Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 42438063

External ventricular drain safety campaign and opportunities for global neuroanesthesiology quality and safety.

Abhijit V Lele·Preeti Sawant·Samuel Neal Blacker
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review describes the conceptualization and implementation of the External Ventricular Drain (EVD) Safety Campaign, a global patient safety initiative by the Society for Neuroscience in Anesthesiology and Critical Care. It summarizes recent literature on EVD insertion and maintenance, highlights opportunities to advance quality and safety in neuroanesthesiology, and outlines priorities and a framework for future work. RECENT FINDINGS: The Society for Neuroscience in Anesthesiology and Critical Care launched a global initiative to improve EVD management. EVD insertion and maintenance remain key areas of ongoing research and quality improvement, particularly in reducing complications. SUMMARY: The EVD Safety Campaign provides a structured framework to improve care delivery and patient outcomes worldwide. Continued focus on standardization, education, and complication reduction, especially infection prevention, will be essential to advancing the field.

Explore related subjects

HumansPatient SafetyDrainageNeuroanesthesiaQuality ImprovementAnesthesiologyGlobal HealthCritical CareAnesthesia Patient Safety FoundationSociety for Neuroscience in Anesthesiology and Critical Careexternal ventricular drainglobalinitiativeneuroanesthesiologyqualitysafetyJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Abhijit V Lele, Preeti Sawant, Samuel Neal Blacker. 2026-08-24. External ventricular drain safety campaign and opportunities for global neuroanesthesiology quality and safety.. https://doi.org/10.1097/aco.0000000000001681

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Journal Article; Review resourceCritical Care subjectGlobal Health subjectHumans subjectJournal Article subjectPatient Safety subject

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy compared with endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage for palliation of malignant distal biliary obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: When ERCP is not feasible or fails in the palliation of malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO), EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) and EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) are viable alternatives. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the safety and efficacy of the 2 techniques for the palliation of MDBO. METHODS: Multiple databases were searched through November 2025 for studies that reported outcomes of EUS-CDS and EUS-GDB in patients with MDBO. A meta-analysis was performed to determine pooled proportions and relative risk (RR) with 95% CIs. We compared the rates of technical and clinical success, overall adverse events (AEs), and lumen-apposing metal stent dysfunction. A random-effects model was used for our meta-analysis, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 (%) statistics. RESULTS: Five studies (352 patients; EUS-CDS: 193 and EUS-GBD: 159) were included. Technical success was 93.3% (95% CI, 70.6-98.8) for EUS-CDS and 95.9% (95% CI, 90.0-98.4) for EUS-GBD (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.94-1.10; P = .6). Clinical success was 90.1% (95% CI, 84.7-93.7) versus 86.6% (95% CI, 80.3-91.0) (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.90-1.05; P = .4). There were no significant differences in overall AEs (19.7% vs 17.6%; RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.58-1.48; P = .8), severe AEs (11.0% vs 8.3%; RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.33-1.44; P = .3), or stent dysfunction (15.0% vs 14.5%; RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.35-2.58; P = .9). CONCLUSIONS: EUS-GBD appears comparable to EUS-CDS in terms of technical and clinical success, AEs, and stent dysfunction. Further prospective studies are warranted to corroborate our findings.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Comparative efficacy and safety of bi-flanged metal stents versus lumen-apposing metal stents for endoscopic drainage of pancreatic fluid collections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs), particularly walled-off necrosis, are common complications of acute pancreatitis that often require endoscopic drainage. Bi-flanged metal stents (BFMS; NAGI; Taewoong Medical, Gyenoggi-do, Korea) and electrocautery-enhanced lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS; AXIOS, Boston Scientific Corporation, Marlborough, Massachusetts, USA) are frequently used, but comparative data remain limited. This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of BFMS and LAMS in the endoscopic drainage of PFCs. METHODS: This meta-analysis followed the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Comprehensive database searches were conducted through November 2024 to identify studies comparing BFMS and LAMS for endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of PFCs. Outcomes were pooled using a random-effects model with RevMan Web, and statistical significance was defined as a P value less than 0.05. RESULTS: Three studies ( n  = 627; 329 BFMS and 298 LAMS) met inclusion criteria. No significant differences were observed between BFMS and LAMS for technical success [odds ratio (OR): 1.16; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.55-2.43] or clinical success (OR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.51-1.87). Similarly, there were no differences in walled-off necrosis recurrence (OR: 2.01; 95% CI: 0.17-24.02), number of direct endoscopic necrosectomy sessions (OR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.05-5.12), or mean number of endoscopic procedures (mean difference: 0.18, 95% CI: 2.08-2.45). Adverse events were also comparable between groups, including bleeding (OR: 0.64), infection (OR: 1.18), stent migration (OR: 1.83), and stent occlusion/dysfunction (OR: 1.71). CONCLUSION: BFMS and LAMS provide equivalent efficacy and safety in the endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of PFCs. Either stent type represents a viable therapeutic option. Further large-scale prospective studies are warranted to refine stent selection strategies.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Glaucoma filtering surgery combined with phacoemulsification in the era of new aqueous humor filtration devices: A systematic review.

We evaluate the efficacy and safety of filtering glaucoma surgeries combined with phacoemulsification (PCE)-including new aqueous humor drainage devices-compared to standalone procedures. We performed a systematic search up to March 23, 2025, including all comparative studies assessing trabeculectomy (TRAB), non-penetrating deep sclerectomy (NPDS), Xen® Gel Stent (XEN), or Preserflo® MicroShunt (PMS) combined with PCE, versus the same surgery alone. Key exclusion criteria include inadequate follow-up (less than 12-month), absence of a defined success criterion, more than 50% of loss to follow-up at 12-month, and lens extraction performed without PCE. Main outcome was surgical success at ≥ 12 months. Secondary outcomes included intraocular pressure (IOP) reduction, decrease in hypotensive medications, and rates of complications. A total of 27 studies were included for analysis. Among studies comparing TRAB/PCE with standalone TRAB, half reported similar success rates, while others favored standalone TRAB, particularly using strict IOP thresholds. Safety profiles were comparable. For NPDS/PCE, data mostly showed equivalent outcomes versus standalone NPDS, with comparable safety. In studies on XEN/PCE and PMS/PCE, results suggested similar rates of surgical success, efficacy in IOP and medication reduction, and safety compared to their stand-alone procedures. Small differences occasionally favored standalone procedures under stricter success definitions. Current evidence suggests that combined filtering glaucoma surgery provides long-term efficacy and safety comparable to standalone, though some subgroups and outcome thresholds may slightly favor standalone approaches. The limited availability of high-quality prospective trials underscores the need for further large-scale robust studies.

Humans↗