Cargando…

Fluidic Considerations of Measuring Intracranial Pressure Using an Open External Ventricular Drain

Measurement of intracranial pressure (ICP) during cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage with an external ventricular drain (EVD) typically requires stopping the flow during measurement. However, there may be benefits to simultaneous ICP measurement and CSF drainage. Several studies have evaluated wheth...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Beidler, Peter G, Novokhodko, Alexander, Prolo, Laura M, Browd, Samuel, Lutz, Barry R
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cureus 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8239198/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34221772
http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.15324
_version_ 1783715028087603200
author Beidler, Peter G
Novokhodko, Alexander
Prolo, Laura M
Browd, Samuel
Lutz, Barry R
author_facet Beidler, Peter G
Novokhodko, Alexander
Prolo, Laura M
Browd, Samuel
Lutz, Barry R
author_sort Beidler, Peter G
collection PubMed
description Measurement of intracranial pressure (ICP) during cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage with an external ventricular drain (EVD) typically requires stopping the flow during measurement. However, there may be benefits to simultaneous ICP measurement and CSF drainage. Several studies have evaluated whether accurate ICP measurements can be obtained while the EVD is open. They report differing outcomes when it comes to error, and hypothesize several sources of error. This study presents an investigation into the fluidic sources of error for ICP measurement with concurrent drainage in an EVD. Our experiments and analytical model both show that the error in pressure measurement increases linearly with flow rate and is not clinically significant, regardless of drip chamber height. At physiologically relevant flow rates (40 mL/hr) and ICP set points (13.6 - 31.3 cmH(2)O or 10 - 23 mmHg), our model predicts an underestimation of 0.767 cmH(2)O (0.56 mmHg) with no observed data point showing error greater than 1.09 cmH(2)O (0.8 mmHg) in our experiment. We extrapolate our model to predict a realistic worst-case clinical scenario where we expect to see a mean maximum error of 1.06 cmH(2)O (0.78 mmHg) arising from fluidic effects within the drainage system for the most resistive catheter. Compared to other sources of error in current ICP monitoring, error in pressure measurement due to drainage flow is small and does not prohibit clinical use. However, other effects such as ventricular collapse or catheter obstruction could affect ICP measurement under continuous drainage and are not investigated in this study.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8239198
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Cureus
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82391982021-07-01 Fluidic Considerations of Measuring Intracranial Pressure Using an Open External Ventricular Drain Beidler, Peter G Novokhodko, Alexander Prolo, Laura M Browd, Samuel Lutz, Barry R Cureus Neurology Measurement of intracranial pressure (ICP) during cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage with an external ventricular drain (EVD) typically requires stopping the flow during measurement. However, there may be benefits to simultaneous ICP measurement and CSF drainage. Several studies have evaluated whether accurate ICP measurements can be obtained while the EVD is open. They report differing outcomes when it comes to error, and hypothesize several sources of error. This study presents an investigation into the fluidic sources of error for ICP measurement with concurrent drainage in an EVD. Our experiments and analytical model both show that the error in pressure measurement increases linearly with flow rate and is not clinically significant, regardless of drip chamber height. At physiologically relevant flow rates (40 mL/hr) and ICP set points (13.6 - 31.3 cmH(2)O or 10 - 23 mmHg), our model predicts an underestimation of 0.767 cmH(2)O (0.56 mmHg) with no observed data point showing error greater than 1.09 cmH(2)O (0.8 mmHg) in our experiment. We extrapolate our model to predict a realistic worst-case clinical scenario where we expect to see a mean maximum error of 1.06 cmH(2)O (0.78 mmHg) arising from fluidic effects within the drainage system for the most resistive catheter. Compared to other sources of error in current ICP monitoring, error in pressure measurement due to drainage flow is small and does not prohibit clinical use. However, other effects such as ventricular collapse or catheter obstruction could affect ICP measurement under continuous drainage and are not investigated in this study. Cureus 2021-05-29 /pmc/articles/PMC8239198/ /pubmed/34221772 http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.15324 Text en Copyright © 2021, Beidler et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Neurology
Beidler, Peter G
Novokhodko, Alexander
Prolo, Laura M
Browd, Samuel
Lutz, Barry R
Fluidic Considerations of Measuring Intracranial Pressure Using an Open External Ventricular Drain
title Fluidic Considerations of Measuring Intracranial Pressure Using an Open External Ventricular Drain
title_full Fluidic Considerations of Measuring Intracranial Pressure Using an Open External Ventricular Drain
title_fullStr Fluidic Considerations of Measuring Intracranial Pressure Using an Open External Ventricular Drain
title_full_unstemmed Fluidic Considerations of Measuring Intracranial Pressure Using an Open External Ventricular Drain
title_short Fluidic Considerations of Measuring Intracranial Pressure Using an Open External Ventricular Drain
title_sort fluidic considerations of measuring intracranial pressure using an open external ventricular drain
topic Neurology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8239198/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34221772
http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.15324
work_keys_str_mv AT beidlerpeterg fluidicconsiderationsofmeasuringintracranialpressureusinganopenexternalventriculardrain
AT novokhodkoalexander fluidicconsiderationsofmeasuringintracranialpressureusinganopenexternalventriculardrain
AT prololauram fluidicconsiderationsofmeasuringintracranialpressureusinganopenexternalventriculardrain
AT browdsamuel fluidicconsiderationsofmeasuringintracranialpressureusinganopenexternalventriculardrain
AT lutzbarryr fluidicconsiderationsofmeasuringintracranialpressureusinganopenexternalventriculardrain