Retrospective analysis of central venous catheters in elective intracranial surgery - Is there any benefit?

<h4>Background</h4>It remains unclear whether the use of central venous catheters (CVC) improves a patient's clinical outcome after elective intracranial supratentorial procedures.<h4>Methods</h4>This two-armed, single-center retrospective study sought to compare patient...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Benjamin Löser, Olga Recio Ariza, Alexander März, Anastassia Löser, Jörn Grensemann, Martin Petzoldt, Daniel A Reuter, Frank Weber, Änne Glass, Sebastian A Haas
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2019-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226641
id doaj-1a3f08b8d9e543f49bcfb95098c0b72d
record_format Article
spelling doaj-1a3f08b8d9e543f49bcfb95098c0b72d2021-03-04T11:20:21ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032019-01-011412e022664110.1371/journal.pone.0226641Retrospective analysis of central venous catheters in elective intracranial surgery - Is there any benefit?Benjamin LöserOlga Recio ArizaAlexander MärzAnastassia LöserJörn GrensemannMartin PetzoldtDaniel A ReuterFrank WeberÄnne GlassSebastian A Haas<h4>Background</h4>It remains unclear whether the use of central venous catheters (CVC) improves a patient's clinical outcome after elective intracranial supratentorial procedures.<h4>Methods</h4>This two-armed, single-center retrospective study sought to compare patients undergoing elective intracranial surgery with and without CVCs. Standard anaesthesia procedures were modified during the study period resulting in the termination of obligatory CVC instrumentation for supratentorial procedures. Peri-operative adverse events (AEs) were evaluated as primary endpoint.<h4>Results</h4>The data of 621 patients in total was analysed in this study (301 with and 320 without CVC). Patient characteristics and surgical procedures were comparable between both study groups. A total of 132 peri-operative AEs (81 in the group with CVC vs. 51 in the group without CVC) regarding neurological, neurosurgical, cardiovascular events and death were observed. CVC patients suffer from AEs almost twice as often as non CVC patients (ORadjusted = 1.98; 95%CI[1.28-3.06]; p = 0.002). Complications related to catheter placement (pneumothorax and arterial malpuncture) were observed in 1.0% of the cases. The ICU treatment period in patients with CVC was 22 (19;24) vs. 21 (19;24) hours (p = 0.413). The duration of hospital stay was also similar between groups (9 (7;13) vs. 8 (7;11) days, p = 0.210). The total time of ventilation (350 (300;440) vs. 335 (281;405) min, p = 0.003) and induction time (40 (35;50) vs. 30 (25;35) min, p<0.001) was found to be prolonged significantly in the group with CVCs. There were no differences found in post-operative inflammatory markers as well as antibiotic treatment.<h4>Conclusion</h4>The data of our retrospective study suggests that patients undergoing elective neurosurgical procedures with CVCs do not demonstrate any additional benefits in comparison to patients without a CVC.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226641
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Benjamin Löser
Olga Recio Ariza
Alexander März
Anastassia Löser
Jörn Grensemann
Martin Petzoldt
Daniel A Reuter
Frank Weber
Änne Glass
Sebastian A Haas
spellingShingle Benjamin Löser
Olga Recio Ariza
Alexander März
Anastassia Löser
Jörn Grensemann
Martin Petzoldt
Daniel A Reuter
Frank Weber
Änne Glass
Sebastian A Haas
Retrospective analysis of central venous catheters in elective intracranial surgery - Is there any benefit?
PLoS ONE
author_facet Benjamin Löser
Olga Recio Ariza
Alexander März
Anastassia Löser
Jörn Grensemann
Martin Petzoldt
Daniel A Reuter
Frank Weber
Änne Glass
Sebastian A Haas
author_sort Benjamin Löser
title Retrospective analysis of central venous catheters in elective intracranial surgery - Is there any benefit?
title_short Retrospective analysis of central venous catheters in elective intracranial surgery - Is there any benefit?
title_full Retrospective analysis of central venous catheters in elective intracranial surgery - Is there any benefit?
title_fullStr Retrospective analysis of central venous catheters in elective intracranial surgery - Is there any benefit?
title_full_unstemmed Retrospective analysis of central venous catheters in elective intracranial surgery - Is there any benefit?
title_sort retrospective analysis of central venous catheters in elective intracranial surgery - is there any benefit?
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS ONE
issn 1932-6203
publishDate 2019-01-01
description <h4>Background</h4>It remains unclear whether the use of central venous catheters (CVC) improves a patient's clinical outcome after elective intracranial supratentorial procedures.<h4>Methods</h4>This two-armed, single-center retrospective study sought to compare patients undergoing elective intracranial surgery with and without CVCs. Standard anaesthesia procedures were modified during the study period resulting in the termination of obligatory CVC instrumentation for supratentorial procedures. Peri-operative adverse events (AEs) were evaluated as primary endpoint.<h4>Results</h4>The data of 621 patients in total was analysed in this study (301 with and 320 without CVC). Patient characteristics and surgical procedures were comparable between both study groups. A total of 132 peri-operative AEs (81 in the group with CVC vs. 51 in the group without CVC) regarding neurological, neurosurgical, cardiovascular events and death were observed. CVC patients suffer from AEs almost twice as often as non CVC patients (ORadjusted = 1.98; 95%CI[1.28-3.06]; p = 0.002). Complications related to catheter placement (pneumothorax and arterial malpuncture) were observed in 1.0% of the cases. The ICU treatment period in patients with CVC was 22 (19;24) vs. 21 (19;24) hours (p = 0.413). The duration of hospital stay was also similar between groups (9 (7;13) vs. 8 (7;11) days, p = 0.210). The total time of ventilation (350 (300;440) vs. 335 (281;405) min, p = 0.003) and induction time (40 (35;50) vs. 30 (25;35) min, p<0.001) was found to be prolonged significantly in the group with CVCs. There were no differences found in post-operative inflammatory markers as well as antibiotic treatment.<h4>Conclusion</h4>The data of our retrospective study suggests that patients undergoing elective neurosurgical procedures with CVCs do not demonstrate any additional benefits in comparison to patients without a CVC.
url https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226641
work_keys_str_mv AT benjaminloser retrospectiveanalysisofcentralvenouscathetersinelectiveintracranialsurgeryisthereanybenefit
AT olgarecioariza retrospectiveanalysisofcentralvenouscathetersinelectiveintracranialsurgeryisthereanybenefit
AT alexandermarz retrospectiveanalysisofcentralvenouscathetersinelectiveintracranialsurgeryisthereanybenefit
AT anastassialoser retrospectiveanalysisofcentralvenouscathetersinelectiveintracranialsurgeryisthereanybenefit
AT jorngrensemann retrospectiveanalysisofcentralvenouscathetersinelectiveintracranialsurgeryisthereanybenefit
AT martinpetzoldt retrospectiveanalysisofcentralvenouscathetersinelectiveintracranialsurgeryisthereanybenefit
AT danielareuter retrospectiveanalysisofcentralvenouscathetersinelectiveintracranialsurgeryisthereanybenefit
AT frankweber retrospectiveanalysisofcentralvenouscathetersinelectiveintracranialsurgeryisthereanybenefit
AT anneglass retrospectiveanalysisofcentralvenouscathetersinelectiveintracranialsurgeryisthereanybenefit
AT sebastianahaas retrospectiveanalysisofcentralvenouscathetersinelectiveintracranialsurgeryisthereanybenefit
_version_ 1714803760937566208