Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Washington, Harborview Medical Center, Seattle, WA 98104, USA.
N Engl J Med. 2012 Dec 27;367(26):2471-81. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1207363. Epub 2012 Dec 12.
Intracranial-pressure monitoring is considered the standard of care for severe traumatic brain injury and is used frequently, but the efficacy of treatment based on monitoring in improving the outcome has not been rigorously assessed.
We conducted a multicenter, controlled trial in which 324 patients 13 years of age or older who had severe traumatic brain injury and were being treated in intensive care units (ICUs) in Bolivia or Ecuador were randomly assigned to one of two specific protocols: guidelines-based management in which a protocol for monitoring intraparenchymal intracranial pressure was used (pressure-monitoring group) or a protocol in which treatment was based on imaging and clinical examination (imaging-clinical examination group). The primary outcome was a composite of survival time, impaired consciousness, and functional status at 3 months and 6 months and neuropsychological status at 6 months; neuropsychological status was assessed by an examiner who was unaware of protocol assignment. This composite measure was based on performance across 21 measures of functional and cognitive status and calculated as a percentile (with 0 indicating the worst performance, and 100 the best performance).
There was no significant between-group difference in the primary outcome, a composite measure based on percentile performance across 21 measures of functional and cognitive status (score, 56 in the pressure-monitoring group vs. 53 in the imaging-clinical examination group; P=0.49). Six-month mortality was 39% in the pressure-monitoring group and 41% in the imaging-clinical examination group (P=0.60). The median length of stay in the ICU was similar in the two groups (12 days in the pressure-monitoring group and 9 days in the imaging-clinical examination group; P=0.25), although the number of days of brain-specific treatments (e.g., administration of hyperosmolar fluids and the use of hyperventilation) in the ICU was higher in the imaging-clinical examination group than in the pressure-monitoring group (4.8 vs. 3.4, P=0.002). The distribution of serious adverse events was similar in the two groups.
For patients with severe traumatic brain injury, care focused on maintaining monitored intracranial pressure at 20 mm Hg or less was not shown to be superior to care based on imaging and clinical examination. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01068522.).
颅内压监测被认为是严重创伤性脑损伤的标准治疗方法,并且经常使用,但基于监测的治疗在改善预后方面的疗效尚未经过严格评估。
我们进行了一项多中心对照试验,纳入了玻利维亚或厄瓜多尔重症监护病房(ICU)中 324 名年龄在 13 岁及以上的严重创伤性脑损伤患者,将他们随机分配至以下两种特定方案中的一种:基于指南的管理,其中使用颅内压监测的方案(监测组)或基于影像学和临床检查的方案(影像学-临床检查组)。主要结局是 3 个月和 6 个月时的生存时间、意识障碍和功能状态的复合指标,以及 6 个月时的神经心理学状态;神经心理学状态由一名不知道方案分配的检查者进行评估。该复合指标基于 21 项功能和认知状态测量的表现,计算为百分位数(0 表示最差表现,100 表示最佳表现)。
主要结局,即基于 21 项功能和认知状态测量的表现的复合百分位数指标,两组之间无显著差异(评分:监测组为 56,影像学-临床检查组为 53;P=0.49)。监测组的 6 个月死亡率为 39%,影像学-临床检查组为 41%(P=0.60)。两组 ICU 住院中位时间相似(监测组 12 天,影像学-临床检查组 9 天;P=0.25),但影像学-临床检查组 ICU 期间的脑特异性治疗天数(例如,给予高渗液和过度通气)多于监测组(4.8 天比 3.4 天;P=0.002)。两组严重不良事件的分布相似。
对于严重创伤性脑损伤患者,将颅内压维持在 20mmHg 或以下的监测为重点的治疗方法并不优于基于影像学和临床检查的治疗方法。(由美国国立卫生研究院等资助;ClinicalTrials.gov 注册号:NCT01068522)。