Intracranial pressure monitoring in brain-injured patients is associated with worsening of survival

Division of Burns, Department of Surgery, Trauma Critical Care, University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, Texas, USA.
The Journal of trauma (Impact Factor: 2.35). 03/2008; 64(2):335-40. DOI: 10.1097/TA.0b013e31815dd017
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The Brain Trauma Foundation (BTF) recommends intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring in traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients with Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) of 8 or less, and an abnormal brain computed tomography. However, benefits of ICP monitoring have not been documented. We hypothesized that BTF criteria for ICP monitoring in blunt TBI do not identify patients who are likely to benefit from it.
The National Trauma Data Bank (1994-2001) was analyzed. Inclusion criteria were blunt TBI, head-abbreviated injury score (AIS) 3 to 6, age 20 to 50 years, GCS </=8, abnormal brain computed tomographic scan, and intensive care unit admission for 3 days or more. Early deaths (<48 hours) and delayed admissions (>24 hours after injury) were excluded. Patients who underwent ICP monitoring (n = 708) were compared with those did not (n = 938). Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine the relationship between ICP monitoring and survival, while controlling for overall injury severity, TBI severity, craniotomy, associated injuries, comorbidities, and complications.
ICP monitoring was performed in only 43% of patients who met BTF criteria. There were no group differences in age, gender, or GCS. After adjusting for multiple potential confounding factors including, admission GCS, age, blood pressure, head AIS, and injury severity score (ISS), ICP monitoring was associated with a 45% reduction in survival (OR = 0.55; 95% CI, 0.39-0.76; p < 0.001).
ICP monitoring in accordance with current BTF criteria is associated with worsening of survival in TBI patients. A prospective randomized controlled trial of ICP-guided therapy is needed. Until then, the use of ICP monitoring should not be used as a quality benchmark.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major cause of death and disability worldwide. In large part critical care for TBI is focused on the identification and management of secondary brain injury. This requires effective neuromonitoring that traditionally has centered on intracranial pressure (ICP). The purpose of this paper is to review the fundamental literature relative to the clinical application of ICP monitoring in TBI critical care and to provide recommendations on how the technique maybe applied to help patient management and enhance outcome. A PubMed search between 1980 and September 2013 identified 2,253 articles; 244 of which were reviewed in detail to prepare this report and the evidentiary tables. Several important concepts emerge from this review. ICP monitoring is safe and is best performed using a parenchymal monitor or ventricular catheter. While the indications for ICP monitoring are well established, there remains great variability in its use. Increased ICP, particularly the pattern of the increase and ICP refractory to treatment is associated with increased mortality. Class I evidence is lacking on how monitoring and management of ICP influences outcome. However, a large body of observational data suggests that ICP management has the potential to influence outcome, particularly when care is targeted and individualized and supplemented with data from other monitors including the clinical examination and imaging.
    Neurocritical Care 09/2014; 21(S2). DOI:10.1007/s12028-014-0048-y · 3.04 Impact Factor
  • World Neurosurgery 02/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.wneu.2015.01.031 · 2.42 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECT Some studies have demonstrated that intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring reduces the mortality of traumatic brain injury (TBI). But other studies have shown that ICP monitoring is associated with increased mortality. Thus, the authors performed a meta-analysis of studies comparing ICP monitoring with no ICP monitoring in patients who have suffered a TBI to determine if differences exist between these strategies with respect to mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), and hospital LOS. METHODS The authors systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Central) from their inception to October 2013 for relevant studies. Randomized clinical trials and prospective cohort, retrospective observational cohort, and case-control studies that compared ICP monitoring with no ICP monitoring for the treatment of TBI were included in the analysis. Studies included had to report at least one point of mortality in an ICP monitoring group and a no-ICP monitoring group. Data were extracted for study characteristics, patient demographics, baseline characteristics, treatment details, and study outcomes. RESULTS A total of 14 studies including 24,792 patients were analyzed. The meta-analysis provides no evidence that ICP monitoring decreased the risk of death (pooled OR 0.93 [95% CI 0.77-1.11], p = 0.40). However, 7 of the studies including 12,944 patients were published after 2012 (January 2012 to October 2013), and they revealed that ICP monitoring was significantly associated with a greater decrease in mortality than no ICP monitoring (pooled OR 0.56 [95% CI 0.41-0.78], p = 0.0006). In addition, 7 of the studies conducted in North America showed no evidence that ICP monitoring decreased the risk of death, similar to the studies conducted in other regions. ICU LOSs were significantly longer for the group subjected to ICP monitoring (mean difference [MD] 0.29 [95% CI 0.21-0.37]; p < 0.00001). In the pooled data, the hospital LOS with ICP monitoring was also significantly longer than with no ICP monitoring (MD 0.21 [95% CI 0.04-0.37]; p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS In this systematic review and meta-analysis of ICP monitoring studies, the authors found that the current clinical evidence does not indicate that ICP monitoring overall is significantly superior to no ICP monitoring in terms of the mortality of TBI patients. However, studies published after 2012 indicated a lower mortality in patients who underwent ICP monitoring.
    Journal of Neurosurgery 12/2014; DOI:10.3171/2014.10.JNS1460 · 3.23 Impact Factor