Multimodal monitoring intracranial pressure by invasive and noninvasive means.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 10 2023
27 10 2023
Historique:
received:
19
09
2022
accepted:
24
10
2023
medline:
30
10
2023
pubmed:
28
10
2023
entrez:
27
10
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Although the placement of an intraventricular catheter remains the gold standard method for the diagnosis of intracranial hypertension (ICH), the technique has several limitations including but not limited to its invasiveness. Current noninvasive methods, however, still lack robust evidence to support their clinical use. We aimed to estimate, as an exploratory hypothesis generating analysis, the discriminative power of four noninvasive methods to diagnose ICH. We prospectively collected data from adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), intraparenchymal hemorrhage (IPH), and ischemic stroke (IS) in whom invasive intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring had been placed. Measures were simultaneously collected from the following noninvasive methods: optic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD), pulsatility index (PI) using transcranial Doppler (TCD), a 5-point visual scale designed for brain Computed Tomography (CT), and two parameters (time-to-peak [TTP] and P2/P1 ratio) of a noninvasive ICP wave morphology monitor (Brain4Care[B4c]). ICH was defined as a sustained ICP > 20 mmHg for at least 5 min. We studied 18 patients (SAH = 14; ICH = 3; IS = 1) on 60 occasions with a mean age of 52 ± 14.3 years. All methods were recorded simultaneously, except for the CT, which was performed within 24 h of the other methods. The median ICP was 13 [9.8-16.2] mmHg, and intracranial hypertension was present on 18 occasions (30%). Median values from the noninvasive techniques were ONSD 4.9 [4.40-5.41] mm, PI 1.22 [1.04-1.43], CT scale 3 points [IQR: 3.0], P2/P1 ratio 1.16 [1.09-1.23], and TTP 0.215 [0.193-0.237]. There was a significant statistical correlation between all the noninvasive techniques and invasive ICP (ONSD, r = 0.29; PI, r = 0.62; CT, r = 0.21; P2/P1 ratio, r = 0.35; TTP, r = 0.35, p < 0.001 for all comparisons). The area under the curve (AUC) to estimate intracranial hypertension was 0.69 [CIs = 0.62-0.78] for the ONSD, 0.75 [95% CIs 0.69-0.83] for the PI, 0.64 [95%Cis 0.59-069] for CT, 0.79 [95% CIs 0.72-0.93] for P2/P1 ratio, and 0.69 [95% CIs 0.60-0.74] for TTP. When the various techniques were combined, an AUC of 0.86 [0.76-0.93]) was obtained. The best pair of methods was the TCD and B4cth an AUC of 0.80 (0.72-0.88). Noninvasive technique measurements correlate with ICP and have an acceptable discrimination ability in diagnosing ICH. The multimodal combination of PI (TCD) and wave morphology monitor may improve the ability of the noninvasive methods to diagnose ICH. The observed variability in non-invasive ICP estimations underscores the need for comprehensive investigations to elucidate the optimal method-application alignment across distinct clinical scenarios.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37891406
doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-45834-5
pii: 10.1038/s41598-023-45834-5
pmc: PMC10611734
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
18404Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Intensive Care Med. 2008 Nov;34(11):2062-7
pubmed: 18509619
Neurocrit Care. 2022 Aug;37(1):219-227
pubmed: 35332426
Intensive Care Med. 2007 Oct;33(10):1704-11
pubmed: 17668184
Neurocrit Care. 2011 Dec;15(3):506-15
pubmed: 21769456
J Neuroimaging. 2016 Mar-Apr;26(2):194-6
pubmed: 26278326
Neurocrit Care. 2012 Aug;17(1):58-66
pubmed: 22311229
Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 2021 May;79(5):437-446
pubmed: 34161530
Crit Care. 2020 Jun 26;24(1):379
pubmed: 32591024
N Engl J Med. 2012 Dec 27;367(26):2471-81
pubmed: 23234472
Acta Neurochir Suppl. 2016;122:93-6
pubmed: 27165884
Fluids Barriers CNS. 2020 May 6;17(1):34
pubmed: 32375853
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2023 Jun;165(6):1495-1503
pubmed: 37061612
Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 2019 Nov;77(11):806-814
pubmed: 31826137
Surg Neurol. 2009 Oct;72(4):389-94
pubmed: 19608224
Neurosurgery. 2003 Jan;52(1):165-75; discussion 175-6
pubmed: 12493115
Neurosurgery. 2012 Oct;71(4):853-61
pubmed: 22791038
Childs Nerv Syst. 1995 Oct;11(10):595-603
pubmed: 8556727
Crit Care. 2017 Feb 27;21(1):44
pubmed: 28241847
Neurol Res. 2007 Dec;29(8):798-802
pubmed: 17601366
Acad Emerg Med. 2008 Feb;15(2):201-4
pubmed: 18275454
J Neurosurg. 2016 Dec;125(6):1493-1503
pubmed: 26918478
J Neurosurg. 1997 Jul;87(1):34-40
pubmed: 9202262
J Trauma. 2004 May;56(5):967-72; discussion 972-3
pubmed: 15179234
Neurocrit Care. 2020 Oct;33(2):491-498
pubmed: 32314244
Surg Neurol. 2004 Jul;62(1):45-51; discussion 51
pubmed: 15226070
Br J Ophthalmol. 2020 Jul;104(7):887-892
pubmed: 31704702
Crit Care. 2022 Apr 15;26(1):110
pubmed: 35428353
J Pers Med. 2021 Dec 05;11(12):
pubmed: 34945774
Sensors (Basel). 2018 Feb 05;18(2):
pubmed: 29401746
Neurosurgery. 2010 Jun;66(6):1050-7
pubmed: 20495421
World J Clin Cases. 2019 Jul 6;7(13):1535-1553
pubmed: 31367614
Acta Radiol. 2019 Feb;60(2):221-229
pubmed: 29768927
Acta Ophthalmol. 2011 Sep;89(6):e528-32
pubmed: 21518306
Crit Care. 2008;12(3):R67
pubmed: 18477382
Front Psychol. 2017 Apr 07;8:456
pubmed: 28439244
Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2019 Jun 4;21:523-549
pubmed: 31167100
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2021 Jul;163(7):1979-1989
pubmed: 33852065
Am J Crit Care. 2008 Nov;17(6):545-54
pubmed: 18978239
Neurocrit Care. 2016 Dec;25(3):473-491
pubmed: 26940914
Fluids Barriers CNS. 2011 Jan 18;8(1):5
pubmed: 21349153
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2023 Aug;165(8):2213-2214
pubmed: 37217760