| Literature DB >> 33911381 |
Amandeep Kaur1, Parshotam L Gautam1, Shruti Sharma1, Vikram P Singh2, Sarit Sharma3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Optic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD) measurement is emerging as a noninvasive method to estimate raised ICP. It is helpful in situations where imaging of brain or direct ICP monitoring is not available or feasible. Use of ONSD is still limited, so this study was planned to determine whether the bedside sonographic measurement of ONSD can reliably predict elevated ICP in neuro-trauma patients.Entities:
Keywords: Computed tomography scan; Glasgow coma score; intracranial pressure; optic nerve sheath diameter; revised trauma score; traumatic brain injury
Year: 2020 PMID: 33911381 PMCID: PMC8061509 DOI: 10.4103/aian.AIAN_51_20
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ann Indian Acad Neurol ISSN: 0972-2327 Impact factor: 1.383
Age distribution of study participants with respect to ONSD measurements
| Age (years) | ONSD ≥5.0 mm | Total | Chi-square value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No | Yes | ||||
| <20 | 1 (1.9) | 3 (6.5) | 4 | ||
| 21-40 | 20 (37.0) | 12 (26.1) | 32 | 3.970 | 0.265 |
| 41-60 | 24 (44.4) | 18 (39.1) | 42 | ||
| >60 | 9 (16.7) | 13 (28.3) | 22 | ||
| Total | 54 (100) | 46 (100) | 100 | ||
Figures in parenthesis indicate percentages
Distribution of Mean±Standard deviation of Age and ONSD in study population
| ONSD ≥5.0 mm | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No | Yes | |||||
| Mean (cm) | SD | Mean (cm) | SD | |||
| Age | 46.98 | 13.79 | 48.24 | 16.00 | -0.422 | 0.674 |
| ONSD | 0.41 | 0.03 | 0.56 | 0.03 | -24.274 | 0.000 |
Figure 1Distribution of patients with respect to diagnosis and ONSD
Relationship between GCS, RTS and ONSD measurements
| Parameter | ONSD ≥5.0 mm | Total | Chi-square value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | ||||
| GCS | |||||
| 3-5 | 24 (52.2) | 0 | 24 | ||
| 6-8 | 21 (45.7) | 21 (38.9) | 42 | 53.822 | 0.000 (HS) |
| >8 | 1 (2.2) | 33 (61.1) | 34 | ||
| Total | 46 (100) | 54 (100) | 100 | ||
| RTS | |||||
| <4 | 38 (82.6) | 2 (3.7) | 40 | 64.746 | 0.000 (HS) |
| 4-6 | 8 (17.4) | 48 (88.9) | 56 | ||
| >6 | 0 | 4 (7.4) | 4 | ||
| Total | 46 (100) | 54 (100) | 100 | ||
Figures in parenthesis indicate percentages
Relationship between Hemodynamic parameters and ONSD
| Variable | Range | ONSD ≥5.0 mm | ONSD <5.0 mm | Total | Chi-square value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | <50 | 2 (4.3) | 1 (1.9) | 3 | ||
| 50-70 | 8 (17.4) | 6 (11.1) | 14 | 3.318 | 0.506 | |
| 70-90 | 14 (30.4) | 17 (31.5) | 31 | |||
| 90-110 | 13 (28.3) | 23 (42.6) | 36 | |||
| >110 | 9 (19.6) | 7 (13.0) | 16 | |||
| Total | 46 (100) | 54 (100) | 100 | |||
| SBP | <90 | 5 (10.9) | 0 | 5 | ||
| 90-110 | 15 (32.6) | 5 (9.3) | 20 | 17.885 | 0.001 | |
| 110-130 | 14 (30.4) | 20 (37.0) | 34 | |||
| 130-150 | 8 (17.4) | 22 (40.7) | 30 | |||
| >150 | 4 (8.7) | 7 (13.0) | 11 | |||
| Total | 46 (100) | 54 (100) | 100 | |||
| Inotropes | Yes | 21 (45.7) | 8 (14.8) | 29 | ||
| No | 25 (54.3) | 46 (85.2) | 71 | 11.472 | 0.001 | |
| Total | 46 (100) | 54 (100) | 100 |
Figures in parenthesis indicate percentages
Figure 2Relationship of ONSD and CT findings
Relationship of ONSD with respect to CT scan findings
| ONSD ≥5.0 mm | Total | Chi-square value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | ||||
| CT Scan | |||||
| Positive | 41 (89.1) | 3 (5.6) | 44 | 70.415 | 0.000 (HS) |
| Normal | 5 (10.9) | 51 (94.4) | 56 | ||
| Total | 46 (100) | 54 (100) | 100 | ||
Figures in parenthesis indicate percentages
Different cut offs and their sensitivity and specificity calculations
| ONSD in cm | Sensitivity | Specificity |
|---|---|---|
| 0.46 | 0.95 | 0.88 |
| 0.47 | 0.95 | 0.89 |
| 0.48 | 0.93 | 0.89 |
| 0.49 | 0.93 | 0.91 |
| 0.50 | 0.93 | 0.93 |
| 0.51 | 0.91 | 0.96 |
| 0.52 | 0.89 | 0.98 |
| 0.52 | 0.86 | 0.98 |
Area under the curve for ONSD
| Final ONSD | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Area | Sth. Error | Asymptomatic 95% confidence interval | ||
| Lower bound | Upper bound | |||
| 0.972 | 0.020 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 |
Figure 3Receiver Operating Characteristic curve analysis of ONSD