensals is reduced using AIC (49.1 vs 68.9%, p = 0.047).
conclusionsOur findings suggest that AIC use as first intention catheter for CSF drainage was associated with a lower and delayed incidence of ERI. OTHERS: No funding was received for this study.
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.