ABSTRACT
Study Design A cross-sectional study.
Objective The primary objective of this study is to compare the efficacy of continuous versus threshold drainage strategies for maintaining spinal cord perfusion pressure (SCPP) in patients with new traumatic spinal cord injuries (SCI).
Setting Level 1 trauma center.
Methods A retrospective study of 19 patients with traumatic SCIs. SCPP was optimized at the discretion of the managing clinician using either vasopressors to increase mean arterial pressure or cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) drainage to decrease intrathecal pressure. Six patients were managed with continuous drainage (CSF drained at regular intervals regardless of SCPP) and 13 had CSF drained only when SCPP fell below 65mmHg (i.e. threshold drainage). Intrathecal pressure, SCPP, mean arterial pressure, and vasopressor utilization were compared using univariate T-test statistical analysis.
Results The cohort included over 1500 time points from 19 patients. While there was no difference in rates of sub-optimal SCPP (< 65mmHg; p = 0.257), patients managed with threshold drainage were more likely to exhibit critically-low SCPP (< 50 mmHg; p = 0.003) despite also having lower average intrathecal pressures (p < 0.001). There were no differences in average SCPP, MAP, or vasopressor utilization between the two groups (p > 0.05).
Conclusions Acute SCI patients managed with continuous CSF drainage were less likely to exhibit critically-low SCPPs, previously shown to be associated with worse clinical recovery. A larger, prospective cohort is needed to validate the impact of CSF drainage strategies on long-term SCI outcomes.
Competing Interest Statement
Dr. Nitin Agarwal receives royalties from Thieme Medical Publishers and Springer International Publishing.
Funding Statement
This research received funding from the Chuck Noll Foundation for Brain Injury Research.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethics committee of the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine gave ethical approval for this work.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Funding Statement This research received funding from the Chuck Noll Foundation for Brain Injury Research.
Competing Interests Statement Dr. Agarwal has received royalties from Thieme Medical Publishers and Springer International Publishing.
Data Sharing All data pertaining to this research article are included within the manuscript as written.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
