Laboratory of Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Public Health, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri IRCCS, Ranica, Bergamo, Italy.
Anesthesia, Intensive Care and Prehospital Emergency, Maggiore Hospital, Bologna, Italy.
JAMA Netw Open. 2023 Sep 5;6(9):e2334214. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.34214.
While the relationship between persistent elevations in intracranial pressure (ICP) and poorer outcomes is well established for patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI), there is no consensus on how ICP measurements should drive treatment choices, and the effectiveness of ICP monitoring remains unknown.
To evaluate the effectiveness of ICP monitoring on short- and mid-term outcomes of patients with TBI.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: CREACTIVE was a prospective cohort study that started in March 2014 and lasted 5 years. More than 8000 patients with TBI were enrolled at 83 intensive care units (ICUs) from 7 countries who joined the CREACTIVE Consortium. Patients with TBI who met the Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines for ICP monitoring were selected for the current analyses, which were performed from January to November 2022.
Patients who underwent ICP monitoring within 2 days of injury (exposure group) were propensity score-matched to patients who were not monitored or who underwent monitoring 2 days after the injury (control group).
Functional disability at 6 months as indicated by Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOS-E) score.
A total of 1448 patients from 43 ICUs in Italy and Hungary were eligible for analysis. Of the patients satisfying the ICP-monitoring guidelines, 503 (34.7%) underwent ICP monitoring (median [IQR] age: 45 years [29-61 years]; 392 males [77.9%], 111 females [22.1%]) and 945 were not monitored (median [IQR] age: 66 years [48-78 years]; 656 males [69.4%], 289 females [30.6%]). After matching to balance the variables, worse 6-month recovery was observed for monitored patients compared with nonmonitored patients (death/vegetative state: 39.2% vs 40.6%; severe disability: 33.2% vs 25.4%; moderate disability: 15.7% vs 14.9%; good recovery: 11.9% vs 19.1%, respectively; P = .005). Monitored patients received medical therapies significantly more frequently.
In this cohort study, ICP monitoring was associated with poorer recovery and more frequent medical interventions with their relevant adverse effects. Optimizing the value of ICP monitoring for TBI requires further investigation on monitoring indications, clinical interventions, and management protocols.
虽然颅内压(ICP)持续升高与创伤性脑损伤(TBI)患者预后较差之间的关系已得到充分证实,但对于如何根据 ICP 测量值来指导治疗选择仍存在争议,ICP 监测的效果也尚不清楚。
评估 ICP 监测对 TBI 患者短期和中期结局的影响。
设计、地点和参与者:CREACTIVE 是一项前瞻性队列研究,于 2014 年 3 月启动,持续 5 年。来自 7 个国家的 83 个重症监护病房(ICUs)共招募了 8000 多名 TBI 患者,这些患者加入了 CREACTIVE 联盟。本研究对符合 ICP 监测指南的 TBI 患者进行了分析,分析于 2022 年 1 月至 11 月进行。
在损伤后 2 天内接受 ICP 监测的患者(暴露组)与未接受监测或在损伤后 2 天接受监测的患者(对照组)进行了倾向评分匹配。
6 个月时的功能残疾情况,采用格拉斯哥预后量表扩展版(GOS-E)评分进行评估。
共有来自意大利和匈牙利的 43 个 ICU 的 1448 名患者符合分析条件。在满足 ICP 监测指南的患者中,503 名(34.7%)接受了 ICP 监测(中位[IQR]年龄:45 岁[29-61 岁];392 名男性[77.9%],111 名女性[22.1%]),945 名未接受监测(中位[IQR]年龄:66 岁[48-78 岁];656 名男性[69.4%],289 名女性[30.6%])。在进行匹配以平衡变量后,与未监测患者相比,监测患者的 6 个月恢复情况较差(死亡/植物状态:39.2% vs 40.6%;严重残疾:33.2% vs 25.4%;中度残疾:15.7% vs 14.9%;良好恢复:11.9% vs 19.1%,P=0.005)。监测患者更频繁地接受了药物治疗。
在这项队列研究中,ICP 监测与恢复较差和更频繁的药物干预相关,而这些干预措施可能带来相关的不良反应。为了优化 ICP 监测在 TBI 中的应用价值,需要进一步研究监测适应证、临床干预措施和管理方案。