Sex differences in the diagnostic value of optic nerve sheath diameter for assessing intracranial pressure.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 04 2024
25 04 2024
Historique:
received:
06
12
2023
accepted:
23
04
2024
medline:
26
4
2024
pubmed:
26
4
2024
entrez:
25
4
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The optic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD) can predict elevated intracranial pressure (ICP) but it is not known whether diagnostic characteristics differ between men and women. This observational study was performed at the Karolinska University Hospital in Sweden to assess sex differences in diagnostic accuracy for ONSD. We included 139 patients (65 women), unconscious and/or sedated, with invasive ICP monitoring. Commonly used ONSD derived measurements and associated ICP measurements were collected. Linear regression analyses were performed with ICP as dependent variable and ONSD as independent variable. Area under the receiver operator characteristics curve (AUROC) analyses were performed with a threshold for elevated ICP ≥ 20 mmHg. Analyses were stratified by sex. Optimal cut-offs and diagnostic characteristics were estimated. The ONSD was associated with ICP in women. The AUROCs in women ranged from 0.70 to 0.83. In men, the ONSD was not associated with ICP and none of the AUROCs were significantly larger than 0.5. This study suggests that ONSD is a useful predictor of ICP in women but may not be so in men. If this finding is verified in further studies, this would call for a re-evaluation of the usage and interpretation of ONSD to estimate ICP.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38664502
doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-60489-6
pii: 10.1038/s41598-024-60489-6
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
9553Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Le-Roux, P. et al. Consensus summary statement of the International Multidisciplinary Consensus Conference on Multimodality Monitoring in Neurocritical Care: A statement for healthcare professionals from the Neurocritical Care Society and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Neurocrit. Care 21(2), S1-26 (2014).
doi: 10.1007/s12028-014-0041-5
pubmed: 25208678
pmcid: 10596301
Carney, N. et al. Guidelines for the management of severe traumatic brain injury, fourth edition. Neurosurgery 80(1), 6–15 (2017).
doi: 10.1227/NEU.0000000000001432
pubmed: 27654000
Volovici, V. et al. Ventricular drainage catheters versus intracranial parenchymal catheters for intracranial pressure monitoring-based management of traumatic brain injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Neurotrauma 36(7), 988–995 (2019).
doi: 10.1089/neu.2018.6086
pubmed: 30251919
Tavakoli, S., Peitz, G., Ares, W., Hafeez, S. & Grandhi, R. Complications of invasive intracranial pressure monitoring devices in neurocritical care. Neurosurg. Focus 43(5), E6 (2017).
doi: 10.3171/2017.8.FOCUS17450
pubmed: 29088962
Nag, D. S., Sahu, S., Swain, A. & Kant, S. Intracranial pressure monitoring: Gold standard and recent innovations. World J. Clin. Cases 7(13), 1535–1553 (2019).
doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v7.i13.1535
pubmed: 31367614
pmcid: 6658373
Roldán, M., Abay, T. Y. & Kyriacou, P. A. Non-invasive techniques for multimodal monitoring in traumatic brain injury: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Neurotrauma 37(23), 2445–2453 (2020).
doi: 10.1089/neu.2020.7266
pubmed: 32821023
Aletreby, W. et al. Optic nerve sheath diameter ultrasound for raised intracranial pressure: A literature review and meta-analysis of its diagnostic accuracy. J. Ultrasound Med. 41(3), 585–595 (2022).
doi: 10.1002/jum.15732
pubmed: 33893746
Pansell, J., Bell, M., Rudberg, P., Friman, O. & Cooray, C. Optic nerve sheath diameter in intracranial hypertension: Measurement external or internal of the dura mater?. J. Neuroimaging 33(1), 58–66 (2023).
doi: 10.1111/jon.13062
pubmed: 36197323
Robba, C. et al. Multimodal non-invasive assessment of intracranial hypertension: An observational study. Crit. Care 24(1), 379 (2020).
doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-03105-z
pubmed: 32591024
pmcid: 7318399
Stevens, R. R. F. et al. Optic nerve sheath diameter assessment by neurosonology: A review of methodologic discrepancies. J. Neuroimaging 31(5), 814–825 (2021).
doi: 10.1111/jon.12906
pubmed: 34270144
Pansell, J., Bell, M., Rudberg, P., Friman, O. & Cooray, C. Optic nerve sheath diameter measurement by ultrasound: Evaluation of a standardized protocol. J. Neuroimaging 32(1), 104–110 (2022).
