Neurology and Neurosurgery Department, Federal University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Sci Rep. 2023 Oct 27;13(1):18404. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-45834-5.
Although the placement of an intraventricular catheter remains the gold standard method for the diagnosis of intracranial hypertension (ICH), the technique has several limitations including but not limited to its invasiveness. Current noninvasive methods, however, still lack robust evidence to support their clinical use. We aimed to estimate, as an exploratory hypothesis generating analysis, the discriminative power of four noninvasive methods to diagnose ICH. We prospectively collected data from adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), intraparenchymal hemorrhage (IPH), and ischemic stroke (IS) in whom invasive intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring had been placed. Measures were simultaneously collected from the following noninvasive methods: optic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD), pulsatility index (PI) using transcranial Doppler (TCD), a 5-point visual scale designed for brain Computed Tomography (CT), and two parameters (time-to-peak [TTP] and P2/P1 ratio) of a noninvasive ICP wave morphology monitor (Brain4Care[B4c]). ICH was defined as a sustained ICP > 20 mmHg for at least 5 min. We studied 18 patients (SAH = 14; ICH = 3; IS = 1) on 60 occasions with a mean age of 52 ± 14.3 years. All methods were recorded simultaneously, except for the CT, which was performed within 24 h of the other methods. The median ICP was 13 [9.8-16.2] mmHg, and intracranial hypertension was present on 18 occasions (30%). Median values from the noninvasive techniques were ONSD 4.9 [4.40-5.41] mm, PI 1.22 [1.04-1.43], CT scale 3 points [IQR: 3.0], P2/P1 ratio 1.16 [1.09-1.23], and TTP 0.215 [0.193-0.237]. There was a significant statistical correlation between all the noninvasive techniques and invasive ICP (ONSD, r = 0.29; PI, r = 0.62; CT, r = 0.21; P2/P1 ratio, r = 0.35; TTP, r = 0.35, p < 0.001 for all comparisons). The area under the curve (AUC) to estimate intracranial hypertension was 0.69 [CIs = 0.62-0.78] for the ONSD, 0.75 [95% CIs 0.69-0.83] for the PI, 0.64 [95%Cis 0.59-069] for CT, 0.79 [95% CIs 0.72-0.93] for P2/P1 ratio, and 0.69 [95% CIs 0.60-0.74] for TTP. When the various techniques were combined, an AUC of 0.86 [0.76-0.93]) was obtained. The best pair of methods was the TCD and B4cth an AUC of 0.80 (0.72-0.88). Noninvasive technique measurements correlate with ICP and have an acceptable discrimination ability in diagnosing ICH. The multimodal combination of PI (TCD) and wave morphology monitor may improve the ability of the noninvasive methods to diagnose ICH. The observed variability in non-invasive ICP estimations underscores the need for comprehensive investigations to elucidate the optimal method-application alignment across distinct clinical scenarios.
虽然脑室内导管放置仍然是颅内高压(ICH)诊断的金标准方法,但该技术有几个局限性,包括但不限于其侵入性。然而,目前的非侵入性方法仍然缺乏强有力的证据来支持其临床应用。我们旨在作为探索性假设生成分析来估计四种非侵入性方法诊断 ICH 的鉴别能力。我们前瞻性地收集了蛛网膜下腔出血(SAH)、脑实质出血(IPH)和缺血性卒中(IS)成年重症监护病房(ICU)患者的数据,这些患者均进行了有创颅内压(ICP)监测。同时从以下非侵入性方法中收集测量值:视神经鞘直径(ONSD)、经颅多普勒(TCD)的搏动指数(PI)、专为脑计算机断层扫描(CT)设计的 5 分视觉量表,以及非侵入性 ICP 波形态监测仪(Brain4Care[B4c])的两个参数(达峰时间[TTP]和 P2/P1 比值)。ICH 定义为持续 ICP>20mmHg 至少 5 分钟。我们研究了 18 名患者(SAH=14;ICH=3;IS=1),共 60 次,平均年龄 52±14.3 岁。除了 CT 外,所有方法都同时记录,CT 是在其他方法进行后 24 小时内进行的。ICP 中位数为 13[9.8-16.2]mmHg,18 次(30%)存在颅内高压。非侵入性技术的中位数值为 ONSD 4.9[4.40-5.41]mm、PI 1.22[1.04-1.43]、CT 量表 3 分[IQR:3.0]、P2/P1 比值 1.16[1.09-1.23]和 TTP 0.215[0.193-0.237]。所有非侵入性技术与有创 ICP 之间存在显著的统计学相关性(ONSD,r=0.29;PI,r=0.62;CT,r=0.21;P2/P1 比值,r=0.35;TTP,r=0.35,所有比较均 p<0.001)。估计颅内高压的曲线下面积(AUC)为 ONSD 为 0.69[CIs=0.62-0.78],PI 为 0.75[95% CIs 0.69-0.83],CT 为 0.64[95%Cis 0.59-069],P2/P1 比值为 0.79[95% CIs 0.72-0.93],TTP 为 0.69[95% CIs 0.60-0.74]。当各种技术结合使用时,AUC 为 0.86[0.76-0.93])。最佳的一对方法是 TCD 和 B4c,AUC 为 0.80(0.72-0.88)。非侵入性技术测量值与 ICP 相关,具有可接受的诊断 ICH 的鉴别能力。PI(TCD)和波形态监测仪的多模态组合可能会提高非侵入性方法诊断 ICH 的能力。非侵入性 ICP 估计的可变性强调需要进行全面研究,以阐明在不同临床情况下最佳的方法-应用对齐方式。