Dataset Information

Advances in Intracranial Pressure Monitoring and Its Significance in Managing Traumatic Brain Injury.

ABSTRACT: Intracranial pressure (ICP) measurements are essential in evaluation and treatment of neurological disorders such as subarachnoid and intracerebral hemorrhage, ischemic stroke, hydrocephalus, meningitis/encephalitis, and traumatic brain injury (TBI). The techniques of ICP monitoring have evolved from invasive to non-invasive-with both limitations and advantages. Some limitations of the invasive methods include short-term monitoring, risk of infection, restricted mobility of the subject, etc. The invasiveness of a method limits the frequency of ICP evaluation in neurological conditions like hydrocephalus, thus hampering the long-term care of patients with compromised ICP. Thus, there has been substantial interest in developing noninvasive techniques for assessment of ICP. Several approaches were reported, although none seem to provide a complete solution due to inaccuracy. ICP measurements are fundamental for immediate care of TBI patients in the acute stages of severe TBI injury. In severe TBI, elevated ICP is associated with mortality or poor clinical outcome. ICP monitoring in conjunction with other neurological monitoring can aid in understanding the pathophysiology of brain damage. This review article presents: (a) the significance of ICP monitoring; (b) ICP monitoring methods (invasive and non-invasive); and (c) the role of ICP monitoring in the management of brain damage, especially TBI.

SUBMITTER: Kawoos U

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4691093 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Advances in Intracranial Pressure Monitoring and Its Significance in Managing Traumatic Brain Injury.

Kawoos Usmah U McCarron Richard M RM Auker Charles R CR Chavko Mikulas M

International journal of molecular sciences 20151204 12

Intracranial pressure (ICP) measurements are essential in evaluation and treatment of neurological disorders such as subarachnoid and intracerebral hemorrhage, ischemic stroke, hydrocephalus, meningitis/encephalitis, and traumatic brain injury (TBI). The techniques of ICP monitoring have evolved from invasive to non-invasive-with both limitations and advantages. Some limitations of the invasive methods include short-term monitoring, risk of infection, restricted mobility of the subject, etc. The ...[more]

PMID: 26690122

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIntracranial-pressure monitoring is considered the standard of care for severe traumatic brain injury and is used frequently, but the efficacy of treatment based on monitoring in improving the outcome has not been rigorously assessed.MethodsWe conducted a multicenter, controlled trial in which 324 patients 13 years of age or older who had severe traumatic brain injury and were being treated in intensive care units (ICUs) in Bolivia or Ecuador were randomly assigned to one of two specific protocols: guidelines-based management in which a protocol for monitoring intraparenchymal intracranial pressure was used (pressure-monitoring group) or a protocol in which treatment was based on imaging and clinical examination (imaging-clinical examination group). The primary outcome was a composite of survival time, impaired consciousness, and functional status at 3 months and 6 months and neuropsychological status at 6 months; neuropsychological status was assessed by an examiner who was unaware of protocol assignment. This composite measure was based on performance across 21 measures of functional and cognitive status and calculated as a percentile (with 0 indicating the worst performance, and 100 the best performance).ResultsThere was no significant between-group difference in the primary outcome, a composite measure based on percentile performance across 21 measures of functional and cognitive status (score, 56 in the pressure-monitoring group vs. 53 in the imaging-clinical examination group; P=0.49). Six-month mortality was 39% in the pressure-monitoring group and 41% in the imaging-clinical examination group (P=0.60). The median length of stay in the ICU was similar in the two groups (12 days in the pressure-monitoring group and 9 days in the imaging-clinical examination group; P=0.25), although the number of days of brain-specific treatments (e.g., administration of hyperosmolar fluids and the use of hyperventilation) in the ICU was higher in the imaging-clinical examination group than in the pressure-monitoring group (4.8 vs. 3.4, P=0.002). The distribution of serious adverse events was similar in the two groups.ConclusionsFor patients with severe traumatic brain injury, care focused on maintaining monitored intracranial pressure at 20 mm Hg or less was not shown to be superior to care based on imaging and clinical examination. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01068522.).

