Sarah T Menacho1, Ramesh Grandhi2, Alen Delic3, Mohammad Anadani4, Wendy C Ziai5, Issam A Awad6, Daniel F Hanley5, Adam de Havenon3. 1. Departments of Neurosurgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. Electronic address: sarah.menacho@hsc.utah.edu. 2. Departments of Neurosurgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. 3. Neurology, Clinical Neurosciences Center, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. 4. Department of Neurology, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA. 5. Department of Neurology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 6. Department of Neurosurgery, The University of Chicago School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Intracranial pressure (ICP) monitors have been used in some patients with spontaneous intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) to provide information to guide treatment without clear evidence for its use in this population. We assessed the impact of ICP monitor placement, including external ventricular drains and intraparenchymal monitors, on neurologic outcome in this population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this secondary analysis of the Minimally Invasive Surgery Plus Alteplase for Intracerebral Hemorrhage Evacuation III trial, the primary outcome was poor outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 4-6) and the secondary outcome was death, at 1 year from onset. We compared outcomes in patients with or without an ICP monitor using unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression models. The analyses were repeated in a balanced cohort created with propensity score matching. RESULTS: Seventy patients underwent ICP monitor placement and 424 did not. Poor outcome was seen in 77.1% of patients in the ICP-monitor subgroup compared with 53.8% in the no-monitor subgroup (p<0.001). Of patients in the ICP-monitor subgroup, 31.4% died, compared with 21.0% in the no-monitor subgroup (p=0.053). In multivariate models, ICP monitor placement was associated with a >2-fold greater risk of poor outcome (odds ratio 2.76, 95% CI 1.30-5.85, p=0.008), but not with death (p=0.652). Our findings remained consistent in the propensity score-matched cohort. CONCLUSION: These results question whether ICP monitor-guided therapy in patients with spontaneous nontraumatic ICH improves outcome. Further work is required to define the causal pathway and improve identification of patients that might benefit from invasive ICP monitoring.
OBJECTIVES: Intracranial pressure (ICP) monitors have been used in some patients with spontaneous intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) to provide information to guide treatment without clear evidence for its use in this population. We assessed the impact of ICP monitor placement, including external ventricular drains and intraparenchymal monitors, on neurologic outcome in this population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this secondary analysis of the Minimally Invasive Surgery Plus Alteplase for Intracerebral Hemorrhage Evacuation III trial, the primary outcome was poor outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 4-6) and the secondary outcome was death, at 1 year from onset. We compared outcomes in patients with or without an ICP monitor using unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression models. The analyses were repeated in a balanced cohort created with propensity score matching. RESULTS: Seventy patients underwent ICP monitor placement and 424 did not. Poor outcome was seen in 77.1% of patients in the ICP-monitor subgroup compared with 53.8% in the no-monitor subgroup (p<0.001). Of patients in the ICP-monitor subgroup, 31.4% died, compared with 21.0% in the no-monitor subgroup (p=0.053). In multivariate models, ICP monitor placement was associated with a >2-fold greater risk of poor outcome (odds ratio 2.76, 95% CI 1.30-5.85, p=0.008), but not with death (p=0.652). Our findings remained consistent in the propensity score-matched cohort. CONCLUSION: These results question whether ICP monitor-guided therapy in patients with spontaneous nontraumatic ICH improves outcome. Further work is required to define the causal pathway and improve identification of patients that might benefit from invasive ICP monitoring.
Authors: Susan L Bratton; Randall M Chestnut; Jamshid Ghajar; Flora F McConnell Hammond; Odette A Harris; Roger Hartl; Geoffrey T Manley; Andrew Nemecek; David W Newell; Guy Rosenthal; Joost Schouten; Lori Shutter; Shelly D Timmons; Jamie S Ullman; Walter Videtta; Jack E Wilberger; David W Wright Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2007 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: Susan L Bratton; Randall M Chestnut; Jamshid Ghajar; Flora F McConnell Hammond; Odette A Harris; Roger Hartl; Geoffrey T Manley; Andrew Nemecek; David W Newell; Guy Rosenthal; Joost Schouten; Lori Shutter; Shelly D Timmons; Jamie S Ullman; Walter Videtta; Jack E Wilberger; David W Wright Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2007 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: Wendy C Ziai; Eric Melnychuk; Carol B Thompson; Issam Awad; Karen Lane; Daniel F Hanley Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Randall M Chesnut; Nancy Temkin; Nancy Carney; Sureyya Dikmen; Carlos Rondina; Walter Videtta; Gustavo Petroni; Silvia Lujan; Jim Pridgeon; Jason Barber; Joan Machamer; Kelley Chaddock; Juanita M Celix; Marianna Cherner; Terence Hendrix Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-12-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: J Claude Hemphill; Steven M Greenberg; Craig S Anderson; Kyra Becker; Bernard R Bendok; Mary Cushman; Gordon L Fung; Joshua N Goldstein; R Loch Macdonald; Pamela H Mitchell; Phillip A Scott; Magdy H Selim; Daniel Woo Journal: Stroke Date: 2015-05-28 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Frank A Rasulo; Stefano Calza; Chiara Robba; Fabio Silvio Taccone; Daniele G Biasucci; Rafael Badenes; Simone Piva; Davide Savo; Giuseppe Citerio; Jamil R Dibu; Francesco Curto; Martina Merciadri; Paolo Gritti; Paola Fassini; Soojin Park; Massimo Lamperti; Pierre Bouzat; Paolo Malacarne; Arturo Chieregato; Rita Bertuetti; Raffaele Aspide; Alfredo Cantoni; Victoria McCredie; Lucrezia Guadrini; Nicola Latronico Journal: Crit Care Date: 2022-04-15 Impact factor: 9.097