doi: 10.1111/jon.12936
pubmed: 34555223
Du, J. et al. Ratio of optic nerve sheath diameter to eyeball transverse diameter by ultrasound can predict intracranial hypertension in traumatic brain injury patients: A prospective study. Neurocrit. Care 32(2), 478–485 (2020).
doi: 10.1007/s12028-019-00762-z
pubmed: 31218637
Vaiman, M., Sigal, T., Kimiagar, I. & Bekerman, I. Noninvasive assessment of the intracranial pressure in non-traumatic intracranial hemorrhage. J. Clin. Neurosci. 34, 177–181 (2016).
doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2016.06.008
pubmed: 27612672
Youm, J. Y., Lee, J. H. & Park, H. S. Comparison of transorbital ultrasound measurements to predict intracranial pressure in brain-injured patients requiring external ventricular drainage. J. Neurosurg. 2021, 1–7 (2021).
Schroeder, C. et al. Quantification of optic nerve and sheath diameter by transorbital sonography: A systematic review and metanalysis. J. Neuroimaging 30(2), 165–174 (2020).
doi: 10.1111/jon.12691
pubmed: 32022367
Cardim, D. et al. Effects of age and sex on optic nerve sheath diameter in healthy volunteers and patients with traumatic brain injury. Front. Neurol. 11, 764 (2020).
doi: 10.3389/fneur.2020.00764
pubmed: 32849220
pmcid: 7426488
Hirzallah, M. I. et al. Quality assessment of optic nerve sheath diameter ultrasonography: Scoping literature review and Delphi protocol. J. Neuroimaging 32(5), 808–824 (2022).
doi: 10.1111/jon.13018
pubmed: 35711135
DeLong, E. R., DeLong, D. M. & Clarke-Pearson, D. L. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: A nonparametric approach. Biometrics 44(3), 837–845 (1988).
doi: 10.2307/2531595
pubmed: 3203132
Janes, H. & Pepe, M. S. Adjusting for covariates in studies of diagnostic, screening, or prognostic markers: An old concept in a new setting. Am. J. Epidemiol. 168(1), 89–97 (2008).
doi: 10.1093/aje/kwn099
pubmed: 18477651
Soliman, I. et al. New optic nerve sonography quality criteria in the diagnostic evaluation of traumatic brain injury. Crit. Care Res. Pract. 2018, 3589762 (2018).
pubmed: 29854448
pmcid: 5952494
Bekerman, I., Sigal, T., Kimiagar, I., Almer, Z. E. & Vaiman, M. Diagnostic value of the optic nerve sheath diameter in pseudotumor cerebri. J. Clin. Neurosci. 30, 106–109 (2016).
doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2016.01.018
pubmed: 27168453
Wang, L. et al. Optimal optic nerve sheath diameter threshold for the identification of elevated opening pressure on lumbar puncture in a Chinese population. PLoS One 10(2), e0117939 (2015).
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0117939
pubmed: 25664663
pmcid: 4322040
Urbonas, M., Raskauskiene, N., Deltuva, V. & Bunevicius, A. Quantitative Evans index estimation using ultrasonographic measurement of the optic nerve sheath diameter in supine and upright position. Acta Neurochir. (Wien) 164(7), 1755–1764 (2022).
doi: 10.1007/s00701-022-05234-6
pubmed: 35595855
Fam, M. D. et al. Skull base dural thickness and relationship to demographic features: A postmortem study and literature review. J. Neurol. Surg. B Skull Base 79(6), 614–620 (2018).
doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1651501
pubmed: 30456033
pmcid: 6239876
Rossinelli, D. et al. Large-scale morphometry of the subarachnoid space of the optic nerve. Fluids Barriers CNS 20(1), 21 (2023).
doi: 10.1186/s12987-023-00423-6
pubmed: 36944985
pmcid: 10029327
Han, F., Liu, X., Yang, Y. & Liu, X. Sex-specific age-related changes in glymphatic function assessed by resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging. BioRxiv 185, 335 (2023).
Eisenberg, M. J. Accuracy and predictive values in clinical decision-making. Cleve Clin. J. Med. 62(5), 311–316 (1995).
doi: 10.3949/ccjm.62.5.311
pubmed: 7586487