Article

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: 2.96). 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.

1 Follower
 · 
122 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Changes in the demographics, approach, and treatment of traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients require regular evaluation of epidemiological profiles, injury severity classification, and outcomes. This prospective multicenter study provides detailed information on TBI-related variables of 508 moderate-to-severe TBI patients. Variability in epidemiology and outcome is examined by comparing our cohort with previous multicenter studies. Additionally, the relation between outcome and injury severity classification assessed at different time points is studied. Based on the emergency department Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), 339 patients were classified as having severe and 129 as having moderate TBI. In 15%, the diagnosis differed when the accident scene GCS was used for classification. In-hospital mortality was higher if severe TBI was diagnosed at both time points (44%) compared to moderate TBI at one or both time points (7-15%, p<0.001). Furthermore, 14% changed diagnosis when a threshold (≥6 h) for impaired consciousness was used as a criterion for severe TBI: In-hospital mortality was<5% when impaired consciousness lasted for<6 h. This suggests that combining multiple clinical assessments and using a threshold for impaired consciousness may improve the classification of injury severity and prediction of outcome. Compared to earlier multicenter studies, our cohort demonstrates a different case mix that includes a higher age (mean=47.3 years), more diffuse (Traumatic Coma Databank [TCDB] I-II) injuries (58%), and more major extracranial injuries (40%), with relatively high 6 month mortality rates for both severe (46%) and moderate (21%) TBI. Our results confirm that TBI epidemiology and injury patterns have changed in recent years whereas case fatality rates remain high.
    Journal of neurotrauma 07/2011; 28(10):2019-31. DOI:10.1089/neu.2011.2034 · 3.97 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Elevated serum neuron-specific enolase levels are correlated with brain cell damage. Low scores according to Glasgow Coma Scale are also considered as serious poor prognostic factor. The aims of the study were to investigate whether there is a correlation between the two measurements in patients with traumatic brain injury and whether serum neuron-specific enolase levels have potential as a screening test to predict outcome. A total of 169 consecutive patients with traumatic brain injury admitted to our clinic between 2002 and 2005 are included in this study. Those patients, who had any major health problem before trauma, were excluded from the study. However, patients with isolated head injury were included in the study. Serial serum neuron-specific enolase concentrations taken at the first 2, 24, and 48 h after traumatic brain injury were analyzed. A computed tomography was performed on each patient on admission. Their Glasgow Coma Scale scores were recorded serially. The relationship between Glasgow Coma Scale scores and the serum neuron-specific enolase levels were assessed by statistical methods. There was a significant negative correlation between the serum neuron-specific enolase levels and Glasgow Coma Scale scores. The levels of neuron-specific enolase were significantly higher in the patients who died in 30 days after trauma and whose scores were lower than or equal to 8 points in Glasgow Coma Scale. Although there are several serious limitations of the use of neuron-specific enolase as a biomarker in traumatic brain injury (i.e., hypoperfusion, extracranial trauma, bleeding, liver, or kidney damage also increase the level of neuron-specific enolase), its concentrations may be useful as a practical and helpful screening test to identify neurotrauma patients who are at increased risk and may provide supplementary estimation with radiological and clinical findings.
    Neurosurgical Review 07/2008; 31(4):439-44; discussion 444-5. DOI:10.1007/s10143-008-0148-2 · 1.86 Impact Factor
  • Critical care medicine 08/2008; 36(7):2212-3. DOI:10.1097/CCM.0b013e31817e255c · 6.15 Impact Factor