Effectiveness of Lumbar Cerebrospinal Fluid Drain Among Patients With Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: After aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage, the use of lumbar drains has been suggested to decrease the incidence of delayed cerebral ischemia and improve long-term outcome. Objective: To determine the effectiveness of early lumbar cerebrospinal fluid drainage added to standard of care in patients after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Design, Setting, and Participants: The EARLYDRAIN trial was a pragmatic, multicenter, parallel-group, open-label randomized clinical trial with blinded end point evaluation conducted at 19 centers in Germany, Switzerland, and Canada. The first patient entered January 31, 2011, and the last on January 24, 2016, after 307 randomizations. Follow-up was completed July 2016. Query and retrieval of data on missing items in the case report forms was completed in September 2020. A total of 20 randomizations were invalid, the main reason being lack of informed consent. No participants meeting all inclusion and exclusion criteria were excluded from the intention-to-treat analysis. Exclusion of patients was only performed in per-protocol sensitivity analysis. A total of 287 adult patients with acute aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage of all clinical grades were analyzable. Aneurysm treatment with clipping or coiling was performed within 48 hours. Intervention: A total of 144 patients were randomized to receive an additional lumbar drain after aneurysm treatment and 143 patients to standard of care only. Early lumbar drainage with 5 mL per hour was started within 72 hours of the subarachnoid hemorrhage. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcome, defined as modified Rankin Scale score of 3 to 6 (range, 0 to 6), obtained by masked assessors 6 months after hemorrhage. Results: Of 287 included patients, 197 (68.6%) were female, and the median (IQR) age was 55 (48-63) years. Lumbar drainage started at a median (IQR) of day 2 (1-2) after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. At 6 months, 47 patients (32.6%) in the lumbar drain group and 64 patients (44.8%) in the standard of care group had an unfavorable neurological outcome (risk ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.98; absolute risk difference, -0.12; 95% CI, -0.23 to -0.01; P = .04). Patients treated with a lumbar drain had fewer secondary infarctions at discharge (41 patients [28.5%] vs 57 patients [39.9%]; risk ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.99; absolute risk difference, -0.11; 95% CI, -0.22 to 0; P = .04). Conclusion and Relevance: In this trial, prophylactic lumbar drainage after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage lessened the burden of secondary infarction and decreased the rate of unfavorable outcome at 6 months. These findings support the use of lumbar drains after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01258257.

Aortic volume determines global end-diastolic volume measured by transpulmonary thermodilution.

BACKGROUND: Global end-diastolic volume (GEDV) measured by transpulmonary thermodilution is regarded as indicator of cardiac preload. A bolus of cold saline injected in a central vein travels through the heart and lung, but also the aorta until detection in a femoral artery. While it is well accepted that injection in the inferior vena cava results in higher values, the impact of the aortic volume on GEDV is unknown. In this study, we hypothesized that a larger aortic volume directly translates to a numerically higher GEDV measurement. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from 88 critically ill patients with thermodilution monitoring and who did require a contrast-enhanced thoraco-abdominal computed tomography scan. Aortic volumes derived from imaging were compared with GEDV measurements in temporal proximity. RESULTS: Median aortic volume was 194 ml (interquartile range 147 to 249 ml). Per milliliter increase of the aortic volume, we found a GEDV increase by 3.0 ml (95% CI 2.0 to 4.1 ml, p < 0.001). In case a femoral central venous line was used for saline bolus injection, GEDV raised additionally by 2.1 ml (95% CI 0.5 to 3.7 ml, p = 0.01) per ml volume of the vena cava inferior. Aortic volume explained 59.3% of the variance of thermodilution-derived GEDV. When aortic volume was included in multivariate regression, GEDV variance was unaffected by sex, age, body height, and weight. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the aortic volume is a substantial confounding variable for GEDV measurements performed with transpulmonary thermodilution. As the aorta is anatomically located after the heart, GEDV should not be considered to reflect cardiac preload. Guiding volume management by raw or indexed reference ranges of GEDV may be misleading.

Bispectral index monitoring does not improve anesthesia performance in patients with movement disorders undergoing deep brain stimulating electrode implantation.

BACKGROUND: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) has emerged as a promising therapy for movement disorders. During the implantation procedure for the electrodes, the patient emerges from anesthesia repeatedly to facilitate neurological testing. We investigated whether Bispectral Index (BIS) monitoring would be beneficial in patients receiving "sleep-awake-sleep" anesthesia with respect to time of arousal, consumption of propofol, and cardiopulmonary stability (i.e., heart rate, arterial blood pressure, and end-tidal carbon dioxide). METHODS: We investigated 21 patients scheduled for implantation of DBS electrodes. Depth of propofol anesthesia was controlled either with BIS guidance in 10 patients (BIS group) or without in 11 patients (non-BIS group). In the BIS group, a BIS score of 40-60 was targeted during sleep periods, whereas in the non-BIS group, a value of 1 (= no response to tactile stimulation [unconsciousness]) on the Observers' Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale was targeted. For analgesia, the sites for the burr holes and for the pins of the stereotactic ring were infiltrated with 2% lidocaine; no opioids were used. For periods during which an awake patient required neurological testing, propofol was discontinued. RESULTS: We found no difference between groups with respect to times of arousal, total amount of propofol consumption, and cardiopulmonary stability. However, significantly more propofol boluses had to be administered in the BIS group (30 +/- 11.6 vs 17 +/- 4.6) to maintain the BIS score within the target range (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: BIS monitoring does not improve anesthesia management for DBS electrode implantation in patients with movement disorders.