Project description:To examine the use of intracranial pressure monitors and treatment for elevated intracranial pressure in children 24 months old or younger with traumatic brain injury in North Carolina between April 2009 and March 2012 and compare this with a similar cohort recruited 2000-2001.Prospective, observational cohort study.Twelve PICUs in North Carolina.All children 24 months old or younger with traumatic brain injury, admitted to an included PICU.None.The use of intracranial pressure monitors and treatments for elevated intracranial pressure were evaluated in 238 children with traumatic brain injury. Intracranial pressure monitoring (risk ratio, 3.7; 95% CI, 1.5-9.3) and intracranial pressure therapies were more common in children with Glasgow Coma Scale less than or equal to 8 compared with Glasgow Coma Scale greater than 8. However, only 17% of children with Glasgow Coma Scale less than or equal to 8 received a monitoring device. Treatments for elevated intracranial pressure were more common in children with monitors; yet, some children without monitors received therapies traditionally used to lower intracranial pressure. Unadjusted predictors of monitoring were Glasgow Coma Scale less than or equal to 8, receipt of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, nonwhite race. Logistic regression showed no strong predictors of intracranial pressure monitor use. Compared with the 2000 cohort, children in the 2010 cohort with Glasgow Coma Scale less than or equal to 8 were less likely to receive monitoring (risk ratio, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3-1.0), although the estimate was not precise, or intracranial pressure management therapies.Children in the 2010 cohort with a Glasgow Coma Scale less than or equal to 8 were less likely to receive an intracranial pressure monitor or hyperosmolar therapy than children in the 2000 cohort; however, about 10% of children without monitors received therapies to decrease intracranial pressure. This suggests treatment heterogeneity in children 24 months old or younger with traumatic brain injury and a need for better evidence to support treatment recommendations for this group of children.

Project description:ImportanceIntracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring is a mainstay of therapy for children with traumatic brain injury (TBI), but its overall association with patient outcome is unclear.ObjectiveTo test the hypothesis that ICP monitoring is associated with improved functional survival of children with severe TBI.Design, setting, and participantsA propensity-weighted effectiveness analysis was conducted using 2 linked national databases with data from 30 US children's hospitals from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2012, on 3084 children with severe TBI. Clinical events including neurosurgical procedures were identified using validated computable phenotypes. Data analysis was conducted from September 1, 2016, to March 1, 2017.ExposurePlacement of an ICP monitor.Main outcomes and measuresA composite of hospital mortality, discharge to hospice, or survival with placement of new tracheostomy and gastrostomy tubes.ResultsOf the 3084 children in the study (1128 girls and 1956 boys; mean [SD] age, 7.03 [5.44] years), 1002 (32.4%) underwent ICP monitoring, with substantial hospital variation (6% to 50% by hospital). Overall, 484 children (15.7%) experienced the primary composite outcome. A propensity approach using matching weights generated good covariate balance between those who did and those who did not undergo ICP monitoring. Using a propensity-weighted logistic regression model clustered by hospital, no statistically significant difference was found in functional survival between monitored and unmonitored patients (odds ratio of poor outcome among those who underwent ICP monitoring, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.99-1.74). In a prespecified secondary analysis, no difference in mortality was found (odds ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.89-1.50). Prespecified subgroup analyses of children younger and older than 2 years of age and among those with unintentional and inflicted (intentional) injuries also showed no difference in outcome with ICP monitoring.Conclusions and relevanceWith the use of linked national data and validated computable phenotypes, no evidence was found of a benefit from ICP monitoring on functional survival of children with severe TBI. Intracranial pressure monitoring is a widely but inconsistently used technology with incompletely demonstrated effectiveness. A large prospective cohort study or randomized trial is needed.

