Objective: To determine if eosinophils are activated to release the cationic proteins, eosinophil cationic protein (ECP) and eosinophil-derived neurotoxin (EDN) in shunt obstruction, and to find out if these proteins are associated with ventriculoperitoneal shunt failure. Patients and Methods: This was a prospective observational study carried out in a 20-bed tertiary pediatric intensive care unit. Patients studied were children aged 0–18 years with suspected ventriculoperitoneal shunt malfunction requiring shunt revision. No interventions were performed. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) was analyzed for cell count and EDN and ECP concentrations. Patients were prospectively followed for 6 months to evaluate shunt failure. Results: In a 2-month period, 56 shunt revisions were performed on 56 children. Three children had culture-proven infection. Eosinophilia, defined as ≧5% eosinophils in the CSF, was present in 9 out of 53 children (17%). The 3 patients with infection did not have eosinophilia and were excluded from further analysis. Patients with CSF eosinophilia had higher concentrations of ECP (1.38 ± 0.66 vs. 0.41 ± 0.15 ng/ml; p = 0.013) and EDN (16.94 ± 5.83 vs. 4.69 ± 1.33 ng/ml; p = 0.011). Patients with CSF eosinophilia did not have more ventriculoperitoneal shunt revisions within 6 months (6 of 9) compared to those who did not have eosinophilia (21 of 44; p = 0.50). However, patients with higher levels of ECP in the CSF required more shunt revisions within 6 months of their surgeries (p < 0.05). Conclusions: In patients with malfunctioning ventriculoperitoneal shunts, CSF eosinophils are activated and release ECP and EDN. The presence of ECP is associated with a shorter shunt life.

Keywords:
Shunt obstruction, Eosinophils, Eosinophil cationic protein, Eosinophil-derived neurotoxin
1.
Kossovsky N, Snow RB: Clinical-pathological analysis of failed central nervous system fluid shunts. J Biomed Mater Res 1989;23(A1 suppl):73–86.
2.
Sekhar LN, Moossy J, Guthkelch AN: Malfunctioning ventriculoperitoneal shunts. Clinical and pathological features. J Neurosurg 1982;56:411–416.
3.
Del Bigio MR: Biological reactions to cerebrospinal fluid shunt devices: a review of the cellular pathology. Neurosurgery 1998;42:319–325, discussion 325–316.
4.
Snow RB, Kossovsky N: Hypersensitivity reaction associated with sterile ventriculoperitoneal shunt malfunction. Surg Neurol 1989;31:209–214.
5.
Tung H, Raffel C, McComb JG: Ventricular cerebrospinal fluid eosinophilia in children with ventriculoperitoneal shunts. J Neurosurg 1991;75:541–544.
6.
Rothenberg ME: Eosinophilia. N Engl J Med 1998;338:1592–1600.
7.
Tanaka T, Ikeuchi S, Yoshino K, Isoshima A, Abe T: A case of cerebrospinal fluid eosinophilia associated with shunt malfunction. Pediatr Neurosurg 1999;30:6–10.
8.
Tangsinmankong N, Nelson RP, Jr., Good RA: Glucocorticosteroid treatment for cerebrospinal fluid eosinophilia in a patient with ventriculoperitonial shunt. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 1999;83:341–342.
9.
Wiersbitzky SK, Ahrens N, Becker T, Panzig B, Abel J, Stenger RD: The diagnostic importance of eosinophil granulocytes in the CSF of children with ventricular-peritoneal shunt systems. Acta Neurol Scand 1998;97:201–203.
10.
McClinton D, Carraccio C, Englander R: Predictors of ventriculoperitoneal shunt pathology. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2001;20:593–597.
11.
Fulkerson DH, Boaz JC: Cerebrospinal fluid eosinophilia in children with ventricular shunts. J Neurosurg Pediatr 2008;1:288–295.
12.
Giembycz MA, Lindsay MA: Pharmacology of the eosinophil. Pharmacol Rev 1999;51:213–340.
13.
Fredens K, Dahl R, Venge P: The Gordon phenomenon induced by the eosinophil cationic protein and eosinophil protein X. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1982;70:361–366.
14.
Ellis MJ, Kazina CJ, Del Bigio MR, McDonald PJ: Treatment of recurrent ventriculoperitoneal shunt failure associated with persistent cerebrospinal fluid eosinophilia and latex allergy by use of an ‘extracted’ shunt. J Neurosurg Pediatr 2008;1:237–239.
15.
Bell RS, Vo AH, Cooper PB, Schmitt CL, Rosner MK: Eosinophilic meningitis after implantation of a rifampin and minocycline-impregnated ventriculostomy catheter in a child. Case report. J Neurosurg 2006;104(1 suppl):50–54.
© 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel
2010
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.