Comparison of Lumbar and Ventricular Cerebrospinal Fluid for Diagnosis and Monitoring of Meningitis.
Meningitis < Central Nervous System Infections
cerebrospinal fluid
external ventricular drain
lumbar puncture
Journal
The Neurohospitalist
ISSN: 1941-8744
Titre abrégé: Neurohospitalist
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101558199
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2022
Jan 2022
Historique:
entrez:
24
12
2021
pubmed:
25
12
2021
medline:
25
12
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Severe meningitis, especially basilar meningitis, can lead to hydrocephalus requiring external ventricular drain (EVD) placement. There are differences in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) obtained from an EVD compared to a lumbar puncture (LP). Hence, it becomes difficult to compare LP and EVD samples for diagnosis and monitoring of meningitis. Recognizing these differences is important to properly treat and discontinue antibiotics. We report a case series of 6 patients with meningitis comparing EVD and LP CSF study analysis. In all 6 patients, CSF from LP was obtained before EVD placement by 1.7 days on average. Although corrected white blood cell (WBC) counts were elevated in CSF obtained from LP and EVD, the counts were significantly higher in LP CSF. Protein concentration in LP CSF was also significantly higher than EVD CSF. Glucose and red blood cells varied in both LP and EVD samples. Even though EVD CSF was obtained later in the clinical course than LP, slower circulation of CSF in lumbar space as compared to ventricles is likely the reason for a more sterile appearance of EVD CSF for the diagnosis of meningitis. It is important to recognize these differences as EVD CSF analysis for diagnosis of meningitis may lead to a missed diagnosis and false perception of significant improvement when monitoring response to treatment. One can consider repeating LP prior to discontinuation of antibiotics to properly determine the extent of improvement given EVD CSF sample appears more sterile in comparison. Larger studies are needed to confirm the above findings.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34950405
doi: 10.1177/19418744211008018
pii: 10.1177_19418744211008018
pmc: PMC8689542
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
151-154Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2021.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Références
Am Fam Physician. 2010 Dec 15;82(12):1491-8
pubmed: 21166369
Open Forum Infect Dis. 2019 Jul 1;6(7):
pubmed: 31363769
Arch Intern Med. 1983 Apr;143(4):728-31
pubmed: 6340624
Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2003;21(3-4):79-96
pubmed: 14530572
J Stroke. 2020 Jan;22(1):29-46
pubmed: 32027790
Pediatr Neurosurg. 2017;52(6):381-400
pubmed: 28249297
Open Forum Infect Dis. 2019 Feb 06;6(3):ofz050
pubmed: 30899767
Surg Neurol. 2009 Mar;71(3):376-9
pubmed: 19249584
Exp Neurol. 1970 Aug;28(2):257-65
pubmed: 5458723
BMJ. 1999 Jan 9;318(7176):124
pubmed: 10068235
Crit Care. 2004 Dec;8(6):R491-4
pubmed: 15566596
J Clin Invest. 1958 Oct;37(10):1419-24
pubmed: 13575543
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2016 May;22 Suppl 3:S37-62
pubmed: 27062097
BMJ. 1998 Jun 20;316(7148):1887-9
pubmed: 9632412
J Neurol Sci. 1978 Jul;37(3):205-14
pubmed: 681976
Neurosurgery. 1995 Oct;37(4):668-71; discussion 671-2
pubmed: 8559294