Piccinini Alice, Lewis Meghan, Benjamin Elizabeth, Aiolfi Alberto, Inaba Kenji, Demetriades Demetrios
Division of Trauma, Emergency Surgery and Surgical Critical Care, University of Sourhern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Division of Trauma, Emergency Surgery and Surgical Critical Care, University of Sourhern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Injury. 2017 Sep;48(9):1944-1950. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2017.04.033. Epub 2017 Apr 20.
The Brain Trauma Foundation (BTF) recently updated recommendations for intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring in severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). The effect of ICP monitoring on outcomes is controversial, and compliance with BTF guidelines is variable. The purpose of this study was to assess both compliance and outcomes at level I trauma centers.
The American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program database was queried for all patients admitted to level I trauma centers with isolated blunt severe TBI (AIS>3, GCS<9) who met criteria for ICP monitoring. Patients who had severe extracranial injuries, craniectomy, or death in the first 24h were excluded. Comparison between groups with and without ICP monitoring was made, analyzing demographics, comorbidities, mechanism of injury, head Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS), vital signs on admission, head CT scan findings. Outcomes included in-hospital mortality, mechanical ventilation days, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, hospital length of stay, systemic complications, and functional independence at discharge. Multivariable analysis was used to identify independent risk factors for each of the outcomes.
Overall, 4880 patients were included. ICP monitoring was used in 529 patients (10.8%). Stepwise logistic regression analysis identified ICP monitor placement as an independent risk factor for mortality (OR 1.63; 95% CI 1.28-2.07; p<0.001), mechanical ventilation (OR 5.74 95% CI 4.42-7.46; p<0.001), ICU length of stay (OR 4.03; 95% CI 2.94-5.52; p<0.001), systemic complications (OR 2.78; 95% CI 2.29-3.37; p<0.001), and decreased functional independence at discharge (OR 1.71 95% CI 1.29-2.26; p<0.001). Subgroup analysis of patients with head AIS 3, 4, and 5 confirmed that ICP monitors remained an independent risk factor for mortality in both head AIS 4 and 5.
Compliance with BTF guidelines for ICP monitoring is low, even at level I trauma centers. In this study, ICP monitoring was associated with poor outcomes, and was found to be an independent risk factor for mortality. Further studies are needed to determine the optimal role of ICP monitoring in the management of severe TBI.
脑创伤基金会(BTF)最近更新了重度创伤性脑损伤(TBI)患者颅内压(ICP)监测的建议。ICP监测对预后的影响存在争议,且对BTF指南的遵循情况各不相同。本研究的目的是评估一级创伤中心的遵循情况和预后。
查询美国外科医师学会创伤质量改进项目数据库,纳入所有入住一级创伤中心、单纯钝性重度TBI(损伤严重程度评分[AIS]>3,格拉斯哥昏迷量表[GCS]<9)且符合ICP监测标准的患者。排除在最初24小时内有严重颅外损伤、颅骨切除术或死亡的患者。对进行和未进行ICP监测的两组患者进行比较,分析人口统计学、合并症、损伤机制、头部简明损伤量表(AIS)、入院时生命体征、头部CT扫描结果。预后指标包括院内死亡率、机械通气天数、重症监护病房(ICU)住院时间、住院时间、全身并发症以及出院时的功能独立性。采用多变量分析确定各预后指标的独立危险因素。
总体共纳入4880例患者。529例患者(10.8%)使用了ICP监测。逐步逻辑回归分析确定,放置ICP监测仪是死亡率(比值比[OR]1.63;95%置信区间[CI]1.28 - 2.07;p<0.001)、机械通气(OR 5.74,95%CI 4.42 - 7.46;p<0.001)、ICU住院时间(OR 4.03;95%CI 2.94 - 5.52;p<0.001)、全身并发症(OR 2.78;95%CI 2.29 - 3.37;p<0.001)以及出院时功能独立性降低(OR 1.71,95%CI 1.29 - 2.26;p<0.001)的独立危险因素。对头部AIS为3、4和5的患者进行亚组分析,证实ICP监测仪仍是头部AIS为4和5的患者死亡率的独立危险因素。
即使在一级创伤中心,对BTF关于ICP监测指南的遵循率也很低。在本研究中,ICP监测与不良预后相关,且被发现是死亡率的独立危险因素。需要进一步研究以确定ICP监测在重度TBI管理中的最佳作用。