Chun Yang1,2, Yuxiao Ma1,2, Li Xie3, Xiang Wu4, Jiyuan Hui1,2, Jiyao Jiang1,2, Guoyi Gao5, Junfeng Feng6,7. 1. Brain Injury Center, Department of Neurosurgery, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China. 2. Shanghai Institute of Head Trauma, Shanghai, China. 3. Clinical Research Institute, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. 5. Department of Neurosurgery, Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. gao3@sina.com. 6. Brain Injury Center, Department of Neurosurgery, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China. fengjfmail@163.com. 7. Shanghai Institute of Head Trauma, Shanghai, China. fengjfmail@163.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although the current guidelines recommend the use of intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring in patients with severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI), the evidence indicating benefit is limited. The present study aims to evaluate the impact of ICP monitoring on patients with sTBI in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: The patient data were obtained from the Collaborative European Neurotrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury China Registry, a prospective, multicenter, longitudinal, observational, cohort study. Patients with sTBI who were admitted to 52 ICUs across China, managed with ICP monitoring or without, were analyzed in this study. Patients with missing information on discharge survival status, Glasgow Coma Scale score on admission to hospital, and record of ICP monitoring application were excluded from the analysis. Data on demographic characteristics, injury, clinical features, treatments, survival at discharge, discharge destination, and length of stay were collected and assessed. The primary end point was survival state at discharge, and death from any cause was considered the event of interest. RESULTS: A total of 2029 patients with sTBI were admitted to the ICU; 737 patients (36.32%) underwent ICP monitoring, and 1292 (63.68%) were managed without ICP monitoring. There was a difference between management with and without ICP monitoring on in-hospital mortality in the unmatched cohort (18.86% vs. 26.63%, p < 0.001) and the propensity-score-matched cohort (19.82% vs. 26.83%, p = 0.003). Multivariate logistic regressions also indicated that increasing age, higher injury severity score, lower Glasgow Coma Scale score, unilateral and bilateral pupillary abnormalities, systemic hypotension (SBP ≤ 90 mm Hg), hypoxia (SpO2 < 95%) on arrival at the hospital, and management without ICP monitoring were associated with higher in-hospital mortality. However, the patients without ICP monitoring had a lower length of stay in the ICU (11.79 vs. 7.95 days, p < 0.001) and hospital (25.96 vs. 21.71 days, p < 0.001), and a higher proportion of survivors were discharged to the home with better recovery in self-care. CONCLUSIONS: Although ICP monitoring was not widely used by all of the centers participating in this study, patients with sTBI managed with ICP monitoring show a better outcome in overall survival. Nevertheless, the use of ICP monitoring makes the management of sTBI more complex and increases the costs of medical care by prolonging the patient's stay in the ICU or hospital.
BACKGROUND: Although the current guidelines recommend the use of intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring in patients with severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI), the evidence indicating benefit is limited. The present study aims to evaluate the impact of ICP monitoring on patients with sTBI in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: The patient data were obtained from the Collaborative European Neurotrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury China Registry, a prospective, multicenter, longitudinal, observational, cohort study. Patients with sTBI who were admitted to 52 ICUs across China, managed with ICP monitoring or without, were analyzed in this study. Patients with missing information on discharge survival status, Glasgow Coma Scale score on admission to hospital, and record of ICP monitoring application were excluded from the analysis. Data on demographic characteristics, injury, clinical features, treatments, survival at discharge, discharge destination, and length of stay were collected and assessed. The primary end point was survival state at discharge, and death from any cause was considered the event of interest. RESULTS: A total of 2029 patients with sTBI were admitted to the ICU; 737 patients (36.32%) underwent ICP monitoring, and 1292 (63.68%) were managed without ICP monitoring. There was a difference between management with and without ICP monitoring on in-hospital mortality in the unmatched cohort (18.86% vs. 26.63%, p < 0.001) and the propensity-score-matched cohort (19.82% vs. 26.83%, p = 0.003). Multivariate logistic regressions also indicated that increasing age, higher injury severity score, lower Glasgow Coma Scale score, unilateral and bilateral pupillary abnormalities, systemic hypotension (SBP ≤ 90 mm Hg), hypoxia (SpO2 < 95%) on arrival at the hospital, and management without ICP monitoring were associated with higher in-hospital mortality. However, the patients without ICP monitoring had a lower length of stay in the ICU (11.79 vs. 7.95 days, p < 0.001) and hospital (25.96 vs. 21.71 days, p < 0.001), and a higher proportion of survivors were discharged to the home with better recovery in self-care. CONCLUSIONS: Although ICP monitoring was not widely used by all of the centers participating in this study, patients with sTBI managed with ICP monitoring show a better outcome in overall survival. Nevertheless, the use of ICP monitoring makes the management of sTBI more complex and increases the costs of medical care by prolonging the patient's stay in the ICU or hospital.
Authors: Nancy Carney; Annette M Totten; Cindy O'Reilly; Jamie S Ullman; Gregory W J Hawryluk; Michael J Bell; Susan L Bratton; Randall Chesnut; Odette A Harris; Niranjan Kissoon; Andres M Rubiano; Lori Shutter; Robert C Tasker; Monica S Vavilala; Jack Wilberger; David W Wright; Jamshid Ghajar Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2017-01-01 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Andrew I R Maas; David K Menon; P David Adelson; Nada Andelic; Michael J Bell; Antonio Belli; Peter Bragge; Alexandra Brazinova; András Büki; Randall M Chesnut; Giuseppe Citerio; Mark Coburn; D Jamie Cooper; A Tamara Crowder; Endre Czeiter; Marek Czosnyka; Ramon Diaz-Arrastia; Jens P Dreier; Ann-Christine Duhaime; Ari Ercole; Thomas A van Essen; Valery L Feigin; Guoyi Gao; Joseph Giacino; Laura E Gonzalez-Lara; Russell L Gruen; Deepak Gupta; Jed A Hartings; Sean Hill; Ji-Yao Jiang; Naomi Ketharanathan; Erwin J O Kompanje; Linda Lanyon; Steven Laureys; Fiona Lecky; Harvey Levin; Hester F Lingsma; Marc Maegele; Marek Majdan; Geoffrey Manley; Jill Marsteller; Luciana Mascia; Charles McFadyen; Stefania Mondello; Virginia Newcombe; Aarno Palotie; Paul M Parizel; Wilco Peul; James Piercy; Suzanne Polinder; Louis Puybasset; Todd E Rasmussen; Rolf Rossaint; Peter Smielewski; Jeannette Söderberg; Simon J Stanworth; Murray B Stein; Nicole von Steinbüchel; William Stewart; Ewout W Steyerberg; Nino Stocchetti; Anneliese Synnot; Braden Te Ao; Olli Tenovuo; Alice Theadom; Dick Tibboel; Walter Videtta; Kevin K W Wang; W Huw Williams; Lindsay Wilson; Kristine Yaffe Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2017-11-06 Impact factor: 44.182
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