4.1 Article

Ventriculostomy-related infections: The performance of different definitions for diagnosing infection

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY
Volume 30, Issue 1, Pages 49-56

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/02688697.2015.1080222

Keywords

ventriculitis; CSF shunt; surgical-site infection; cerebrospinal fluid; infection

Funding

  1. NYU-HHC Clinical and Translational Science Institute from National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health [UL1 TR000038]
  2. Andrew David Heitman Neurovascular Research Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction. Comparison of rates of ventriculostomy-related infections (VRIs) across institutions is difficult due to the lack of a standard definition. We sought to review published definitions of VRI and apply them to a test cohort to determine the degree of variability in VRI diagnosis. Materials and methods. We conducted a PubMed search for definitions of VRI using the search strings ventriculostomy-related infection and ventriculostomy-associated infection. We applied these definitions to a test cohort of 18 positive cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) cultures taken from ventriculostomies at two institutions to compare the frequency of infection using each definition. Results. We found 16 unique definitions of VRI. When the definitions were applied to the test cohort, the frequency of infection ranged from 22 to 94% (median 61% with interquartile range (IQR) 56-74%). The concordance between VRI diagnosis and treatment with VRI-directed antibiotics for at least seven days ranged from 56 to 89% (median: 72%, IQR: 71-78%). Conclusions. The myriad of definitions in the literature produce widely different frequencies of infection. In order to compare rates of VRI between institutions for the purposes of qualitative metrics and research, a consistent definition of VRI is needed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available