Home > Journals > Journal of Neurosurgical Sciences > Past Issues > Articles online first > Journal of Neurosurgical Sciences 2018 Nov 08

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as

 

 

Journal of Neurosurgical Sciences 2018 Nov 08

DOI: 10.23736/S0390-5616.18.04568-X

Copyright © 2018 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Intracranial pressure monitor insertion in traumatic brain injury: a single center, retrospective decision process analysis

Francesca FOSSI 1 , Chiara ROBBA 2, Matteo ROTA 3, Alessia VARGIOLU 3, Doriana LAGRAVINESE 4, Paola VOLPI 1, Giuseppe CITERIO 1, 3

1 School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milan-Bicocca, Milan, Italy; 2 San Martino Policlinico Hospital, Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, IRRCS for Oncology, Genoa, Italy; 3 Neurointensive Care, Department of Emergency and Intensive Care, San Gerardo Hospital, ASST, Monza, Italy; 4 Ospedale “F. Miulli”, Acquaviva delle Fonti, Bari, Italy


PDF


BACKGROUND: Evidence-based indications for intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) are lacking. The aim of this study was to analyze the main factors that guided the decision-making of invasive ICP monitoring in a large cohort of TBI patients from our institution.
METHODS: This is a retrospective, single centre, observational study including adult TBI patients consecutively admitted to our NeuroIntensive Care Unit over 20 years. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify potential factors associated with the decision for ICP monitor insertion. A decision tree was developed to identify the combination of factors with the highest statistical power to predict the decision for ICP monitor insertion.
RESULTS: A total of 857 adult patients were included in the analysis. The decision to monitor ICP was strongly related to different factors, including Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), Computed Tomography (CT) scan classification, pupils’ reactivity, and patients’ prognosis at the admission calculated by the International Mission on Prognosis in Traumatic Brain Injury (IMPACT) score (p<0.01). Results from the decision tree showed an overall ability of the 72% in the prediction of ICP monitoring and that, among the factors analysed, CT findings had the primarily and strongest discrimination power.
CONCLUSIONS: The decision to insert an invasive ICP monitoring in patients with TBI is multifactorial. Among the different factors analysed in our cohort of TBI patients, prognostication factors as for IMPACT score and in particular CT findings could potentially explain the decision making for ICP monitoring.


KEY WORDS: Intracranial pressure - Computed tomography - Traumatic brain injury - Monitoring

top of page