Divisions of Hepatology and Critical Care Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada. 2Division of Gastroenterology, University of California, San Francisco, CA. 3Faculty of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC. 4Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX.
Crit Care Med. 2014 May;42(5):1157-67. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000000144.
To determine if intracranial pressure monitor placement in patients with acute liver failure is associated with significant clinical outcomes.
Retrospective multicenter cohort study.
Academic liver transplant centers comprising the U.S. Acute Liver Failure Study Group.
Adult critically ill patients with acute liver failure presenting with grade III/IV hepatic encephalopathy (n = 629) prospectively enrolled between March 2004 and August 2011.
Intracranial pressure monitored (n = 140) versus nonmonitored controls (n = 489).
Intracranial pressure monitored patients were younger than controls (35 vs 43 yr, p < 0.001) and more likely to be on renal replacement therapy (52% vs 38%, p = 0.003). Of 87 intracranial pressure monitored patients with detailed information, 44 (51%) had evidence of intracranial hypertension (intracranial pressure > 25 mm Hg) and overall 21-day mortality was higher in patients with intracranial hypertension (43% vs 23%, p = 0.05). During the first 7 days, intracranial pressure monitored patients received more intracranial hypertension-directed therapies (mannitol, 56% vs 21%; hypertonic saline, 14% vs 7%; hypothermia, 24% vs 10%; p < 0.03 for each). Forty-one percent of intracranial pressure monitored patients received liver transplant (vs 18% controls; p < 0.001). Overall 21-day mortality was similar (intracranial pressure monitored 33% vs controls 38%, p = 0.24). Where data were available, hemorrhagic complications were rare in intracranial pressure monitored patients (4 of 56 [7%]; three died). When stratifying by acetaminophen status and adjusting for confounders, intracranial pressure monitor placement did not impact 21-day mortality in acetaminophen patients (p = 0.89). However, intracranial pressure monitor was associated with increased 21-day mortality in nonacetaminophen patients (odds ratio, ~ 3.04; p = 0.014).
In intracranial pressure monitored patients with acute liver failure, intracranial hypertension is commonly observed. The use of intracranial pressure monitor in acetaminophen acute liver failure did not confer a significant 21-day mortality benefit, whereas in nonacetaminophen acute liver failure, it may be associated with worse outcomes. Hemorrhagic complications from intracranial pressure monitor placement were uncommon and cannot account for mortality trends. Although our results cannot conclusively confirm or refute the utility of intracranial pressure monitoring in patients with acute liver failure, patient selection and ancillary assessments of cerebral blood flow likely have a significant role. Prospective studies would be required to conclusively account for confounding by illness severity and transplant.
确定急性肝衰竭患者颅内压监测的放置是否与显著的临床结局相关。
回顾性多中心队列研究。
美国急性肝衰竭研究组的学术肝移植中心。
2004 年 3 月至 2011 年 8 月期间前瞻性纳入的伴有 III/IV 级肝性脑病的急性肝衰竭危重症成年患者(n = 629)。
颅内压监测(n = 140)与非监测对照组(n = 489)。
颅内压监测患者比对照组更年轻(35 岁比 43 岁,p < 0.001),更可能接受肾脏替代治疗(52%比 38%,p = 0.003)。在 87 名有详细信息的颅内压监测患者中,44 名(51%)有颅内压升高的证据(颅内压 > 25mmHg),总体 21 天死亡率在颅内压升高的患者中更高(43%比 23%,p = 0.05)。在第 1 至 7 天期间,颅内压监测患者接受了更多的颅内压升高导向治疗(甘露醇,56%比 21%;高渗盐水,14%比 7%;低温疗法,24%比 10%;p < 0.03 每项)。41%的颅内压监测患者接受了肝移植(36%比对照组;p < 0.001)。总体 21 天死亡率相似(颅内压监测组 33%比对照组 38%,p = 0.24)。在颅内压监测患者中,出血性并发症很少见(56 例中的 4 例[7%];其中 3 例死亡)。在按对乙酰氨基酚状态分层并调整混杂因素后,颅内压监测在对乙酰氨基酚患者中并未影响 21 天死亡率(p = 0.89)。然而,颅内压监测与非乙酰氨基酚急性肝衰竭患者的 21 天死亡率增加相关(优势比,~3.04;p = 0.014)。
在急性肝衰竭的颅内压监测患者中,颅内压升高很常见。在对乙酰氨基酚急性肝衰竭患者中使用颅内压监测并未带来显著的 21 天死亡率获益,而在非对乙酰氨基酚急性肝衰竭患者中,颅内压监测可能与更差的结局相关。颅内压监测置管的出血性并发症并不常见,不能解释死亡率趋势。尽管我们的结果不能确定地证实或反驳颅内压监测在急性肝衰竭患者中的应用,但患者选择和脑血流的辅助评估可能具有重要作用。需要前瞻性研究来最终确定疾病严重程度和移植的混杂因素。