Comparative Efficacy and Safety of External Ventricular Drains and Intraparenchymal Pressure Monitors for Intracranial Pressure Monitoring in Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT

In the management of traumatic brain injury (TBI), intracranial pressure monitoring (ICPm) is crucial for the timely management of severe cases that show rapid neurological deterioration. External ventricular drains (EVDs) and intraparenchymal pressure monitors (IPMs) are the primary methods used in this setting; however, the debate over their comparative efficacy persists, primarily because of reliance on observational study data. This underscores the need for a meta-analysis to guide clinical decision-making. This study-level meta-analysis aims to assess and compare the efficacy and safety of EVDs versus IPMs in the management of TBI. A database search was conducted until February 13, 2024, to identify studies reporting clinical outcomes of patients with TBI who underwent ICPm with either EVD or IPM. Primary outcomes included mortality, ICPm duration, length of stay, and complications. From an initial pool of 537 articles, eight studies (six retrospective cohort studies and two prospective cohort studies), encompassing 7080 patients, met our inclusion criteria. Mortality rates showed no significant difference between groups (risk ratio 1.11 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.42], p = 0.42). Patients monitored with IPM had shorter intensive care unit length of stay (mean difference 0.90 [95% CI 0.21 to 1.59], p = 0.01) and ICPm duration (mean difference 0.79 [95% CI 0.33 to 1.24], p = 0.0007), with a higher risk of requiring surgical decompression. Monitoring-related complications were similar across the two groups. Our findings suggest that EVD and IPM provide similar outcomes in terms of mortality. However, IPM may offer significant advantages in reducing the duration of ICPm and intensive care unit length of stay. EVD may be preferable for certain mid-term to long-term monitoring. The predominance of observational studies in the current literature highlights the need for further clinical trials to compare these interventions.