Deciding on Appropriate Telemetric Intracranial Pressure Monitoring System.

BACKGROUND

The clinical advantage of telemetric intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring has previously been limited by issues with inaccuracy and zero-drift. Today, 2 comparable telemetric ICP monitoring systems are available performing adequately in these parameters. The objective of this study is to identify appropriate uses of each system.

METHODS

The 2 telemetric ICP monitoring systems from Raumedic (implant: Neurovent-P-tel) and Miethke (implant: Sensor Reservoir) are compared in terms of fundamental differences, sensor survival, monitoring possibilities, complications, and cost/benefit. Two illustrative cases are presented highlighting clinical advantages and disadvantages of each system.

RESULTS

Both systems provide transdermal (telemetric) ICP measurements through external application of a reader unit cabled to a portable data sampler. Thereby, they allow several ICP monitoring sessions without multiple surgical insertions of a cabled ICP sensor. The Miethke implant has a high sampling frequency (40 Hz) and a long CE (Conformité Européenne) approval (3 years) but cannot be used for long-duration monitoring sessions. In comparison, the Raumedic implant has a lower sampling frequency (5 Hz) and shorter CE approval (90 days) but can be used for long-duration monitoring sessions. The standard 3-year cost for a patient with a Neurovent-P-tel is 17,380 €, and for the Sensor Reservoir it is 15,790 €.

CONCLUSIONS

The Miethke system is useful in outpatient clinics where patients have sequential point measurements of ICP performed, whereas the Raumedic system is ideal for long-duration ICP monitoring outside the hospital. When choosing between the 2 systems, it must primarily be decided if the clinical situation requires long-duration monitoring sessions or continuous repeated ambulatory follow-up sessions.