Risk Factors for First Cerebrospinal Fluid Shunt Infection: Findings from a Multi-Center Prospective Cohort Study

ObjectiveTo quantify the extent to which cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) shunt revisions are associated with increased risk of CSF shunt infection, after adjusting for patient factors that may contribute to infection risk.Study designWe used the Hydrocephalus Clinical Research Network registry to assemble a large prospective 6-center cohort of 1036 children undergoing initial CSF shunt placement between April 2008 and January 2012. The primary outcome of interest was first CSF shunt infection. Data for initial CSF shunt placement and all subsequent CSF shunt revisions prior to first CSF shunt infection, where applicable, were obtained. The risk of first infection was estimated using a multivariable Cox proportional hazard model accounting for patient characteristics and CSF shunt revisions, and is reported using hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CI.ResultsOf the 102 children who developed first infection within 12 months of placement, 33 (32%) followed one or more CSF shunt revisions. Baseline factors independently associated with risk of first infection included: gastrostomy tube (HR 2.0, 95% CI, 1.1, 3.3), age 6-12 months (HR 0.3, 95% CI, 0.1, 0.8), and prior neurosurgery (HR 0.4, 95% CI, 0.2, 0.9). After controlling for baseline factors, infection risk was most significantly associated with the need for revision (1 revision vs none, HR 3.9, 95% CI, 2.2, 6.5; ≥2 revisions, HR 13.0, 95% CI, 6.5, 24.9).ConclusionsThis study quantifies the elevated risk of infection associated with shunt revisions observed in clinical practice. To reduce risk of infection risk, further work should optimize revision procedures

A meta-analysis of surgery versus conventional radiotherapy for the treatment of metastatic spinal epidural disease

Radiotherapy has been the primary therapy for managing metastatic spinal disease; however, surgery that decompresses the spinal cord circumferentially, followed by reconstruction and immediate stabilization, has also proven effective. We provide a quantitative comparison between the “new” surgery and radiotherapy, based on articles that report on ambulatory status before and after treatment, age, sex, primary neoplasm pathology, and spinal disease distribution. Ambulation was categorized as “success” or “rescue” (proportion of patients ambulatory after treatment and proportion regaining ambulatory function, respectively). Secondary outcomes were also analyzed. We calculated cumulative success and rescue rates for our ambulatory measurements and quantified heterogeneity using a mixed-effects model. We investigated the source of the heterogeneity in both a univariate and multivariate manner with a meta-regression model. Our analysis included data from 24 surgical articles (999 patients) and 4 radiation articles (543 patients), mostly uncontrolled cohort studies (Class III). Surgical patients were 1.3 times more likely to be ambulatory after treatment and twice as likely to regain ambulatory function. Overall ambulatory success rates for surgery and radiation were 85% and 64%, respectively. Primary pathology was the principal factor determining survival. We present the first known formal meta-analysis using data from nonrandomized clinical studies. Although we attempted to control for imbalances between the surgical and radiation groups, significant heterogeneity undoubtedly still exists. Nonetheless, we believe the differences in the outcomes indicate a true difference resulting from treatment. We conclude that surgery should usually be the primary treatment with radiation given as adjuvant therapy. Neurologic status, overall health, extent of disease (spinal and extraspinal), and primary pathology all impact proper treatment selection

An Outcomes-Based Grading Scale for the Evaluation of Cerebral Aneurysms Treated With Flow Diversion

Object Despite the popularity of flow-diverting stents for the treatment of cerebral aneurysms, there is no widely accepted scale for the characterization of results. We present an outcomes-based grading scale that considers factors related to failure of flow diversion. Methods The grading scale was developed using the results from consecutive patients at two institutions who were treated with flow diversion for a cerebral aneurysm. The initial treatment results were graded on patient, aneurysm, and treatment characteristics. A 6-point grading scale was developed based on these data. Results One hundred and seventy-one patients were included in the patient cohort. When compared by multivariate analysis with patients without residuals, patients with aneurysm residuals were found to be older (age ≥60 €...years, p=0.01, OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.33), to have larger aneurysms (size ≥15 €...mm, p\u3c0.01, OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.62), to have aneurysms with associated side branches (p=0.02, OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.33), and to have a post-treatment Raymond score of 2 or 3 (p=0.01, OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.56). Using the Raymond score (1-3) as the foundation for the grading scale, additional points (0 or 1) were given for the other three identified factors, creating a 6-point scale. We found that patients with residual aneurysms had statistically higher final tabulated scores (p\u3c0.01). Conclusions We propose a novel straightforward outcomes-based scale to characterize results after flow diversion treatment of cerebral aneurysms. This scale may provide the basis for the common reporting of results in future studies