Eric M Bershad1, Aashish Anand2, Stacia M DeSantis3, Ming Yang3, Rosa A Tang4, Eusebia Calvillo2, Leslie Malkin-Gosdin2, Rod Foroozan5, Rahul Damani2, Nelson Maldonado2, Pramod Gupta2, Benedict Tan2, Chethan P Venkatasubba Rao6, Jose I Suarez6, Jonathan B Clark6, Jeffrey P Sutton7, Dorit B Donoviel8. 1. Department of Neurology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA; Center for Space Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA. Electronic address: bershad@bcm.edu. 2. Department of Neurology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA. 3. Department of Biostatistics, University of Texas Health Science at Houston, Houston, Texas, USA. 4. University of Houston School of Optometry, Houston, Texas, USA. 5. Department of Ophthalmology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA. 6. Department of Neurology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA; Center for Space Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA. 7. Center for Space Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA; Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA. 8. Center for Space Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA; Department of Pharmacology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Noninvasive intracranial pressure (ICP) measurement would represent a major advance for patients with neurological problems. The Vittamed ICP meter is an ultrasound-based device reported to have high agreement with lumbar puncture cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) pressure measurement. However, previous studies included mostly patients with normal levels of ICP. The purpose of our study was to perform an independent clinical validation study of a transcranial Doppler-based noninvasive ICP meter in patients anticipated to have a wide range of ICP. METHODS: In a prospective cross-sectional design, we simultaneously measured ICP with the Vittamed device and the invasive lumbar CSF pressure. The operator of each procedure was blinded to the result of the other method. Data were analyzed using Bland-Altman plots, Pearson correlation coefficients, and receiver operator characteristic curves. RESULTS: Twenty-four independent paired measurements of Vittamed and lumbar CSF pressure were obtained; with mean absolute difference between paired measures of 4.5 mmHg (standard deviation 3.1). The 95% limits of agreement were -10.5 to +11.0. The systematic bias (mean of paired differences) was negligible at 0.25 mmHg. The sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve for ICP >20 mmHg were 0.73, 0.77, and 0.71, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The Vittamed ICP meter had fair agreement with lumbar CSF pressure measurement. The wide limits of agreement would preclude using this version of the device as a stand-alone method for ICP determination, but may be useful if combined with other ICP screening methods. Ongoing improvements to the Vittamed hardware and software may lead to improvements in accuracy and clinical utility of this device.
BACKGROUND: Noninvasive intracranial pressure (ICP) measurement would represent a major advance for patients with neurological problems. The Vittamed ICP meter is an ultrasound-based device reported to have high agreement with lumbar puncture cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) pressure measurement. However, previous studies included mostly patients with normal levels of ICP. The purpose of our study was to perform an independent clinical validation study of a transcranial Doppler-based noninvasive ICP meter in patients anticipated to have a wide range of ICP. METHODS: In a prospective cross-sectional design, we simultaneously measured ICP with the Vittamed device and the invasive lumbar CSF pressure. The operator of each procedure was blinded to the result of the other method. Data were analyzed using Bland-Altman plots, Pearson correlation coefficients, and receiver operator characteristic curves. RESULTS: Twenty-four independent paired measurements of Vittamed and lumbar CSF pressure were obtained; with mean absolute difference between paired measures of 4.5 mmHg (standard deviation 3.1). The 95% limits of agreement were -10.5 to +11.0. The systematic bias (mean of paired differences) was negligible at 0.25 mmHg. The sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve for ICP >20 mmHg were 0.73, 0.77, and 0.71, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The Vittamed ICP meter had fair agreement with lumbar CSF pressure measurement. The wide limits of agreement would preclude using this version of the device as a stand-alone method for ICP determination, but may be useful if combined with other ICP screening methods. Ongoing improvements to the Vittamed hardware and software may lead to improvements in accuracy and clinical utility of this device.
Authors: Jessica M Scott; Wesley J Tucker; David Martin; James B Crowell; Elizabeth Goetchius; Omar Ozgur; Scott Hamilton; Christian Otto; Rebecca Gonzales; Monica Ritter; Nathanial Newby; John DeWitt; Michael B Stenger; Robert Ploutz-Snyder; Lori Ploutz-Snyder; William H Morgan; Mark J Haykowsky Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2019-06-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Paul S Basel; Michael D April; Allyson A Arana; Jessie Renee D Fernandez; Steven G Schauer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-07-27 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Arnošt Mládek; Václav Gerla; Petr Šeba; Vladimír Kolář; Petr Skalický; Helen Whitley; Lenka Lhotská; Vladimír Beneš; Ondřej Bradáč Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-07-12 Impact factor: 4.379