Comparative Effectiveness of Intracranial Pressure Monitoring on 6-Month Outcomes of Critically Ill Patients With Traumatic Brain Injury
Authors:
- 5 September 2023
- journal article
- research article
- Published by American Medical Association (AMA) in JAMA Network Open
- Vol. 6 (9) , e2334214
Abstract
Importance: While the relationship between persistent elevations in intracranial pressure (ICP) and poorer outcomes is well established for patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI), there is no consensus on how ICP measurements should drive treatment choices, and the effectiveness of ICP monitoring remains unknown.Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of ICP monitoring on short- and mid-term outcomes of patients with TBI.Design, Setting, and Participants: CREACTIVE was a prospective cohort study that started in March 2014 and lasted 5 years. More than 8000 patients with TBI were enrolled at 83 intensive care units (ICUs) from 7 countries who joined the CREACTIVE Consortium. Patients with TBI who met the Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines for ICP monitoring were selected for the current analyses, which were performed from January to November 2022.Exposure: Patients who underwent ICP monitoring within 2 days of injury (exposure group) were propensity score–matched to patients who were not monitored or who underwent monitoring 2 days after the injury (control group).Main Outcome and Measure: Functional disability at 6 months as indicated by Glasgow Outcome Scale–Extended (GOS-E) score.Results: A total of 1448 patients from 43 ICUs in Italy and Hungary were eligible for analysis. Of the patients satisfying the ICP-monitoring guidelines, 503 (34.7%) underwent ICP monitoring (median [IQR] age: 45 years [29-61 years]; 392 males [77.9%], 111 females [22.1%]) and 945 were not monitored (median [IQR] age: 66 years [48-78 years]; 656 males [69.4%], 289 females [30.6%]). After matching to balance the variables, worse 6-month recovery was observed for monitored patients compared with nonmonitored patients (death/vegetative state: 39.2% vs 40.6%; severe disability: 33.2% vs 25.4%; moderate disability: 15.7% vs 14.9%; good recovery: 11.9% vs 19.1%, respectively; P = .005). Monitored patients received medical therapies significantly more frequently.Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, ICP monitoring was associated with poorer recovery and more frequent medical interventions with their relevant adverse effects. Optimizing the value of ICP monitoring for TBI requires further investigation on monitoring indications, clinical interventions, and management protocols.Keywords
This publication has 36 references indexed in Scilit:
- Intracranial Pressure Monitoring in Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: Results from the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement ProgramJournal of Neurotrauma, 2013
- A Trial of Intracranial-Pressure Monitoring in Traumatic Brain InjuryNew England Journal of Medicine, 2012
- Increased mortality in patients with severe traumatic brain injury treated without intracranial pressure monitoringJournal of Neurosurgery, 2012
- Mortality and long-term functional outcome associated with intracranial pressure after traumatic brain injuryIntensive Care Medicine, 2012
- Relationship of “dose” of intracranial hypertension to outcome in severe traumatic brain injuryJournal of Neurosurgery, 2008
- Using full matching to estimate causal effects in nonexperimental studies: Examining the relationship between adolescent marijuana use and adult outcomes.Developmental Psychology, 2008
- The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) StatementEpidemiology, 2007
- The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effectsBiometrika, 1983
- Intracranial pressure: to monitor or not to monitor?Journal of Neurosurgery, 1982
- Disability after severe head injury: observations on the use of the Glasgow Outcome Scale.Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 1981