Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 12, 2025
Insertion, Maintenance, and Removal of the Percutaneous Dual Lumen Cannula Right Ventricular Assist Device
Published on: July 20, 2022
Long-tunneled versus short-tunneled external ventricular drain: a quasi-experimental study in a cohort of pediatric
Objective:
The primary aim of this study was to compare external ventricular drain (EVD)-related infection rates and mechanical complications between long-tunneled EVDs (LTEVDs) with an interposed valve and short-tunneled EVDs (STEVDs) in a cohort of pediatric patients. The second objective was to compare hospital resources used for LTEVDs versus STEVDs in the same cohort of patients and the same study period.
Methods:
The study consisted of a quasi-experimental investigation comparing a prospective group of patients who received LTEVDs with a retrospective (historic) cohort of patients treated with STEVDs. The prospective nonrandomized quasi-experimental protocol of the LTEVD cohort included patients who needed an EVD for more than 3 days. Data were recorded prospectively as the patients were added to the study, until reaching the sample size established by the protocol. The comparison group of the STEVD cohort was retrospectively collected from patients' records. Patients were included consecutively, from newest to oldest, starting with the last STEVD inserted at the authors' hospital until reaching the sample size established in the protocol. The inclusion and exclusion criteria for both groups were the same.
Results:
One hundred thirty-four patients were included in this quasi-experimental study; there were 67 in each group. LTEVDs reduced the odds of having an EVD-related infection by 92% (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01-0.39; p = 0.002). Compared to STEVDs, the LTEVDs reduced by 69% the odds of having a CSF leak (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.10-0.91; p = 0.03). Neither CSF blockage (OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01-1.08; p = 0.06) nor displacement (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.15-3.43; p = 0.69) showed a statistically significant difference between groups. More resources were allocated to STEVDs than to LTEVDs in most areas considered in this study.
Conclusions:
Compared to STEVDs, LTEVDs are a cost-effective and safe method to reduce EVD-related infection rates and other complications in pediatric patients. The authors believe that reducing the infection rate and complications and giving the patient more independence outweighs the additional costs that this new technique may entail.
