Young Jeffrey S, Blow Osbert, Turrentine Florence, Claridge Jeffrey A, Schulman Andrew
University of Virginia Trauma Center, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville 22906-0709, USA.
Neurosurg Focus. 2003 Dec 15;15(6):E2. doi: 10.3171/foc.2003.15.6.2.
Authors of recent studies have championed the importance of maintaining cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) to prevent secondary brain injury following traumatic head injury. Data from these studies have provided little information regarding outcome following severe head injury in patients with an intracranial pressure (ICP) greater than 40 mm Hg, however, in July 1997 the authors instituted a protocol for the management of severe head injury in patients with a Glasgow Coma Scale score lower than 9. The protocol was focused on resuscitation from acidosis, maintenance of a CPP greater than 60 mm Hg through whatever means necessary as well as elevation of the head of the bed, mannitol infusion, and ventriculostomy with cerebrospinal fluid drainage for control of ICP. Since the institution of this protocol, nine patients had a sustained ICP greater than 40 mm Hg for 2 or more hours, and five of these had an ICP greater than 75 mm Hg on insertion of the ICP monitor and later experienced herniation and expired within 24 hours. Because of the severe nature of the injuries demonstrated on computerized tomography scans and their physical examinations, these patients were not aggressively treated under this protocol. The authors vigorously attempted to maintain a CPP greater than 60 mm Hg with intensive fluid resuscitation and the administration of pressor agents in the four remaining patients who had developed an ICP higher than 40 mm Hg after placement of the ICP monitor. Two patients had an episodic ICP greater than 40 mm Hg for more than 36 hours, the third patient had an episodic ICP greater than of 50 mm Hg for more than 36 hours, and the fourth patient had an episodic ICP greater than 50 mm Hg for more than 48 hours. On discharge, all four patients were able to perform normal activities of daily living with minimal assistance and experience ongoing improvement. Data from this preliminary study indicate that intense, aggressive management of CPP can lead to good neurological outcomes despite extremely high ICP. Aggressive CPP therapy should be performed and maintained even though apparently lethal ICP levels may be present. Further study is needed to support these encouraging results.
近期研究的作者们强调了维持脑灌注压(CPP)对于预防创伤性脑损伤后继发性脑损伤的重要性。然而,这些研究的数据几乎没有提供关于颅内压(ICP)大于40 mmHg的严重颅脑损伤患者预后的信息。1997年7月,作者制定了一项针对格拉斯哥昏迷量表评分低于9分的严重颅脑损伤患者的管理方案。该方案侧重于纠正酸中毒进行复苏,通过任何必要手段维持CPP大于60 mmHg,以及抬高床头、输注甘露醇和进行脑室造瘘并引流脑脊液以控制ICP。自该方案实施以来,有9例患者的ICP持续大于40 mmHg达2小时或更长时间,其中5例在插入ICP监测器时ICP大于75 mmHg,随后发生脑疝并在24小时内死亡。由于计算机断层扫描和体格检查显示损伤严重,这些患者未按照该方案进行积极治疗。在其余4例放置ICP监测器后ICP高于40 mmHg的患者中,作者通过强化液体复苏和使用升压药大力试图维持CPP大于60 mmHg。2例患者的间歇性ICP大于40 mmHg超过36小时,第3例患者的间歇性ICP大于50 mmHg超过36小时,第4例患者的间歇性ICP大于50 mmHg超过48小时。出院时,所有4例患者在极少帮助下能够进行正常的日常生活活动,并且情况持续改善。这项初步研究的数据表明,尽管ICP极高,但对CPP进行积极、强化的管理可导致良好的神经学预后。即使可能存在明显致命的ICP水平,也应进行并维持积极的CPP治疗。需要进一步研究来支持这些令人鼓舞的结果。