Bleeding and Infection With External Ventricular Drainage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Retrospective series report varied rates of bleeding and infection with external ventricular drainage (EVD). There have been no prospective studies of these risks with systematic surveillance, threshold definitions, or independent adjudication. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the rate of complications in the ongoing Clot Lysis: Evaluating Accelerated Resolution of Intraventricular Hemorrhage Phase III (CLEAR III) trial, providing a comparison with a systematic review of complications of EVD in the literature. METHODS: Patients were prospectively enrolled in the CLEAR III trial after placement of an EVD for obstructive intraventricular hemorrhage and randomized to receive recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator or placebo. We counted any detected new hemorrhage (catheter tract hemorrhage or any other distant hemorrhage) on computed tomography scan within 30 days from the randomization. Meta-analysis of published series of EVD placement was compiled with STATA software. RESULTS: Growing or unstable hemorrhage was reported as a cause of exclusion from the trial in 74 of 5707 cases (1.3%) screened for CLEAR III. The first 250 patients enrolled have completed adjudication of adverse events. Forty-two subjects (16.8%) experienced ≥1 new bleeds or expansions, and 6 of 250 subjects (2.4%) suffered symptomatic hemorrhages. Eleven cases (4.4%) had culture-proven bacterial meningitis or ventriculitis. CONCLUSION: Risks of bleeding and infection in the ongoing CLEAR III trial are comparable to those previously reported in EVD case series. In the present study, rates of new bleeds and bacterial meningitis/ventriculitis are very low despite multiple daily injections, blood in the ventricles, the use of thrombolysis in half the cases, and generalization to >60 trial sites.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".