Dataset Information

Analysis of Normal High-Frequency Intracranial Pressure Values and Treatment Threshold in Neurocritical Care Patients: Insights into Normal Values and a Potential Treatment Threshold.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Intracranial pressure (ICP) elevation is a compartment syndrome that impairs blood flow to the brain. Despite the importance of ICP values in neurocritical care, normal ICP values and the precise ICP threshold at which treatment should be initiated remain uncertain.

Objective

To refine our understanding of normal ICP values and determine the ICP threshold most strongly associated with outcome.

Design, setting, and participants

Prospective observational study (2004-2010), with outcomes determined at hospital discharge. The study included neurocritical care patients from a single level I trauma center, San Francisco General Hospital. Three hundred eighty-three patients had a traumatic brain injury with or without craniectomy; 140 patients had another indication for ICP monitoring. Consecutive patients were studied. Data analyses were completed between March 2015 and December 2019.

Exposures

Five hundred twenty-three ICP-monitored patients.

Main outcomes and measures

A computer system prospectively and automatically collected 1-minute physiologic data from patients in the intensive care unit during a 6-year period. Mean ICP was calculated, as was the proportion of ICP values greater than thresholds from 1 to 80 mm Hg in 1-mm Hg increments. The association between these measures and outcome was explored for various epochs up to 30 days from the time of injury. A principal component analysis was used to explore physiologic changes at various ICP thresholds, and elastic net regression was used to identify ICP thresholds most strongly associated with Glasgow Outcome Scale score at discharge.

Results

Of the 523 studied patients, 70.7% of studied patients were men (n = 370) and 72.1% had a traumatic brain injury (n = 377). A total of 4 090 964 1-minute ICP measurements were recorded for the included patients (7.78 years of recordings). Intracranial pressure values of 8 to 9 mm Hg were most commonly recorded and could possibly reflect normal values. The principal component analysis suggested state shifts in the physiome occurred at ICPs greater than 19 mm Hg and 24 mm Hg. Elastic net regression identified an ICP threshold of 19 mm Hg as most robustly associated with outcome when considering all neurocritical care patients, patients with TBI, and patients with TBI who underwent craniectomy. Intracranial pressure values greater than 19 mm Hg were associated with mortality, while lower values were associated with outcome in surviving patients.

Conclusions and relevance

This study provides insight into what normal ICP values could be. An ICP threshold of 19 mm Hg was robustly associated with outcome in studied patients, although lower ICP values were associated with outcome in surviving patients.

SUBMITTER: Hawryluk GWJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7296460 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTargets for treatment of raised intracranial pressure or decreased cerebral perfusion pressure in pediatric neurocritical care are not well defined. Current pediatric guidelines, based on traumatic brain injury, suggest an intracranial pressure target of less than 20 mm Hg and cerebral perfusion pressure minimum of 40-50 mm Hg, with possible age dependence of cerebral perfusion pressure. We sought to define intracranial pressure and cerebral perfusion pressure thresholds associated with inhospital mortality across a large single-center pediatric neurocritical care cohort.DesignRetrospective chart review.SettingPICU, single quaternary-care center.PatientsIndividuals receiving intracranial pressure monitoring from January 2012 to December 2016.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsIntracranial pressure and cerebral perfusion pressure measurements from 262 neurocritical care patients (87 traumatic brain injury and 175 nontraumatic brain injury; 63% male; 8.3 ± 5.8 yr; mortality 11.1%). Mean intracranial pressure and cerebral perfusion pressure had area under the receiver operating characteristic curves of 0.75 and 0.64, respectively, for association of inhospital mortality. Cerebral perfusion pressure cut points increased with age (< 2 yr = 47, 2 to < 8 yr = 58 mm Hg, ≥ 8 yr = 73 mm Hg). In the traumatic brain injury subset, mean intracranial pressure and cerebral perfusion pressure had area under the receiver operating characteristic curves of 0.70 and 0.78, respectively, for association of inhospital mortality. Traumatic brain injury cerebral perfusion pressure cut points increased with age (< 2 yr = 45, 2 to < 8 yr = 57, ≥ 8 yr = 68 mm Hg). Mean intracranial pressure greater than 15 mm Hg, male sex, and traumatic brain injury status were independently associated with inhospital mortality (odds ratio, 14.23 [5.55-36.46], 2.77 [1.04-7.39], and 2.57 [1.03-6.38], respectively; all p < 0.05). Mean cerebral perfusion pressure less than 67 mm Hg and traumatic brain injury status were independently associated with inhospital mortality (odds ratio, 5.16 [2.05-12.98] and 3.71 [1.55-8.91], respectively; both p < 0.01). In the nontraumatic brain injury subset, mean intracranial pressure had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.77 with an intracranial pressure cut point of 15 mm Hg, whereas mean cerebral perfusion pressure was not predictive of inhospital mortality.ConclusionsWe identified mean intracranial pressure thresholds, utilizing receiver operating characteristic and regression analyses, associated with inhospital mortality that is below current guidelines-based treatment targets in both traumatic brain injury and nontraumatic brain injury patients, and age-dependent cerebral perfusion pressure thresholds associated with inhospital mortality that were above current guidelines-based targets in traumatic brain injury patients. Further study is warranted to identify data-driven intracranial pressure and cerebral perfusion pressure targets in children undergoing intracranial pressure monitoring, whether for traumatic brain injury or other indications.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Acute treatment of cerebral edema and elevated intracranial pressure is a common issue in patients with neurological injury. Practical recommendations regarding selection and monitoring of therapies for initial management of cerebral edema for optimal efficacy and safety are generally lacking. This guideline evaluates the role of hyperosmolar agents (mannitol, HTS), corticosteroids, and selected non-pharmacologic therapies in the acute treatment of cerebral edema. Clinicians must be able to select appropriate therapies for initial cerebral edema management based on available evidence while balancing efficacy and safety. METHODS:The Neurocritical Care Society recruited experts in neurocritical care, nursing, and pharmacy to create a panel in 2017. The group generated 16 clinical questions related to initial management of cerebral edema in various neurological insults using the PICO format. A research librarian executed a comprehensive literature search through July 2018. The panel screened the identified articles for inclusion related to each specific PICO question and abstracted necessary information for pertinent publications. The panel used GRADE methodology to categorize the quality of evidence as high, moderate, low, or very low based on their confidence that the findings of each publication approximate the true effect of the therapy. RESULTS:The panel generated recommendations regarding initial management of cerebral edema in neurocritical care patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage, traumatic brain injury, acute ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, bacterial meningitis, and hepatic encephalopathy. CONCLUSION:The available evidence suggests hyperosmolar therapy may be helpful in reducing ICP elevations or cerebral edema in patients with SAH, TBI, AIS, ICH, and HE, although neurological outcomes do not appear to be affected. Corticosteroids appear to be helpful in reducing cerebral edema in patients with bacterial meningitis, but not ICH. Differences in therapeutic response and safety may exist between HTS and mannitol. The use of these agents in these critical clinical situations merits close monitoring for adverse effects. There is a dire need for high-quality research to better inform clinicians of the best options for individualized care of patients with cerebral edema.