Perceived Utility of Intracranial Pressure Monitoring in Traumatic Brain Injury: A Seattle International Brain Injury Consensus Conference Consensus-Based Analysis and Recommendations

BACKGROUND: Intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring is widely practiced, but the indications are incompletely developed, and guidelines are poorly followed. OBJECTIVE: To study the monitoring practices of an established expert panel (the clinical working group from the Seattle International Brain Injury Consensus Conference effort) to examine the match between monitoring guidelines and their clinical decision-making and offer guidance for clinicians considering monitor insertion. METHODS: We polled the 42 Seattle International Brain Injury Consensus Conference panel members' ICP monitoring decisions for virtual patients, using matrices of presenting signs (Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] total or GCS motor, pupillary examination, and computed tomography diagnosis). Monitor insertion decisions were yes, no, or unsure (traffic light approach). We analyzed their responses for weighting of the presenting signs in decision-making using univariate regression. RESULTS: Heatmaps constructed from the choices of 41 panel members revealed wider ICP monitor use than predicted by guidelines. Clinical examination (GCS) was by far the most important characteristic and differed from guidelines in being nonlinear. The modified Marshall computed tomography classification was second and pupils third. We constructed a heatmap and listed the main clinical determinants representing 80% ICP monitor insertion consensus for our recommendations. CONCLUSION: Candidacy for ICP monitoring exceeds published indicators for monitor insertion, suggesting the clinical perception that the value of ICP data is greater than simply detecting and monitoring severe intracranial hypertension. Monitor insertion heatmaps are offered as potential guidance for ICP monitor insertion and to stimulate research into what actually drives monitor insertion in unconstrained, real-world conditions.

[1]  S. Dikmen,et al.  A Consensus-Based Management Protocol For The Treatment Of Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Based On Imaging And Clinical Examination For Use When Intracranial Pressure Monitoring Is Not Employed. , 2020, Journal of neurotrauma.

[2]  Mayur B. Patel,et al.  A management algorithm for adult patients with both brain oxygen and intracranial pressure monitoring: the Seattle International Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Consensus Conference (SIBICC) , 2020, Intensive Care Medicine.

[3]  Mayur B. Patel,et al.  A management algorithm for patients with intracranial pressure monitoring: the Seattle International Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Consensus Conference (SIBICC) , 2019, Intensive Care Medicine.

[4]  S. Dikmen,et al.  A clinical decision rule to predict intracranial hypertension in severe traumatic brain injury. , 2019, Journal of neurosurgery.

[5]  C. Lazaridis,et al.  Hemodynamic and neuro‐monitoring for neurocritically ill patients: An international survey of intensivists☆,☆☆,★ , 2017, Journal of critical care.

[6]  Odette A. Harris,et al.  Guidelines for the Management of Severe Traumatic Brain Injury, Fourth Edition , 2016, Neurosurgery.

[7]  S. Mayer,et al.  A Consensus-Based Interpretation of the Benchmark Evidence from South American Trials: Treatment of Intracranial Pressure Trial. , 2015, Journal of neurotrauma.

[8]  Juan Sahuquillo,et al.  Clinical applications of intracranial pressure monitoring in traumatic brain injury , 2014, Acta Neurochirurgica.

[9]  Lori Shutter,et al.  A trial of intracranial pressure monitoring in traumatic brain injury , 2014, Critical Care.

[10]  N. Carney,et al.  A trial of intracranial-pressure monitoring in traumatic brain injury. , 2012, The New England journal of medicine.

[11]  Daryl A Jones,et al.  Epidemiology and 12-month outcomes from traumatic brain injury in australia and new zealand. , 2008, The Journal of trauma.

[12]  J. Ghajar,et al.  Marked improvement in adherence to traumatic brain injury guidelines in United States trauma centers. , 2007, The Journal of trauma.

[13]  M. Pasquale,et al.  Initial head computed tomographic scan characteristics have a linear relationship with initial intracranial pressure after trauma. , 2004, The Journal of trauma.

[14]  E. Mackenzie,et al.  Management of severe head injury: Institutional variations in care and effect on outcome* , 2002, Critical care medicine.

[15]  Kay I. Penny,et al.  Intensive care management of head-injured patients in Europe: a survey from the European Brain Injury Consortium , 2001, Intensive Care Medicine.

[16]  R. Sahjpaul,et al.  Intracranial Pressure Monitoring in Severe Traumatic Brain Injury – Results of a Canadian Survey , 2000, Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques.

[17]  Anthony Marmarou,et al.  A new classification of head injury based on computerized tomography , 1991 .

[18]  H. Eisenberg,et al.  Initial CT findings in 753 patients with severe head injury. A report from the NIH Traumatic Coma Data Bank. , 1990, Journal of neurosurgery.

[19]  R. Sarabia,et al.  Normal computerized tomography scans in severe head injury. Prognostic and clinical management implications. , 1986, Journal of neurosurgery.

[20]  R. Narayan,et al.  Intracranial pressure: to monitor or not to monitor? A review of our experience with severe head injury. , 1982, Journal of neurosurgery.

[21]  B. Jennett,et al.  Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness. A practical scale. , 1974, Lancet.

[22]  J. Ghajar,et al.  In Reply: Guidelines for the Management of Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: 2020 Update of the Decompressive Craniectomy Recommendations. , 2020, Neurosurgery.

[23]  M. Poca,et al.  Incidence of intracranial hypertension after severe head injury: a prospective study using the Traumatic Coma Data Bank classification. , 1998, Acta neurochirurgica. Supplement.