External Ventricular Drains versus Intraparenchymal Pressure Monitors in the Management of Moderate to Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: Experience at Two Academic Centers over a Decade

The choice between external ventricular drain (EVD) and intraparenchymal monitor (IPM) for managing intracranial pressure in moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury (msTBI) patients remains controversial. This study aimed to investigate factors associated with receiving EVD versus IPM and to compare outcomes and clinical management between EVD and IPM patients. Adult msTBI patients at 2 similar academic institutions were identified. Logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with receiving EVD versus IPM (model 1) and to compare EVD versus IPM in relation to patient outcomes after controlling for potential confounders (model 2), through odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Of 521 patients, 167 (32.1%) had EVD and 354 (67.9%) had IPM. Mean age, sex, and Injury Severity Score were comparable between groups. Epidural hemorrhage (EDH) (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.21–0.85), greater midline shift (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82–0.98), and the hospital with higher volume (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.09–0.22) were independently associated with lower odds of receiving an EVD whereas patients needing a craniectomy were more likely to receive an EVD (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.12–3.73). EVD patients received more intense medical treatment requiring hyperosmolar therapy compared to IPM patients (64.1% vs. 40.1%). No statistically significant differences were found in patient outcomes. While EDH, greater midline shift, and hospital with larger patient volume were associated with receiving an IPM, the need for a craniectomy was associated with receiving an EVD. EVD patients received different clinical management than IPM patients with no significant differences in patient outcomes.