OBJECT: Based on continuous monitoring of the pressure reactivity index (PRx), the authors defined individualized intracranial pressure (ICP) thresholds by graphing the relationship between ICP and PRx. These investigators hypothesized that an "ICP dose" based on individually assessed ICP thresholds would correlate more closely with the 6-month outcome when compared with ICP doses derived by the recommended universal thresholds of 20 and 25 mm Hg. METHODS: This study was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from 327 patients with severe traumatic brain injury. RESULTS: Individualized thresholds were visually identified from graphs of PRx versus ICP; PRx > 0.2 was the cutoff. Intracranial pressure doses were then computed as the cumulative area under the curve above the defined thresholds in graphing ICP versus time. The term "Dose 20" (D20) was used to refer to an ICP threshold of 20 mm Hg; the markers D25 and DPRx were calculated similarly. Separate logistic regression models were fit with death as the outcome and each dose as the predictor, both alone and adjusted for covariates. The discriminative ability of each dose for mortality was assessed by receiver operating characteristic AUC analysis in which 5-fold cross-validation was used. A clearly identifiable PRx-based threshold was possible in 224 patients (68%). The DPRx (AUC 0.81, 95% CI 0.74-0.87) was found to have the highest area under the curve (AUC) over both D20 (0.75, 95% CI 0.68-0.81) and D25 (0.77, 95% CI 0.70-0.83); in the cross-validation model, DPRx remained the best discriminator of mortality (DPRx: AUC 0.77 [95% CI 0.68-0.89]; D20: 0.72 [95% CI 0.66-0.81]; and D25: 0.65 [95% CI 0.56-0.73]). CONCLUSIONS: The authors explored the importance of different ICP thresholds for outcome by calculating patient-specific ICP doses based on the continuous monitoring of cerebrovascular pressure reactivity. They found that these individualized doses of intracranial hypertension were stronger predictors of death than doses derived from the universal thresholds of 20 and 25 mm Hg. The PRx could offer a method that can be directed toward individualizing the ICP threshold.
OBJECT: Based on continuous monitoring of the pressure reactivity index (PRx), the authors defined individualized intracranial pressure (ICP) thresholds by graphing the relationship between ICP and PRx. These investigators hypothesized that an "ICP dose" based on individually assessed ICP thresholds would correlate more closely with the 6-month outcome when compared with ICP doses derived by the recommended universal thresholds of 20 and 25 mm Hg. METHODS: This study was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from 327 patients with severe traumatic brain injury. RESULTS: Individualized thresholds were visually identified from graphs of PRx versus ICP; PRx > 0.2 was the cutoff. Intracranial pressure doses were then computed as the cumulative area under the curve above the defined thresholds in graphing ICP versus time. The term "Dose 20" (D20) was used to refer to an ICP threshold of 20 mm Hg; the markers D25 and DPRx were calculated similarly. Separate logistic regression models were fit with death as the outcome and each dose as the predictor, both alone and adjusted for covariates. The discriminative ability of each dose for mortality was assessed by receiver operating characteristic AUC analysis in which 5-fold cross-validation was used. A clearly identifiable PRx-based threshold was possible in 224 patients (68%). The DPRx (AUC 0.81, 95% CI 0.74-0.87) was found to have the highest area under the curve (AUC) over both D20 (0.75, 95% CI 0.68-0.81) and D25 (0.77, 95% CI 0.70-0.83); in the cross-validation model, DPRx remained the best discriminator of mortality (DPRx: AUC 0.77 [95% CI 0.68-0.89]; D20: 0.72 [95% CI 0.66-0.81]; and D25: 0.65 [95% CI 0.56-0.73]). CONCLUSIONS: The authors explored the importance of different ICP thresholds for outcome by calculating patient-specific ICP doses based on the continuous monitoring of cerebrovascular pressure reactivity. They found that these individualized doses of intracranial hypertension were stronger predictors of death than doses derived from the universal thresholds of 20 and 25 mm Hg. The PRx could offer a method that can be directed toward individualizing the ICP threshold.
Authors: Giuseppe Citerio; Soojin Park; J Michael Schmidt; Richard Moberg; Jose I Suarez; Peter D Le Roux Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Jonathan Marehbian; Susanne Muehlschlegel; Brian L Edlow; Holly E Hinson; David Y Hwang Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Christos Lazaridis; Andrew I R Maas; Michael J Souter; Renee H Martin; Randal M Chesnut; Stacia M DeSantis; Gene Sung; Peter D Leroux; Jose I Suarez Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Fabian Güiza; Bart Depreitere; Ian Piper; Giuseppe Citerio; Iain Chambers; Patricia A Jones; Tsz-Yan Milly Lo; Per Enblad; Pelle Nillson; Bart Feyen; Philippe Jorens; Andrew Maas; Martin U Schuhmann; Rob Donald; Laura Moss; Greet Van den Berghe; Geert Meyfroidt Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2015-04-18 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Frederick A Zeiler; Erta Beqiri; Manuel Cabeleira; Peter J Hutchinson; Nino Stocchetti; David K Menon; Marek Czosnyka; Peter Smielewski; Ari Ercole Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2020-05-04 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: Randall M Chesnut; Nancy Temkin; Sureyya Dikmen; Carlos Rondina; Walter Videtta; Gustavo Petroni; Silvia Lujan; Victor Alanis; Antonio Falcao; Gustavo de la Fuenta; Luis Gonzalez; Manuel Jibaja; Arturo Lavarden; Freddy Sandi; Roberto Mérida; Ricardo Romero; Jim Pridgeon; Jason Barber; Joan Machamer; Kelley Chaddock Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2017-09-26 Impact factor: 5.269