Project description:ImportanceWhile the relationship between persistent elevations in intracranial pressure (ICP) and poorer outcomes is well established for patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI), there is no consensus on how ICP measurements should drive treatment choices, and the effectiveness of ICP monitoring remains unknown.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of ICP monitoring on short- and mid-term outcomes of patients with TBI.Design, setting, and participantsCREACTIVE was a prospective cohort study that started in March 2014 and lasted 5 years. More than 8000 patients with TBI were enrolled at 83 intensive care units (ICUs) from 7 countries who joined the CREACTIVE Consortium. Patients with TBI who met the Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines for ICP monitoring were selected for the current analyses, which were performed from January to November 2022.ExposurePatients who underwent ICP monitoring within 2 days of injury (exposure group) were propensity score-matched to patients who were not monitored or who underwent monitoring 2 days after the injury (control group).Main outcome and measureFunctional disability at 6 months as indicated by Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOS-E) score.ResultsA total of 1448 patients from 43 ICUs in Italy and Hungary were eligible for analysis. Of the patients satisfying the ICP-monitoring guidelines, 503 (34.7%) underwent ICP monitoring (median [IQR] age: 45 years [29-61 years]; 392 males [77.9%], 111 females [22.1%]) and 945 were not monitored (median [IQR] age: 66 years [48-78 years]; 656 males [69.4%], 289 females [30.6%]). After matching to balance the variables, worse 6-month recovery was observed for monitored patients compared with nonmonitored patients (death/vegetative state: 39.2% vs 40.6%; severe disability: 33.2% vs 25.4%; moderate disability: 15.7% vs 14.9%; good recovery: 11.9% vs 19.1%, respectively; P = .005). Monitored patients received medical therapies significantly more frequently.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study, ICP monitoring was associated with poorer recovery and more frequent medical interventions with their relevant adverse effects. Optimizing the value of ICP monitoring for TBI requires further investigation on monitoring indications, clinical interventions, and management protocols.

Project description:Intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring is widely used in the management of patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, there is limited evidence about the efficacy of ICP monitoring in older subjects (aged ≥65 years). This study evaluated the effect of intraventricular ICP monitoring on the outcome of older adults suffering from a severe TBI.This prospective, observational study included 166 older TBI patients (aged ≥65 years) with Glasgow Coma scale (GCS) scores lower than 9 at admission. The study cohort was divided into two groups, intraventricular ICP monitoring and non-ICP monitoring. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcomes included the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) score 6 months after injury, the ICU and total hospital lengths of stay, and mechanical ventilation days.There were 80 patients in the intraventricular ICP monitoring group and 86 patients in non-ICP monitoring group. There was no statistical difference between groups in demographics and severity of head injury. Patients treated with intraventricular ICP monitoring had lower in-hospital mortality (33.8 % vs 51.2 %, P < 0.05), a higher 6-month GOS score (3.0 ± 1.4 vs 2.5 ± 1.2 P < 0.05), and a lower dosage (514 ± 246 g vs 840 ± 323 g, P < 0.0001) and shorter duration (7.2 ± 3.6 days vs 8.4 ± 4.3 days, P < 0.01) of mannitol use. However, the ICU length of stay (14.3 ± 6.4 days vs 11.6 ± 5.8 days, P < 0.01) and mechanical ventilation days (6.7 ± 3.5 days vs 5.6 ± 2.4 days, P < 0.05) were longer in the ICP monitoring group. The total length of hospital stay did not differ between the two groups (28.5 ± 12.1 days vs 26.1 ± 13.5 days, P = 0.23).Intraventricular ICP monitoring may have beneficial effects on the decreased in-hospital mortality and improved 6-month outcome of older patients with severe TBI. However, given that this was an observational study conducted in a single institution, further well-designed randomized control trials are needed to evaluate the effect of intraventricular ICP monitoring on the outcome of older severe TBI patients.

Dataset Information

Advances in Intracranial Pressure Monitoring and Its Significance in Managing Traumatic Brain Injury.

Publications

Advances in Intracranial Pressure Monitoring and Its Significance in Managing Traumatic Brain Injury.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets