TY - JOUR
T1 - Ventricular catheter entry site and not catheter tip location predicts shunt survival
T2 - A secondary analysis of 3 large pediatric hydrocephalus studies
AU - Hydrocephalus Clinical Research Network
AU - Whitehead, William E.
AU - Riva-Cambrin, Jay
AU - Kulkarni, Abhaya V.
AU - Wellons, John C.
AU - Rozzelle, Curtis J.
AU - Tamber, Mandeep S.
AU - Limbrick, David D.
AU - Browd, Samuel R.
AU - Naftel, Robert P.
AU - Shannon, Chevis N.
AU - Simon, Tamara D.
AU - Holubkov, Richard
AU - Illner, Anna
AU - Cochrane, D. Douglas
AU - Drake, James M.
AU - Luerssen, Thomas G.
AU - Oakes, W. Jerry
AU - Kestle, John R.W.
N1 - Funding Information:
We would like to thank Kristine Eco, medical writer for the Department of Neurosurgery, Baylor College of Medicine, for her expert editorial assistance. This study was funded by the Joint Section on Pediatric Neurological Surgery, American Association of Neurological Surgeons Research Support Award, 2010. The HCRN has been funded by National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS grant no. 1RC1NS068943-01), Patient-Centered Outcome Research Institute (PCORI award no. CER-1403-13857), The Gerber Foundation (reference no. 1692-3638), private philanthropy, and the Hydrocephalus Association. Dr. Simon was supported by Award K23NS062900 from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders And Stroke and Seattle Children's Center for Clinical and Translational Research, and CTSA Grant Number ULI RR025014 from the National Center for Research Resources, a component of the National Institutes of Health. The authors report the following. Dr. Limbrick receives support for basic science research efforts from Medtronic, Inc., and Karl Storz, Inc., unrelated to the current study. Dr. Browd is co-founder and has equity and stock options in Aqueduct Neurosciences, Inc., Aqueduct Critical Care, Inc., and Navisonics, Inc., all of which are unrelated to the current study. None of the sponsors participated in design and conduct of this study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; or preparation, review, or approval of this manuscript. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official view of the sponsors.
Publisher Copyright:
©AANS, 2017.
PY - 2017/2
Y1 - 2017/2
N2 - OBJECTIVE: Accurate placement of ventricular catheters may result in prolonged shunt survival, but the best target for the hole-bearing segment of the catheter has not been rigorously defined. The goal of the study was to define a target within the ventricle with the lowest risk of shunt failure. METHODS: Five catheter placement variables (ventricular catheter tip location, ventricular catheter tip environment, relationship to choroid plexus, catheter tip holes within ventricle, and crosses midline) were defined, assessed for interobserver agreement, and evaluated for their effect on shunt survival in univariate and multivariate analyses. De-identified subjects from the Shunt Design Trial, the Endoscopic Shunt Insertion Trial, and a Hydrocephalus Clinical Research Network study on ultrasound-guided catheter placement were combined (n = 858 subjects, all first-time shunt insertions, all patients < 18 years old). The first postoperative brain imaging study was used to determine ventricular catheter placement for each of the catheter placement variables. RESULTS: Ventricular catheter tip location, environment, catheter tip holes within the ventricle, and crosses midline all achieved sufficient interobserver agreement (κ > 0.60). In the univariate survival analysis, however, only ventricular catheter tip location was useful in distinguishing a target within the ventricle with a survival advantage (frontal horn; log-rank, p = 0.0015). None of the other catheter placement variables yielded a significant survival advantage unless they were compared with catheter tips completely not in the ventricle. Cox regression analysis was performed, examining ventricular catheter tip location with age, etiology, surgeon, decade of surgery, and catheter entry site (anterior vs posterior). Only age (p < 0.001) and entry site (p = 0.005) were associated with shunt survival; ventricular catheter tip location was not (p = 0.37). Anterior entry site lowered the risk of shunt failure compared with posterior entry site by approximately one-third (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.51-0.83). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis failed to identify an ideal target within the ventricle for the ventricular catheter tip. Unexpectedly, the choice of an anterior versus posterior catheter entry site was more important in determining shunt survival than the location of the ventricular catheter tip within the ventricle. Entry site may represent a modifiable risk factor for shunt failure, but, due to inherent limitations in study design and previous clinical research on entry site, a randomized controlled trial is necessary before treatment recommendations can be made.
AB - OBJECTIVE: Accurate placement of ventricular catheters may result in prolonged shunt survival, but the best target for the hole-bearing segment of the catheter has not been rigorously defined. The goal of the study was to define a target within the ventricle with the lowest risk of shunt failure. METHODS: Five catheter placement variables (ventricular catheter tip location, ventricular catheter tip environment, relationship to choroid plexus, catheter tip holes within ventricle, and crosses midline) were defined, assessed for interobserver agreement, and evaluated for their effect on shunt survival in univariate and multivariate analyses. De-identified subjects from the Shunt Design Trial, the Endoscopic Shunt Insertion Trial, and a Hydrocephalus Clinical Research Network study on ultrasound-guided catheter placement were combined (n = 858 subjects, all first-time shunt insertions, all patients < 18 years old). The first postoperative brain imaging study was used to determine ventricular catheter placement for each of the catheter placement variables. RESULTS: Ventricular catheter tip location, environment, catheter tip holes within the ventricle, and crosses midline all achieved sufficient interobserver agreement (κ > 0.60). In the univariate survival analysis, however, only ventricular catheter tip location was useful in distinguishing a target within the ventricle with a survival advantage (frontal horn; log-rank, p = 0.0015). None of the other catheter placement variables yielded a significant survival advantage unless they were compared with catheter tips completely not in the ventricle. Cox regression analysis was performed, examining ventricular catheter tip location with age, etiology, surgeon, decade of surgery, and catheter entry site (anterior vs posterior). Only age (p < 0.001) and entry site (p = 0.005) were associated with shunt survival; ventricular catheter tip location was not (p = 0.37). Anterior entry site lowered the risk of shunt failure compared with posterior entry site by approximately one-third (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.51-0.83). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis failed to identify an ideal target within the ventricle for the ventricular catheter tip. Unexpectedly, the choice of an anterior versus posterior catheter entry site was more important in determining shunt survival than the location of the ventricular catheter tip within the ventricle. Entry site may represent a modifiable risk factor for shunt failure, but, due to inherent limitations in study design and previous clinical research on entry site, a randomized controlled trial is necessary before treatment recommendations can be made.
KW - CSF shunts
KW - Hydrocephalus
KW - Pediatric
KW - Shunt entry site
KW - Ventricular catheter
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85013036524&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3171/2016.8.PEDS16229
DO - 10.3171/2016.8.PEDS16229
M3 - Article
C2 - 27813457
AN - SCOPUS:85013036524
SN - 1933-0707
VL - 19
SP - 157
EP - 167
JO - Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics
JF - Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics
IS - 2
ER -