DaiWai M Olson1, Stefany Ortega Peréz2, Jonathan Ramsay3, Chethan P Venkatasubba Rao4, Jose I Suarez5, Molly McNett6,7, Venkatesh Aiyagari8. 1. UT Southwestern Medical Center, University of Texas Southwestern, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX, 75390-8897, USA. DaiWai.Olson@UTSouthwestern.edu. 2. Universidad del Norte, Barranquilla, Colombia. 3. Morton Plant North Bay Hospital - Recovery Center, Lutz, USA. 4. Vascular Neurology and Neurocritical Care, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA. 5. Departments of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Neurology, and Neurosurgery, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 6. Nursing Research and Evidence Based Practice, The MetroHealth System, Cleveland, USA. 7. Adjunct Faculty, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA. 8. UT Southwestern Medical Center, University of Texas Southwestern, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX, 75390-8897, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring is fundamental for neurocritical care patient management. For many years, ventricular and parenchymal devices have been available for this aim. The purpose of this paper is to review the published literature comparing ICP recordings via an intraventricular catheter or an intraparenchymal (brain tissue) catheter. METHODS: Literature search of Medline, CINAHL, Embase, and Scopus was performed in which manuscripts discussed both ICP monitoring via an intraventricular catheter and ICP monitoring through intraparenchymal (brain tissue) catheter. Keywords and MeSH terms used include critical care, intracranial pressure, ICP, monitoring, epidural catheter, intracranial hypertension, ventriculostomy, ventricular drain, external ventricular drain, and physiologic monitoring. RESULTS: Eleven articles met inclusion criteria. The published literature shows differences in simultaneously recorded ICP between the intraventricular and intraparenchymal sites. CONCLUSIONS: We propose two new terms that more accurately identify the anatomical site of recording for the referenced ICP: intracranial pressure ventricular (ICP-v) and intracranial pressure brain tissue (ICP-bt). Further delineation of the conventional term "ICP" into these two new terms will clarify the difference between ICP-v and ICP-bt and their respective measurement locations.
BACKGROUND: Intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring is fundamental for neurocritical care patient management. For many years, ventricular and parenchymal devices have been available for this aim. The purpose of this paper is to review the published literature comparing ICP recordings via an intraventricular catheter or an intraparenchymal (brain tissue) catheter. METHODS: Literature search of Medline, CINAHL, Embase, and Scopus was performed in which manuscripts discussed both ICP monitoring via an intraventricular catheter and ICP monitoring through intraparenchymal (brain tissue) catheter. Keywords and MeSH terms used include critical care, intracranial pressure, ICP, monitoring, epidural catheter, intracranial hypertension, ventriculostomy, ventricular drain, external ventricular drain, and physiologic monitoring. RESULTS: Eleven articles met inclusion criteria. The published literature shows differences in simultaneously recorded ICP between the intraventricular and intraparenchymal sites. CONCLUSIONS: We propose two new terms that more accurately identify the anatomical site of recording for the referenced ICP: intracranial pressure ventricular (ICP-v) and intracranial pressure brain tissue (ICP-bt). Further delineation of the conventional term "ICP" into these two new terms will clarify the difference between ICP-v and ICP-bt and their respective measurement locations.
Authors: Thomas Lescot; Vincent Reina; Yannick Le Manach; Filippo Boroli; Dorian Chauvet; Anne-Laure Boch; Louis Puybasset Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2011-02-26 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: David Y Chung; DaiWai M Olson; Sayona John; Wazim Mohamed; Monisha A Kumar; Bradford B Thompson; Guy A Rordorf Journal: Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep Date: 2019-11-26 Impact factor: 5.081