| 1. |
- Stocchetti, Nino, et al.
(author)
-
Clinical applications of intracranial pressure monitoring in traumatic brain injury
- 2014
-
In: Acta Neurochirurgica. - : Springer. - 0001-6268 .- 0942-0940. ; 156:8, s. 1615-1622
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring has been for decades a cornerstone of traumatic brain injury (TBI) management. Nevertheless, in recent years, its usefulness has been questioned in several reports. A group of neurosurgeons and neurointensivists met to openly discuss, and provide consensus on, practical applications of ICP in severe adult TBI. A consensus conference was held in Milan on October 5, 2013, putting together neurosurgeons and intensivists with recognized expertise in treatment of TBI. Four topics have been selected and addressed in pro-con presentations: 1) ICP indications in diffuse brain injury, 2) cerebral contusions, 3) secondary decompressive craniectomy (DC), and 4) after evacuation of intracranial traumatic hematomas. The participants were asked to elaborate on the existing published evidence (without a systematic review) and their personal clinical experience. Based on the presentations and discussions of the conference, some drafts were circulated among the attendants. After remarks and further contributions were collected, a final document was approved by the participants. The group made the following recommendations: 1) in comatose TBI patients, in case of normal computed tomography (CT) scan, there is no indication for ICP monitoring; 2) ICP monitoring is indicated in comatose TBI patients with cerebral contusions in whom the interruption of sedation to check neurological status is dangerous and when the clinical examination is not completely reliable. The probe should be positioned on the side of the larger contusion; 3) ICP monitoring is generally recommended following a secondary DC in order to assess the effectiveness of DC in terms of ICP control and guide further therapy; 4) ICP monitoring after evacuation of an acute supratentorial intracranial hematoma should be considered for salvageable patients at increased risk of intracranial hypertension with particular perioperative features.
|
|
| 2. |
- Volovici, Victor, et al.
(author)
-
Comparative effectiveness of intracranial hypertension management guided by ventricular versus intraparenchymal pressure monitoring : a CENTER-TBI study
- 2022
-
In: Acta Neurochirurgica. - : Springer. - 0001-6268 .- 0942-0940. ; 164:7, s. 1693-1705
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes between patients with primary external ventricular device (EVD)-driven treatment of intracranial hypertension and those with primary intraparenchymal monitor (IP)-driven treatment.METHODS: The CENTER-TBI study is a prospective, multicenter, longitudinal observational cohort study that enrolled patients of all TBI severities from 62 participating centers (mainly level I trauma centers) across Europe between 2015 and 2017. Functional outcome was assessed at 6 months and a year. We used multivariable adjusted instrumental variable (IV) analysis with "center" as instrument and logistic regression with covariate adjustment to determine the effect estimate of EVD on 6-month functional outcome.RESULTS: A total of 878 patients of all TBI severities with an indication for intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring were included in the present study, of whom 739 (84%) patients had an IP monitor and 139 (16%) an EVD. Patients included were predominantly male (74% in the IP monitor and 76% in the EVD group), with a median age of 46 years in the IP group and 48 in the EVD group. Six-month GOS-E was similar between IP and EVD patients (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95% confidence interval [CI] OR 0.74 and 95% CI [0.36-1.52], adjusted IV analysis). The length of intensive care unit stay was greater in the EVD group than in the IP group (adjusted rate ratio [95% CI] 1.70 [1.34-2.12], IV analysis). One hundred eighty-seven of the 739 patients in the IP group (25%) required an EVD due to refractory ICPs.CONCLUSION: We found no major differences in outcomes of patients with TBI when comparing EVD-guided and IP monitor-guided ICP management. In our cohort, a quarter of patients that initially received an IP monitor required an EVD later for ICP control. The prevalence of complications was higher in the EVD group.
|
|
